There was some controversy (HERE) about the position of the USA’s Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter for former Anglicans in communion with Rome concerning the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The head of the US Ordinariate, Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, has issued a statement of clarification on the site of the Ordinariate. My emphases and comments:
The Liturgy of the Ordinariate and the Latin Mass [I object to the use of the term “the Latin Mass” to identify the Extraordinary Form (aka Traditional Latin Mass) since the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form ought to be “the Latin Mass” as well.]
In response to certain questions that have been asked about the use of the Latin Mass in its Extraordinary Form [that’s better!] 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. [It should not be a surprise that Anglicans have a tradition of praying in English.]
“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, [Which is in Latin, of course, and in English translation.] 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, [Get that?] under the provisions of Summorum 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, [Get that?] 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.” [Nice turn of phrase.]
Loading ...
“But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities.”
Fair enough, but the “Use of Salisbury/Sarum Rite” certainly is integral to the Anglican patrimony. I was disappointed that he didn’t mention that. How great would it be for that rite to be revived within the context of the ordinariate? A missed opportunity, but this controversy may beg the question and lead to a broader revival.
I think that the, “under the supervision of the local bishop” line is code for, “under no circumstances”. After all don’t forget Cardinal Wuerl’s fingerprints are all over the US ordinariate.
So, the Roman Rite can be used in the Ordinariate, provided that it is the Ordinary Form.
The Novus Ordo Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used; but the Traditional Latin Mass that – either in Latin, or in English translation, shaped the Anglo-Catholic movement, cannot be used. The Mass celebrated by bl. John Henry Newmann is not apt for the Anglican converts of the Ordinariate.
But is the Novus Ordo, of 1970 or of the 3rd edition published in the year 2000, part of the Anglican Patrimony? If the Roman Missal of 1962 (that goes back to the Roman Missal of 1570 and to the earlier forms of Traditional Mass introduced in England before the Reformation) cannot be accepted, why the Roman Missal of 1970/2000 can? Is it integral to the Anglican Patrimony?
Why this difference between the two forms of the Roman Rite? And on what authority? Summorum Pontificum is the “universal law of the Church” (cf. Universae Ecclesiae), and it permits all Latin Church priests to celebrate the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. The Ordinariates are part of the Latin Church.
Ok, they have specific, Anglican usage rites, part of their “Anglican Patrimony”. So, if they applied the same standard to the 2000 Roman Missal as they apply to the 1962 Roman Missal, and said – no Roman Mass in the ordinariates; the Ordinariates will have only Anglican Use Masses – I’d be ok with that.
But since the Roman Rite is permitted in the Ordinariates (and of course it is permitted; after all, the Ordinariates are not separate from the Latin Church), then this Roman Rite MUST be permitted in both its forms, and not just in the more recent one. If it is a question of preservation of the “Anglican Patrimony”, then why allow the Novus Ordo, that has no place in the history of Anglican traditions and usages?
It is clear that the Ordinary is trying to impose his personal prefereces, but he cannot do so without violating the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, an universal law that binds him.
Maybe it is not common in the low church, but it is not unusual for Anglo-catholics to celebrate their mass in Latin. This was much more common in the past, at least in Canada. Even today, the ordinary parts are often sung in Latin and Greek, and the propers by Palestrina sometimes in their original Latin. Perhaps the Msgr is a low churchman.
Restoration asserts:
I’m afraid this is not true. (I’m not quite sure what is supposed to be the “Anglican patrimony”, but I’m sure that’s not part of it.) The Sarum rite, after all, is the rite of mass that the prayer book “reformers” rejected as “blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits”, several years before Quo Primum, and after its restoration under Good Queen Mary.
Still, one might draw some amusement from a certain parallel. It has often occurred to me to summarise the recent changes that we have seen in popular catholic belief and worship as “Cranmer was right after all”; if the Anglican Ordinariates were to adopt the Sarum would they not, in effect, be saying “Cranmer was wrong after all”?
Prof. Basto probes a little. I’m not sure that’s wise. The “Anglican patrimony” is, I think, intended to be fudged. If I were unkind I might even suggest that fudge is the essence of the patrimony they bring. But I think the key thing is to have former Anglicans with us. I would encourage all such to seek the fullness of Tradition, but I wouldn’t expect them to find it in the Ordinariate.
Perhaps we should endeavor to understand a point that Msgr. Steenson seemed to be making that may not have been expressed very clearly. It seems to me that he is not proposing a permission for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite while trying to exclude the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Rather, it seems he is proposing vernacular liturgy as a principle of the tradition that the Ordinariate wants to maintain. Since the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has an option for vernacular liturgy, while the Extraordinary Form does not, that seems to be the difference which would determine the general appropriateness for use by the Ordinariate.
I don’t see Msgr. Steenson indicating hostility to the Extraordinary Form Roman Rite, and I agree that I don’t think he could forbid it under the rules of Summorum Pontificum. I do think that it makes sense that he does not see it as a primary aim of the Ordinariate.
(X)MCCLXIII: I’m not sure what you mean by “intended to be fudged”. Speaking from experience, the Anglican form of worship was consistently reverent. If by “fudged” you mean prone to innovation and ad libbing, I was never surprised by an innovation until until I entered the Catholic Church. Maybe I’m not understanding your meaning.
But (X)MCCLXIII
I think it’s less about Cranmer and more about Bucer. Cranmer, as you know, kept many of the Roman and Sarum elements in his initial drafts of the Anglican mass. It was only later when Bucer infected Cranmer’s draft with his Zwinglian influence that Cranmer’s final BCP was conceived. The bigger question is what to do with Bucer!
You are right, however, to point out that the “Anglican Patrimony” is a tricky phrase. :-)
Let’s give this this positive interpretation that Fr. Z is offering. As I read the statement, the Ordinary has in mind the following: “The MEF is just fine, and we in the Anglican Ordinariate right now have our hands full with getting a liturgy together that reflects Anglican patrimony.” Simple enough.
Dear Sissy,
By “fudged” I don’t mean to refer to liturgical practice, although I don’t mean explicitly to exclude it, either (is that a fudge?). I mean that I think that deliberate ambiguity is a key part of the Anglican way (at least in England).
I think that I “sort of/kind of” get Msgr. Steenson’s point (sort of/kind of). From one viewpoint, leaving aside the fact that the Roman rite consists of far more than the ordinary of the Mass and the rubrics (e.g. the Office, chants, sacramental rites), the Extraordinary Form is essentially the form of the Mass as carried out among the Roman Curialists at the time of Trent and codified for use by the Latin Church as THE Mass of the Roman Rite, apart from certain “ancient” usages (Dominican, Carmelite, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.) and is but one expression of the Roman rite among others (at a certain place and time). From another, it is THE genuine expression of the Roman rite and all else is to be judged in comparison to it. Since the “unpleasantries of Henry” occurred prior to Trent (of course, being a prime motivator for the Council, to wit!), the liturgy codified by Trent is not part of the “Anglican patrimony”. I can wrap my mind around that much of it but how Msgr. Steenson can then embrace the Ordinary Form does, indeed boggle my mind, unless it has something to do with embracing the use of the liturgy in use at the time of reunion as opposed to the one in use whilst they were “apart”.
The current Book of Divine Worship has two usages for the mass. The one used in both Anglican Use parishes I have attended (Scranton and Boston) is the one in Elizabethan English. In that use, the canon is a literal translation of the EF canon into Elizabethan English, done by a contemporary of Cranmer. They use the EF canon! They are hardly hostile to it.
Susan Peterson
Dear Papaefidelis,
That’s a useful comment. (I will use it.)
Dear Sissy,
I think that “embrac[ing] the Ordinary Form” (while rejecting the EF) is an example of fudge. (Let ’em fudge, I say, so long as they don’t try to restrict the faithful from the exercise of their rights as Catholics.)
Professor Basto, I think Msgr. Steenson could have been clearer. The Liturgy has two alternative versions starting after the sermon and running to the end. They both use the Offertory, the four Eucharistic Prayers and some other texts from the Roman Missal.
Rite 2 is described as “Contemporary” and uses the English text from the 1973 Missal, so updating it is mainly a job of conforming it to the current Missal. I supect that that is what Msgr Steenson meant – while waiting for a revised version of the BODW, just use the current Roman Missal text in place of those parts of Rite 2.
Rite 1 is described as an “Old English Translation” and means that some poor soul is going to get the job of trying to make the changed language in the current Missal sound as if Cranmer wrote it. That is apt to take a while.
Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
To avoid any misunderstanding, I am the “Sid”posting above. I will attempt to re-register as “Sid Cundiff in NC”. I am not the “Sid” posting on Rorate Caeli, where I have posted in the past as “Sid Cundiff”
I thank jhayes for his post at 1234
— Sid Cundiff
(Not knowing personally anything about the Anglican Ordinate, but simply reading Msgr. Steenson’s statement in itself) I wonder whether his main (and understandable) point is that the Anglican tradition centers on sacral English, rather than Latin, in the liturgy.
This tradition would then not include the so-called Extraordinary Form, which in its 1962 version is restricted to Latin. But it could include English translations of both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Roman missals. In particular, the English (Knott) Missal, dating back to 1908, which is a literal translation of the Tridentine missal (early 20th century Missale Romanum) into Elizabethan English, and which I understand has been used by many Anglo-Catholics in the past.
In which case, those of us who associate the traditional (Tridentine) Mass solely with Latin may misinterpret Msgr. Steenson’s statement (since many Anglo-Catholics are familiar with it in English).
And…not trying to be snide…why is this a concern of Latin Rite Catholics? There are multiple, acknowledged rites (Mozarabic, Melkite, Reuthenian, etc) in our Big Tent. If the Ordinariate is starting to get rolling, why, oh why would it concern us, as long as they are in the Barque of Peter, as long as their ritual, hierarchy, forms of worship of Almighty God that are blessed, so to speak, by the Holy See in line with Catholic tradition (or modified so as not to be antithetical to it…) is it so danged important that we try and force fit them into the OF/EF mess the rest of us have gotten ourselves into?
Seems to me the good Msgr’s comments are as pertinent and focused on what HE has to do and probably a reasonable desire that HIS prelates are formed correctly before saddling them with worrying about whether or not they can celebrate the (to them, foreign) EF or so forth.
Otherwise, we end up sounding like Peter at the Transfiguration “Let me set up three booths…” and missing the point entirely. The Anglicans swimming the Tiber have been invited and are accepting under the premise that they bring something to the Faith and are willing, with very few conditions, to accept and profess that Catholic faith. Let’s let them do that before cajoling and harping on whether they’ll celebrate a form of the Mass that is so far into the distant past of their tradition as it stands today that imposing it on them would not be an act of charity.
While a traditionalist, this acid test of whether or not a priest, recent Anglican or cradle Catholic or convert from another ecclesial community will celebrate the EF as some talisman as to whether they’re orthodox or friendly or whatever have you is really becoming a bit tiring. And this, from someone who cajoled a former bishop of Metuchen into sponsoring, under Ecclesia Dei, the reintroduction of the EF under the terms of the former motu proprio back in 89, served the first Mass when it was reintroduced, was responsible for typing in the entire thing for the old Usenet bit.listserv.catholic group in 1991, and constantly defended the desire to have that form available stretching back to the days of BBS systems in the early 80s on the Fordham Jesuit BBS.
Let’s not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Rorate Caeli has a great post today taking Msgr. Steenson apart for his absurdity that “the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony”:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-ordinariate-traditional-mass-not.html
jhayes wrote, “Rite 1 is described as an ‘Old English Translation’ and means that some poor soul is going to get the job of trying to make the changed language in the current Missal sound as if Cranmer wrote it.”
Oh no! Did they really call it an “Old English” translation? Do they realize that Cranmer wrote Modern English? Although I have to think that an Anglo-Saxon translation of the Mass would be all kinds of awesome. Hwæt! Fæder úre, ðú ðe eart on heofonum…
The work of an English grad student is never done.
I read Msgr’s clarification in light of the “charism” of the Ordinariate. As priests of the Roman Rite members of the Ordinariate are welcome to use three forms of the Mass: the Roman Missal (EF and OF) and the Book of Common Worship in order to provide for the various needs of the Church (EF communities, the average Roman Rite parish, and communites of the Ordinariate) but that the communities attached to the Ordinariate would not themselves be offering the EF of the Roman Rite.
I liken his response to the Fraternity of St Peter whose charism is tied to the EF. Fraternity priests generally do not offer or even concelebrate in the OF but provide solely for the needs of those communities attached to the EF.
Pace Bryan Boyle, this is a concern of Latin Rite Catholics, because, as Fr P. says, the priests of the ordinariate are Latin Rite priests, and their formerly Anglican faithful are Latin Rite Catholics.
Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to Bryan’s basic principle, as I understand it, that we would do better to let the ordinariate get on with their own thing (while encourage them, like all Catholics, to discover the fullness of Catholic Tradition).
Oh no! Did they really call it an “Old English” translation? Do they realize that Cranmer wrote Modern English?
See page 314
Rite 1 is called “Traditional” but when you get to the Eucharistic Prayer it says:
Roman Canon
(Old English Translation)
Most merciful Father, we humbly pray thee, through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, and we ask that thou accept and bless these gifts + these presents, these holy and unspoiled sacrifices.
We offer them unto thee, first, for thy holy catholic Church: that thou vouchsafe to keep it in peace…
“the priests of the ordinariate are Latin Rite priests, and their formerly Anglican faithful are Latin Rite Catholics.”
Is this correct? I thought that the Latin Rite was one of many rites in the Roman Rite Church (alongside Maronite, Ambrosian, Anglican Use, etc). Isn’t there a distinction between Latin Rite and Roman Rite? Or are these interchangeable terms?
I am more confused as to why the Anglican Ordinate would use the rite one book of common prayer instead of the 1928 bcp. Most of the converts come in from the traditional church. The traditional church never used the rite one or two when they split from the Episcopal church USA.
Oh no! Did they really call it an “Old English” translation? Do they realize that Cranmer wrote Modern English?
They probably meant an Old (from long ago) English translation rather than an Old English (Anglo Saxon) translation.
This, of course, goes to the heart of what the “Anglican Patrimony” actually is. Is the “Anglican Patrimony” the reclamation of England’s Catholic Patrimony? Then of course some revival of the Sarum Use would be appropriate (and awesome). But if by “Anglican Patrimony” you mean either “a patrimony of Tudor abominations” or “Pusseyite innovations,” well then no, the Sarum Use wouldn’t be part of that. I’ve never understood how a Catholic Anglican Patrimony could be anything except the first option, but perhaps I’m just not very bright.
The problem is that the term Rite has various disparate meanings. There are, within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, various constituent churches in union with the Holy See. These churches generally observe their own liturgical rubrics, and are frequently identified, almost by synechdoche, as the such and such “rite.” So, Maronites, members of a particular church, are sometimes called Maronite-Rite Catholics.
This is completely different from identification of the form of liturgical worship. There are various liturigical rites (a self-contained collection of related liturgical books for certain uses), many of which were or are used by members of only a single particular church. Thus, the Ambrosian Rite, Sarum Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, etc. are all liturgical rites used by certain member of the Roman (or Latin) Church, or “Rite.” Likewise, the Byzantine Rite is a form of worship used by a number of Eastern particular churches (or “Rites”). Kapish?
1) Very few Anglicans in England have seen the Sarum Rite. The ordinary Mass would be almost identical to the NO for high Anglicans. Some Ordinariate priests think that going back to the Sarum for the Ordinariate Mass would not be suitable.
2) The Anglican Usage is not found in England
3) Cramner’s Mass was written and rewritten over and over again from a Latin Rite in English to a low church type of Mass over the years. This was done on purpose.
4) from a great history on Anglicans and the Sarum Mass by Rev. J. Robert Wright.
“…with the Reformation, Edward VI’s
injunction of 14 February 1549 commanded all service books according to
the uses of Salisbury, Hereford, York, Bangor, and Lincoln to be defaced and
destroyed, under episcopal supervision. Queen Mary restored the Sarum Use
throughout her reign from 1553 to 1558; one GTS Sarum Missal dates from
this period (1555), and the last Sarum Missal was printed in 1557. The Use
finally met its demise in England with the accession of Elizabeth I by royal
injunctions of 1559 that reiterated the Edwardian decree that the Sarum
books should be “utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden.” In English
Roman Catholic seminaries abroad, however, it continued until the Roman
Breviary of 1568 and Roman Missal of 1570. A proposal to revive the Sarum
Use at the foundation of Westminster Cathedral (London) in 1903 was
rejected by the Cardinal at that time”
Dear Sissy,
In this context, “Latin” is a superset of, for example, “Ambrosian”. (But not “Maronite”. I think.)
I should add that some Anglicans practiced the Sarum Rite from the late 1870s as a revival, but I have not been aware of it done here outside of Salisbury or at special liturgical workshops for historical reasons. The vestments, however, have found their way into non-Sarum liturgies.
PPS see my long note on the post here a few days ago on this subject of Masses.
Argh argh argh argh.
The Holy Father just now set up the Anglican Ordinariates, and Pope JPII set up the Anglican Use not much longer before that. They’ve gotten a couple of different Mass prayer wordings approved. Isn’t that plenty on the Ordinariate’s plate for now?
Back when the Ordinariate folks were Anglican only, they did a lot more padiddling and padoodling, with Mass texts and different eras of Mass down the ages, than Rorate can possibly dream of. Why? Because they were Episcopalian and they could do whatever they felt like, including naked Wiccan sex spells on the high altar in front of Edward the Confessor’s Tomb! Having become Catholic, they’re supposed to be JUST A TAD hesitant to throw in stuff not approved for their Ordinariate and their Use. So why the freaky freak is Rorate taunting them to go investigate brave new Mass formats?
Neither the EF nor the OF is traditional for them. That’s the point! It’s not traditional for Maronite Catholics raised in their Rite, either! It’s not traditional for most of the other Rites and Uses, in fact. That’s why they call them “other Rites” and “other Uses.” Because, amazingly, they’re not the same as the Latin Rite, or the mainstream Use of the Latin Rite.
Furthermore, Sarum was not “England’s Mass” but “Europe’s Mass including Rome’s.” It was put out of service by the Novus Ordo Mass of Trent (on the Catholic side) and by bad people (on the English governmental side). Amusing and edificatory as it would be, there are some obvious difficulties with bringing back Sarum. The biggest one being that on this Rock, we play Simon Peter Says. And at the moment Simon Peter doesn’t say, “Sing the Sarum Rite.”
Argh argh argh argh. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this to cradle Catholics. It’s interesting to see that the converts have a better gut-level understanding than the traditionalists.
(X)MCCLXIII: thanks for the reply. I’m still not sure that Anglican Use is a subset of Latin Rite. I thought they were both subsets of Roman Rite. But I’m dyslexic, so I’m easily confused!
And anyway, the “Sarum Rite” is very very Visigothy. Tons of bits of it survive in Spain, and tons of it came out of the Mozarabic Rite to start out with. So if anybody should be asking to bring it back, it should be the Church in Spain. Go bug them instead.
Liturgical calendar: Not the same as the EF or OF Latin Rite calendar for the US. (Different feasts from one, older format than the other.)
The Book of Divine Worship: Different from the EF and OF missals, and also different from Anglican/Episcopal worship and prayer books. Just like the Carmelite and Dominican Uses are not the same as other missals in the Latin Rite.
Priests in the Anglican Use: Usually supposed to say Mass in the Anglican Use. If somewhere away from their Anglican Use parish, they can say OF and EF if permitted and they learn them; but it’s not their dealie at home.
Sorry to be so nasty, but it really does seem pretty darned obvious. You use youse use.
It’s the Latin Rite, the Latin Church and the Latin Patriarchate. (Well, okay, the Pope’s not claiming the Latin Patriarchate anymore.) Latin meaning “of Latium,” not so much “of the Latin language.”
I gather that the 1983 canon law term is “autonomous ritual Church” or “Ecclesia ritualis sui iuris”. There are 23 of ’em, and the Latin autonomous ritual Church is only one of ’em. But I don’t think “Latin ARC” or “Latin ERSI” is going to catch on.
A list of various Latin Uses, probably not exhaustive.
Anyways, the Roman (liturgical) Rite is part of the Latin Rite (ERSI or ARC). But there are various defunct forms of Roman Rite that aren’t EF or OF.
Going to sleep soon. Must stop drinking caffeine and typing.
There have been a number of versions of the Book of Common Prayer:
1549, The first BCP, the classic, and the most Catholic, despite Cramer’s memorialism (though I’ve recently been told his view was really “receptionism”). This is the BCP to have on your bookshelf next to your Elizabethian Age books. You can find it and order it as The First and Second Prayers Books of Edward VI, London: The Prayer Book Society, 1999. Start by reading your way through the collects, and revel in the best cadence in the English language.
1552, Cranmer’s 2nd BCP, and very Protestant. It has set the pattern from subsequent BCPs, the 1559 and the 1662 — the latter lasting until the 20th C.
It is these Prayerbooks that are Anglican; the Sarum Rite isn’t, however beautiful it may have been. I would urge my Anglican friends to go back to the 1549 and then make it Catholic — at least for the Mass.
For the Liturgy of the Hours (Morningsong and Evensong), it would make sense, rather than simply starting with Psalm 1 and going to the 150th over the month (as was the 1549’s practice), to pay attention to which Psalms work best for which hours and which days (and that means having Daytime and Night prayer as their own hours). The Office of readings could be combined with Monringsong or Evensong, or be its own hour.
Suburbanbanshee, I share your frustration in this conversation, but less colorfully.
One of the problems is that one cannot compare the Anglicans of Great Britain and those of America or Canada. To stop doing that would be a great help and you understand that. Another problem is that some commentators forget that there are three strands at least of Anglicanism-high church, low church and the middles, usually called broad church in the past but now referred to as “liberals” at least here in England. One cannot compare these three groupings either and some people from the first two groupings are joining the Ordinariate. So, when the term “Anglican patrimony” is used, it is not a fudge, but a genuine term meaning various things to these two groups. We need to respect that. For the high church, it means their version of smells and bells and more; for the low church, it means the language of prayers and hymns and more; the liberals are not converting for the most part.
Lastly, when I use the term Latin Rite, I mean both the OF and EF. In England, some Ordinariate priests were saying both before they came in or similar versions thereof. As you correctly point out, the Anglican Usage is separate. These things were pointed out by me earlier this week. I sometimes wonder if commentators read posts. I read everybody’s comments before adding something more. Rome is working on a new Mass for the Ordinariate. We should all pray this happens more quickly. Rome has already approved the Marriage “Rite” and the Ritual for Funerals. This is a great blessing to have these out for use so early. There is no use speculating on the form of the new Mass to come, as it is only in the discussion stages as far as I have been told. I have also been told that it could take up to five years to develop.
Let me add that if we were discussing the reunion of the Greek Orthodox Church either as parishes or individuals, we would not be having this discussion at all. So why are people upset that the EF may or may not be part of the Anglican Patrimony? We have such a brilliant Pope who has facilitated a great number of conversions, without causing the kind of confusion found here. The statement of the North American Ordinand is clear and good. He said it all very well.
Suburbanbanshee: Thank you for taking the time to straighten out my confusion. As I said, I am dyslexic, and I frequently reverse concepts. So, the Roman Rite and Anglican Use are both subsets of the Latin Rite. Got it.
“III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments…according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.” (Anglicanorum Coetibus)
That seems pretty clear to me. Liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite are not to be excluded from Ordinariate worship. What’s even at question here? What further guidance does the ordinary need to give, unless he believes that the Ex Form of the Roman Rite isn’t part of the Roman Rite.
To reiterate from Msgr. Steenson’s statement above:
“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, . . . . “
Rellis, no Ordinariate Ordinand or priest is denying the use of the EF. But, if the EF was not the form used by a particular community coming in, it should not be forced or expected. On the other hand, if the Ordinariate priest was saying the EF, without validity, of course, he should be able to keep saying it validly. However, you must remember that these priests are being used as supply priests and being put into parishes under bishops not their Ordinand. If that bishop denies them the use of the EF. they can only apply to Rome, as any of us would when denied the EF. If the EF has not been used, there is no need for it unless requested. It is wrong for non-Ordinariate Catholics to expect the Ordinariate priests to provide them with the EF. That is not their first priority.
Here’s what Anglicanorum Coetibus has to say about liturgies for the Ordinariates:
“III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”
What I understand Msgr. Steenson to be saying is that, at least for now, liturgies in Ordinariate churches are going to follow the Book of Divine Worship.
However, if priests of the Ordinariate are assigned to assist in diocesan churches, they can use whatever Roman rites are customary in those diocesan churches. He mentions EF because a question about it had been raised, but I don’t interpret his lack of mention of OF as meaning that it can’t be used when celebrating in a diocesan church.
I gather that, in England, there is an oversupply of Ordinariate priests and some have been assigned to diocesan bishops to staff non-Ordinariate parishes.
There is absolutely not an over-supply of Ordinariate priests. There is a shortage of non-Ordinariate priests. We need more of both in England.
@supertradmum, this is not about people requesting the EF from ordinariate priests. msgr. steenson’s comment is about what is allowed to be used in the ordinariate. he excludes the Ex Form of the Roman Rite from what can be used. that is in clear contradiction to anglicanorum coetibus.
what am i missing here?
@cardnal, in that case the ordinary is referring to the manner in which anglican use texts may be used. that is separate from the question of whether ordinariate priests may celebrate the Ex Form in the ordinariate. they are being denied that right, a right given to them by both summorum pontificum and anglinorum coetibus.
Dear Surburbanshee,
“Furthermore, Sarum was not “England’s Mass, but “Europe’s Mass including Rome’s.””
I’m afraid that’s not true. It’s late here, and I’m tired, and they’re about to play the National Anthem on the wireless so I’ll have to stand up before going to bed, but perhaps I’ll have time to explain more tomorrow. For now I’ll just remind you that Sarum is a small cathedral town n the south of England, whereas Rome …
The English translation may be ambiguous. The Latin original is:
I think it is clear that the Ordinariate has the right to decide what liturgy to use when. In other words, haud exclusis relates to the range of options given to the Ordinariate and doesn’t mean that they cannot use exclusively the Anglican rite (currently the BODW) in Ordinariate churches if the Ordinary (Msgr. Steenson) decides that that is the best course to follow.
You would not go to an FSSP church and expect them to celebrate an OF Mass. One of the SSPX requirements is that they be allowed to use the EF, exclusively.
I got an idea – how about a swap? They can get all the latest in liturgical excess and they give us Nearer My God to Thee.
@Disco, that’s the line that gave me pause as well. The rest sounds like an appropriate, balanced response. I’m not convinced he wasn’t forced into it ;)
@Suburbanbanshee and SuperTradmum: You guys are right on track. I am not sure why some here are getting all up-in-arms about the matter. My bet is that Msgr. Steenson made the statement in response to the furor expressed here yesterday and the day before, and that it’s not that big of a concern for the ordinariate. It certainly isn’t a concern of those of you/us who do not belong to the ordinariate. It doesn’t seem like we should be causing them trouble…for the reasons already mentioned by Suburbanbanshee and supertradmum. And, again, some of these posts border on calumny and lack of charity.
And, does anyone seem to forget that SP allows the Missal of 1962 and those missals of particular usage already approved for use in 1962, and the last time the Sarum Rite was celebrated authentically was in 1558??? IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM!!!!! To this idea, along with many others expressed here today, I echo Suburbanbanshee: “argh, argh, argh, argh” whist beating my head against the wall in my study….
@FrJLP, can you please explain why a Latin Rite ordinary denying his priests their right to celebrate the Roman Rite in an approved form is no big deal? Don’t those priests have any rights? What about the liturgy paragraph from AC?
@rellis: He has not denied this right to his clergy nor is he violating the rights thereof. His clergy, as he states, are encouraged to learn the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite if they choose to, and celebrate it where it is needed or requested, especially in communities where it is used. But, he is iterating that the EF is not the principle purpose of the Ordinariate. This is the “Anglican Patrimony”. And while, yes, it is true that the “Anglican patrimony”, in the broadest sense, constituatively includes older forms of the Roman Rite, such as the Sarum and York Rites, etc., in this context it principally refers to the so-called “prayer book tradition” that developed after the Reformation and from which the majority of Anglican converts come. The PRINCIPAL purpose, then, of the Ordinariate, is not to supply priests to celebrate the EF, but to meet this very precise apostolic mission set forth by the Holy Father. This seems to be what Msgr. Steenson is getting at in the statement.
I am a bit surprised at how readily many are to read ill into his statement…
@FRJLP, how do you take the following from Msgr. Steenson’s statement as anything other than a denial of AO priests to celebrate the EF in AO communities?
“But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities.”
He has no right (under Summorum Pontificum, but more importantly under Anglicanorum Coetibus) to make such a restriction. Ordinariate communities are free to celebrate any approved Anglican form, without excluding celebration of the Roman Rite (period/full stop, which means in any approved form).
Msgr. Steenson is doing precisely that–he is excluding celebration of one form of the Roman Rite from AO communities. This is inconsistent with AC, and with the right of Latin Rite priests under SP. Those priests have the general right to celebrate the Ex Form (as per SP clarified by Universae Ecclesiae), and the particular right to do so in their ordinariate communities (as per AO). Steenson is acknowledging the former while trampling on the latter.
@Rellis: That is your interpretation of the matter. Perhaps the only way to clear this up is to take the Ordinary’s statement and submit a “dubium” to Ecclesia Dei via the CDF and let the chips fall where they may. Should he feel that Msgr. Steenson’s statement tramples on his rights vis-a-vis SP and AC, then I would highly encourage an Ordinariate priest to submit such a dubium. There is not much that our differing opinions/interpretations and bloviating can do here in this combox. If an ordinariate priest feels so grieved, let him have proper recourse and due redress of the matter. Until that conflict arises, I am going to assume the best of Msgr. Steenson and the good priests and people of the ordinariate.
While not exactly the same, it seems a bit analogous to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They most certainly CAN celebrate both Uses of the Roman Rite, but they exist for the purpose of the Extraordinary Form. It would be inappropriate, then, to assume that the Priestly Fraternity should provide the Ordinary Form…and if anyone seriously suggested so, I am betting this combox and the one at Rorate would light up like the Fourth of July with spewing fireworks of indignant wrath. The ordinariate has a very limited purpose, and that is not the EF.
I agree with FrJLP. We are not going to get any further with this until an Ordinariate priest who is aggrieved because he is not allowed to celebrate an EF Mass in an Ordinatiate church submits a dubium.
I am so very glad that the Ordinary of the Anglican Ordinariate issued this statement, and honestly I see absolutely no problem with it at all. The hope for the Anglican Ordinariate is that it will eventually grow, through an understanding of its own unique patrimony, into either a proper Rite of its own, or even possibly its own self-governing particular Church in the communion of Churches that is the Catholic Church, similar to the Eastern Catholic Churches. I see no problem with this; in fact, I think that the latter option would be preferable so they can maintain both communion and a fully independent Anglican patrimony. Who cares if they don’t want to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite in their Churches? I am a fantastic supporter of the Latin patrimony as a traditional Roman Catholic, but look, just because we are proud of our own patrimony that doesn’t mean we have to thrust it on others and Latinize all authentic Catholic traditions. If the Eastern Catholics don’t have to celebrate the Roman Liturgy, why should the Anglo-Catholics? To each his own Catholic traditions. Authentic Catholic diversity of tradition is normal and healthy, and all Roman Catholics should remember that. God bless the entire Anglican Ordinariate and their godly Ordinary, and God-speed to their eventual recognition as a particular Church; I pray they evangelize and grow.
But don´t you see the inconsistency there.
Let´s assume that Msgr. Steenson only wanted to stress that the proper liturgy of the Ordinariate is not the Roman Missal/liturgy. – Well, but then he would have needed to exclude also the NOM.
But the NOM can be celebrated and it seems to be a proper form of the Ordinaritate.
Only the TLM is called not proper of/to the Anglican Tradition.
So how can that be that the NOM belongs to the Anglican Tradition and is a proper Rite of the Ordinariate but the TLM not??
It seems that perhaps we are missing the big picture here. HH Benedict XVI had two purposes in bringing the Anglicans/Episcopalians into the catholic Church – to throw a lifeline to those Anglicans fleeing the chaos in their denomination, and to potentially enrich the liturgy in the Church by having the reverence and attention to detail present in the traditional Anglican liturgy rub off on us. The latter is a similar goal to why Summorum Pontificum was issued, that the EF might enrich the OF.
So in order for this to be effective, the Ordinariate needs to focus on getting their house in order and the emphasis needs to be on integrating the Anglican tradition with Catholicism. In the long run, the Anglican Use may wither away (and the OF and EF as well) as we move to one “rite” that combines the best features of each while maintaining continuity with historic Catholic liturgy. I believe that is the goal of the Holy Father.
Of course I didn’t mean to imply the only reason for SP was to enrich the OF – there was also the important goal of reuniting the FSSPX with the mainstream Church and making it easier for those clergy and parishioners who preferred the older form.
jhayes,
I disagree. I see no problem with the translation of the passage you quote. Below is the text of art. III of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, with the passage relevant to our discussion in bold:
“Liturgicis haud exclusis celebrationibus secundum Romanum Ritum, Ordinariatui facultas praebetur celebrandi sacram Eucharistiam ceteraque Sacramenta, Horarum Liturgiam aliasque liturgicas actiones iuxta libros liturgicos Anglicanae traditioni peculiares, ab Apostolica Sede adprobatos, ita ut intra Catholicam Ecclesiam vitales serventur spiritales, liturgicae pastoralesque Communionis Anglicanae traditiones…”
The passage “Liturgicis haud exclusis celebrationibus secundum Romanum Ritum” is precisely a condition meaning “Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite”.
The English translation of the initial part of article III (that initial part being the norm), provided by the Vatican, is correct: “Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to…”.
So, the faculty, the permission, to celebrate the Ltiturgical Actions (Mass, Hours, Sacraments and other liturgical celebrations) according to liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition is granted to the Ordinariate “without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite”, that is, provided that the Roman Rite is not excluded.
So, the Priests of the Ordinariate, as Latin Church Priests (because the Ordinariates are part of the Latin Church), cannot be barred from celebrating the standard liturgy of the Latin Church, that is the Roman Rite. In addition to the Roman Rite, which cannot be excluded, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Sacred Actions in accordance with books peculiar to the Anglican tradition approved by the Holy See.
They have this faculty “so as to preserve in the Catholic Church the pastoral and liturgical traditions of the Anglican communion, as a pretious gift that nourishes the faith of the members (associated to the Ordinariate) and that is to be shared”. But the faculty of using the Holy See approved Anglican tradition liturgical books cannot exclude the Roman Rite.
Implicitly, the norm tells us that the Anglican tradition liturgical books approved by the Holy See are something different, not belonging to the Roman Rite. Implicitly, therefore, the Constitution recognizes an “Anglican Rite”, that is to be vetted by the Apostolic See and approved for the use of the Ordinariate.
But this Anglican Rite is not the sole Rite of the Ordinariate. The Ordinariate cannot use the Anglican books exclusively, as its particular and only books. It has the permission to use them, but in addition to, and not in the place of, the Roman Rite.
Well, if the Roman Rite cannot be excluded, as the Constitution says, then it is avaliable to the priests of the Ordinariate. It just happens that the Roman Rite has two forms. And those two forms are recognized as per the universal law of the Church contained in the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum.
Because the Roman Rite has two different forms, and because the Ordinariate has no power to exclude the Roman Rite, then the Priests of the Ordinariate can use both the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite and the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The Extraordinary Form being a part of the Roman Rite, it cannot be excluded .
The provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus need to be interpreted systematically with the other laws of the Church. Why is it that Anglicanorum coetibus states that the Roman Rite cannot be excluded? Because the Ordinariates are part of the Latin Church, and so the Latin Rite is always the standard rite of its priests.
Well, it just happens that the universal law of the Church contained in the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum grants to “every Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or religious”, the right to use the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.
So, if the Roman Rite cannot be excluded from the Ordinariates, and the Ordinariate priests are Latin Church priests, then they do have the faculty of celebrating according to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.
JonPatrick:
I think you may be right.
They are not excluded nor do they not want to say the TLM. Bishops, not their Ordinariates suppress the TLM. And, they work for both.
Prof. Basto, Msgr. Steenson, the Ordinary, says clearly “as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities”
Ordinariate Statement
If anyone wants to dispute that, it can only be resolved in Rome.
The statement makes clear that it is a response to a question about the EF. It doesn’t comment one way or the other on the OF.
The hysterical reaction of some here–and of most at Rorate Caeli–might be somewhat amusing, if it did not seem (at least in part) a sad illustration of paranoia understandably resulting from the abuse and ridicule that traditional Catholics have suffered for so long, whence nefarious bias against the TLM is reflexively seen even where there probably is none.
In this case, it still seems to me–after a careful re-reading of Msgr. Steenson’s statement–that it merely states the obvious fact that, even though the Roman liturgy in England was a historical precursor to the modern Anglican liturgy, and even though the TLM has occasionally been celebrated by Anglican communities in recent times, it plainly is not part of the “Anglican patrimony” that the Anglican ordinates are instituted to accommodate in the Catholic Church.
While Summorum Pontificum applies to all Roman rite priests, and so those within the Anglican ordinate have the same rights as those without, it nevertheless could not seem more obvious–at least to me, likely having supported the TLM as long and substantively as anyone else commenting here–that the TLM is in no sense “proper” to the special patrimony that Anglicans bring to the Church. And, certainly, Anglican ordinates were neither created nor needed to support the TLM within the Church. (Although I myself am glad that the Anglican Use Mass seen in the video previously linked has much more of the look and feel of the TLM than does the usual parish OF Mass.)
To illustrate the ambiguity I mentioned before, I offer these two English versions. The difference is in who is doing the excluding
.”“III. The Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared? However, this does not exclude the use by the Ordinariate of liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite.
As opposed to:
“III. The Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared. However, the Ordinariate shall not exclude the use of celebrations according to the Roman Rite
I think the first version is correct, but it is Rome that must decide – if the question is asked.
First, an exchange with a friend that might be relevant to this thread:
I wrote:
Certainly, (a) if the “liturgical patrimony” of the Anglican Ordinatiates is a subset, or “use” of the Roman Rite, then it seems absurd to claim that the EF has nothing to do with the heritage of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, and (b) if “Anglican” in Anglicanorum coetibus and as in “Anglican patrimony” has to do, not simply with innovations made in the years 1548-1553 and 1559-ca. 1965, to be “shoehorned” into Catholicism, but with the whole sweep of English Catholic Christianity from 597, and with the specific denominational peculiarities of post-1559 “Anglicanism” to be incorporated into the Catholic Church only after necessary adjustment, then it also seems unwise to push aside the use of the EF, as this stands (in its earlier forms) at the fountainhead of the Anglican tradition.
He replied:
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The question, as Joseph Ratzinger would put it, is where did those elements of sanctification found in the Anglican patrimony come from? To put the question another way, is the Anglican patrimony to be view through the lens of a hermeneutic of “discontinuity and rupture” in which case the task is to exclude as much as possible and to conform things as much as possible toe the “Modern Roman Rite”? Or is it to be viewed through a hermeneutic of continuity, in which case the task is to preserve and restore, with an eye nonetheless toward the current pastoral situation (being “true to the Tradition, for the case” as Charles Caldwell would say)? I have no doubt which hermeneutic is presumed by the author of Anglicanorum Coetibus. In which case, the influence of the EF would be an essential part of the proper hermeneutic.
@Henry Edwards: I think you hit the nail on the head! Spot on and well written!
Secondly, there is a truly immense amount of historical misinformation and downright error being purveyed on this thread.
In the first place (but I present this as an opinion and solicit Fr. Z’s correction) I don’t think that there is any such thing as “the Latin Rite” (and I think this term is confusing and ought to be eschewed). There is “the Latin Church” or “the Western Church,” the rite of which is properly called “the Roman Rite.” Before the codification of the Mass in 1570 (the so-called “Tridentine Mass”) there were a number of variants (which properly should be called “uses” rather than “rites”) of the Roman Rite throughout Europe. These included “the Use of Sarum,” or “Sarum Rite,” which, pace “Suburbanbanshee,” has no connection whatsoever with the Mozarabic Rite (of which more anon): it was the “use” of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury in the 12th/13th centuries (itself an elaboration of the “use” of Rouen in Normandy which was brought to England by the Normans of 1066 And All That), which by the 15th Century has spread throughout most of the southern half of England (and which was adopted in the late 13th Century by the Archdiocese of Lisbon in Portugal) — but in England itself there remained right up to the so-called Reformation a Use of York, a Use of Lincoln, a Use of Hereford and a Use of Bangor (Wales) which differed in small but not insignificant ways from Sarum and from each other.
There was one rite in western (Latin) Europe which survived the Middle Ages that was not at all connected (as far as scholars can determine) with the Roman Rite: the Mozarabic Rite in Spain, but after ca. 1505 until the last 30/35 years this rite survived only in one chapel of Toledo Cathedral, where it was celebrated once a week. In recent decades this rite has been “restored” (e.g., purged of additions from the Roman Rite) and its use has been restored in what was until ca. 1500 the last surviving Mozarabic-Rite parish church in Spain, SS Justina & Rufina in Toledo (the archdiocese itself is Roman Rite, and has been since the 12th Century), as well as in the Monastery of San Juan de Silos. There is also the Ambrosian Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan (and of parts of some dioceses in the Milanese archepiscopal province) , which most likely is a very old 5th/6th century variant form of the Roman Rite of that era (into which came some Eastern liturgical features, such as the position of the Creed, and which also retains some archaic features long-disappeared from the Roman Rite). Both the “Ambrosian Rite” and the “Mozarabic Rite” were “reformed” or “restored” in the 1970s, but remain quite distinct from the Roman Rite.
Other “rites” in the Latin West that survived the Counterreformation and the promulgation of the Tridentine Mass, such as the Carthusian, Cistercian and Dominican “rites” or the “rites” of Lyons (France) or Braga (Portugal) were simply medieval variants, like Sarum, of the Roman Rite. (There were other French diocesan “rites” but after the French Revolution all these French diocesan rites, save for that of Lyons, “suppressed themselves” in favor of the Tridentine Rite; and Lyons itself sought, and received, Rome’s permission in 1972-3 to abandon its “rite” for the Novus Ordo.) Of these rites, only the Carthusian and Braga “rites” survived the 1970s as, one might say, the Ordinary Form, for their respective users, although one sees occasionally celebrations of some of them, e.g., of the Dominican “rite.” (Braga petitioned Rome ca. 1974 to be allowed to abandon its own “rite” in favor of the Novus Ordo, but Rome refused and told them to produce their own “reform” proposal, and when they produced a proposal that was virtually the Novus Ordo, Rome refused to approve it; and finally they produced a proposal in the late 80s that was far more “conservative” and “preservative” than the EF Roman Rite, which Rome did approve — the details of which, alas, I am ignorant).
Secondly, and more passingly: Sid Cundiff is quite mistaken in describing the Holy Communion service of the 1549 BCP as “most Catholic.” Most Catholic-looking, yes, but not Catholic; cf. the work of Anglo-Catholic liturgical scholars like Dom Gregory Dix (1901-1952) and Edward Cradock Ratcliff (1896-1967), who stripped away the comforting mythology that earlier High Anglicans had woven around the 1549 BCP. Fools’ gold (iron pyrite) is not gold. JonathanCatholic fails to realize that there is, and can be, no such thing as “an independent Anglican patrimony” in the Catholic Church and that, as the Anglican Ordinariates are part of the Latin Church, so all their clergy have the right to celebrate the OF and EF Masses. In other words, the Anglican Ordinariates are not ecclesiae sui juris like the Eastern Catholic Churches. Neither are the Church of Milan or the Church of Braga, and given the much more venerable antiquity of these churches and their liturgical patrimonies than those of (to repeat myself) “the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite” it is immensely improbable that there ever will or can be “an Anglican(-Rite) Catholic Church” on the analogy of, say, the Maronite(-Rite) Catholic Church.
I have followed this conversation on other blogs. I admit I haven’t read the comments in detail here. That said, I can say with absolute undeniable certainty, that the “Anglican patrimony” must by definition include the tradition of the Roman Mass, including that which was codified by Pius V and in use up until the Council. I not only know this, but have seen it, having been acquainted with the All Saints Sisters of the Poor of Catonsville, Maryland, a former Anglo-Catholic order which entered into union with Rome a couple of years ago. Up until that time, they were using the Anglican Missal (Missale Anglicanum) published by Knott, which is essentially the “Tridentine” Mass in English, with some minor additions (Collect for Purity, Prayer of Humble Access, etc). The missal includes in its appendices the Roman Canon, in English AND LATIN. How much proof do you need?
As to the comments of Msgr Steenson, I can’t make heads or tails of all that. Perhaps his reply was in the context of another subject entirely, such as the expected use of an adjoining school building by the former St Gregory the Great Academy, which would have included access to the church for the TLM. I also understand there was some discord of how the financial end of that proposed arrangement would have been handled. At the very least, the good Monsigneur may have misspoken, I don’t know. But I do know the statement on its face to be quite inaccurate, and is subject to considerable challenge in the days ahead, whatever his title.
This was beautifully said. I consider the Anglican Ordinariate much as I consider the Eastern rites in communion with Rome much like the Maronites. I plan to travel to Scranton, PA to experience an Anglican Mass (in English, of course).
The statement makes clear that it is a response to a question about the EF. It doesn’t comment one way or the other on the OF.
Oh, sorry, but it does. While the EF is branded as not integral to the Anglican patrimony (code to ‘not suitable’), it is said of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition (and therefore, of the OF — the Roman Missal 3rd edition IS the current version of the OF — “Novus Ordo 3.0”, if you like) that it could be used.
And all this in a statement that was issued in the wake of a controversy sparked when a trustworthy blogger, responsible for the “Anglo Catholic” blog, reported on offensive comments by the US Anglican Ordinary regarding traditionalists, to the point that the Ordinary suggested to the blogger that he, the blogger, was breaking away from Communion with his local bishop, simply because of his affinity to the EF. Traditionalists were even branded as “those people”.
Then, in the wake of those unfortunate comments, and when they came to light, the Ordinary prepares a formal statement to end the story. And instead, he opens a can of worms by suggesting that the EF has no place in the Ordinariate, whereas the OF has.
As I said before, if the Holy See had allowed the Ordinariates to be completely separate from the Roman Rite, and have only their Anglican Rite, then (although still having doubts about the wisdom of promoting Rites founded in dubious traditions such as those of Anglicanism, and all the problem that you then have in separating what is the product of heresy and what is not), I would be ok with that. But that is not the case: different treatment was applied to the two forms of the Roman Rite. And that’s the problem. Plus, the Holy See established that the ordinariates must not exclude the Roman Rite. Any Anglican rite is IN ADDITION to the Roman Rite.
Comparison with the Eastern Catholic Churches is groundless. Ordinariate Priests are Latin Rite priests, members of the Latin Church. And as Latin Rite priests, they have the right to use the EF, because Summorum Pontificum gave that rite to “every priest of the Latin Rite, whether secular of religious”.
Rorate Caeli’s analisys of the situation is flawless: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-ordinariate-traditional-mass-not.html
I believe this conversation needs to be set more in the context of the Scranton Ordinariate parish entering into a one year lease with the St. Gregory the Great Academy for the school and convent portion of the surplus church property bought from the Diocese for the Ordinariate (funds raised by the Scranton Community). It seems a good deal of maintenance is required, and the Academy had already begun to provide it as they prepared to open their school year after Labor Day. Apparently this arrangement was not first okayed by higher ups, who did not grant permission for it. The Academy had been formerly connected to the FSSP, and the Ordinariate priest (I’m not sure if he has yet to be named the pastor) was planning to act as chaplain for the year offering daily Mass.
It is perhaps a concern of those in charge of the Ordinariate that such an arrangement might draw regular Cradle Catholics to the parish. Whether they are drawn by the offering of the Extraordinary Form or the Anglican Use Mass, the bishops were already voicing their concern at last year’s Bishop Conference as to what would happen if people walked in, liked it and stayed. It seems possible that it became a stumbling block for some of the early Pastoral Provision parishes in wanting to join the Ordinariate that they had attracted too many non-Anglicans.
Prof. Basto says:
Rorate Caeli’s analisys of the situation is flawless
Amazing that some comments say there that the Roman Rites should be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariate, even though Anglicanorum Coetibus says the opposite.
I have no idea what Msgr Steenson is like, but it would not surprise me that Cardinal Wuerl’s fingerprints are to be found on the statement.
I must demur at William Tighe’s suggestion that the Roman Rite is proper to the Latin Church/Rite (I would say “rite”), at least in the exclusive sense which I think is implied. Exempli gratia: Milan.
Also, as an English Catholic, I demur still more strongly at his suggestion that the “Anglican patrimony” might have have anything to do with pre-reformation Catholic history in these isles. Repudiation of that is at the centre of “Anglicanism”, as the blood of the English Martyrs attests.
(X)MCCLXIII wrote:
“I must demur at William Tighe’s suggestion that the Roman Rite is proper to the Latin Church/Rite (I would say “rite”), at least in the exclusive sense which I think is implied. Exempli gratia: Milan.”
How you can attribute an “exclusive sense” attitude to me in the light of what I wrote above (esp. Milan, Braga etc.) passeth all understanding. But here’s a question for those better-informed than I am. Do priests of the Milan archdiocese (and its suffragan dioceses who serve parishes which follow the Ambrosian Rite) and Braga diocese have the freedom/right to use the Roman Rite in the OF and EF forms in addition to the “rites” peculiar to the arch/dioceses (or parishes), as priests of the Latin Church? I have seen internet comments responding “yes,” and others responding “no.”
“Also, as an English Catholic, I demur still more strongly at his suggestion that the “Anglican patrimony” might have have anything to do with pre-reformation Catholic history in these isles. Repudiation of that is at the centre of “Anglicanism”, as the blood of the English Martyrs attests.”
The very fact that elements taken from the Sarum Use have been proposed for inclusion, as I hear tell, in the Eucharistic rite for the English Ordinariate now under consideration in Rome would seem to contradict the implication that “Anglican” AS USED IN ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS means merely those innovations of the period 1548-1553 and 1559 and subsequently. Of course, I fully agree that the normal and historical sense of the word “Anglican” means precisely what you have written. But then I would agree that “Anglican” or “Anglicanism” in that sense (the Elizabethan Settlement and all that) is as thoroughly Protestant a phenomenon as any other European Protestant State Church. But from the Oxford Movement many English Anglicans have convinced themselves otherwise, and acted on that assumption, in many cases importing Catholic beliefs and liturgical practices into their own denomination. The Holy See in Anglicanorum coetibus appears to me to have been willing to take these kinds of Anglicans at their word (without admitting or accepting the “thesis” that “the Church of England is a Catholic church at root” which was at the foundation of their belief and activity as Anglicans), but to insist that, once in communion with the Holy See, they shall have to understand “Catholic Anglicanism” (perhaps an oxymoronical term, I know) “in communion with Rome,” as implying not only complete Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy (which goes without saying), but an openness to viewing their true “Anglican” (= English) religious patrimony as including the pre-Reformation heritage of the Church in England as much as that of the post-Refromation Church of England.
Oh, sorry, but it does. While the EF is branded as not integral to the Anglican patrimony (code to ‘not suitable’), it is said of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition (and therefore, of the OF — the Roman Missal 3rd edition IS the current version of the OF — “Novus Ordo 3.0?, if you like) that it could be used.
Prof. Basto, to repeat what I said in an earlier post, Rite 2 of the Book of Divine Worship contains text taken from the 1973 Missal. I believe that what Msgr Steenson was saying was that the equivalent text from the current Missal can be used in Rite 2 of the BODW while waiting for a revised BODW to be issued. That will change “all” to “many” etc.
I don’t read what he said as meaning that the entire Roman Missal could be substituted for the BODW in Ordinariate communities.
jhayes says,
I think the first version is correct, but it is Rome that must decide – if the question is asked.
1. In so far as the Latin uses an Ablative Absolute, any English translation might come up short. Although this AA can be literally translated into English, it is a syntax foreign to Americans. IMHO, the Vatican translation, using a present participle (Without excluding liturgical celebrations . . . ) makes it clear that the Ordinariate cannot exclude the TLM. The Latin, however, makes such exclusion impossible for everyone (cf. Ablative Absolute).
Further, it doesn’t cause English majors to recoil at seeing a sentence begin with a transitional word.
2. I see, therefore, nothing in Anglicanorum Coetibus that gives the Ordinary the authority to say that the TLM” is not properly used in our communities”, a de facto exclusion. In fact, it says the opposite.
I would like to see priests, whether of the Ordinariate or not, celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin ad orientem, then watch the soft shoe by Ordinaries.
3. I must admit that the phrase “Anglican Patrimony” is a bit of laugher because its foundation is the Act of Supremacy, which is an a priori prohibition of a Catholic monarch.
Amazing that some comments say there that the Roman Rites should be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariate, even though Anglicanorum Coetibus says the opposite.
Robtbrown, if you’ll review my 31 July at 10:40 pm post above you’ll see why I don’t believe AC says that the Ordinary cannot limit liturgies in Ordinariate communities to only the BODW (at least, pending a clarification from Rome)
I would like to see priests, whether of the Ordinariate or not, celebrating the Novus Ordo in Latin ad orientem, then watch the soft shoe by Ordinaries.
I think Ordinariate priests could do that – as a supply priest in a diocesan parish, a chaplain to a non-ordinariate group, etc. – and could celebrate the EF for them as well.
I think all Msgr Steenson has said is that Ordinariate parishes will celebrate their liturgy using the BODW, just as an FSSP parish celebrates using the EF. It’s what you expect when you go there.
jhayes says:
Robtbrown, if you’ll review my 31 July at 10:40 pm post above you’ll see why I don’t believe AC says that the Ordinary cannot limit liturgies in Ordinariate communities to only the BODW (at least, pending a clarification from Rome)
I found no 10:40 comment by you. The 10:40 comment came from Prof Basto. I assume you’re referring to another comment, which I dutifully re-read–with the same reaction.
If you review my comments above, you will see that I think you are wrong, and why–precisely because it contradicts AC, which is clear to anyone with an open mind. That celebrations acc to the Roman Rite are not excluded means any opinion of Msgr Steenson on same or talk of BODW is irrelevant.
See my comments re Ablative Absolute.
jhayes says:
I think all Msgr Steenson has said is that Ordinariate parishes will celebrate their liturgy using te BODW, just as an FSSP parish celebrates using the EF. It’s what you expect when you go there.,/B.
He doesn’t have the authority–AC has taken it away from him. And what people expect is irrelevant.
The FSSP analogy is silly. The FSSP was founded, acc to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, for those who want to use the rites previous to 1965.
Acc to AC, the Anglican Ordinariates were founded with the faculty of celebrating the Sacraments acc to the Anglican tradition–celebration acc to the Roman Rite not being excluded.. There is no mention that the Ordinariate was founded for those who want to preserve those Anglican Rites.
jhayes says:
I think all Msgr Steenson has said is that Ordinariate parishes will celebrate their liturgy using te BODW, just as an FSSP parish celebrates using the EF. It’s what you expect when you go there.
He doesn’t have the authority–AC has taken it away from him. And what people expect is irrelevant.
The FSSP analogy is silly. The FSSP was founded, acc to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, for those who want to use the rites previous to 1965.
Acc to AC, the Anglican Ordinariates were founded with the faculty of celebrating the Sacraments acc to the Anglican tradition–celebration acc to the Roman Rite not being excluded.. There is no mention that the Ordinariate was founded for those who want to preserve those Anglican Rites.
Dear William,
Please forgive an Englishman’s sensitivity on this matter, but “Anglican” and “English” are not words I like to see equated. And I would argue that the mediaeval Christian heritage in England is proper to the Catholic church (all of it; not something specific to the ordinariate). I don’t think it should be seen as any part of the “Anglican patrimony” (although I admit that I don’t actually know what that could be.)
As you say, that movement called, oxymoronically in my view, “anglo-catholic” is only abut 150 years old.
I am very sympathetic to your point of view, by the way, and have enjoyed reading your comments. I inferred “exclusive” because you wrote “the rite of [the western Church] is properly called “the Roman Rite.””. It’s that definite article, you see; perhaps I read too much into what is at worst a minor slip (as I think).
He doesn’t have the authority–AC has taken it away from him..
I’m sure you know from my earlier posts that I don’t interpret the AC language to mean that.
Eventually, someone will raise the question with Rome and we will get an answer. In the meantime, I expect that Msgr Steenson will continue on his present course.
I do agree that AC grants faculties to the Ordinariate to use the OF and EF in addition to Anglican rites (currently the BODW) but I believe it is the Ordinary’s call which will be used in any given circumstance.
Considering that the action of the sentence is to grant faculties, I read it as granting the faculty of using the Anglican rite without excluding from the grant the faculty to use the Roman rites. For me, it doesn’t require the Ordinary to allow use of the Roman rites except as he sees fit.
The FSSP analogy is silly. The FSSP was founded, acc to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, for those who want to use the rites previous to 1965.
Seems similar to me. As AC says, Ordinates are established “so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion.”