From a reader:
My city has a an Anglican Use parish, and my understanding is their Mass is just like the TLM except, not in Latin. I can deal with that.
Is it permissible for regular Latin Rite Catholics to attend these Masses, or are they only for Anglicans who were received into the Church?
I believe that there is no law that prevents you from attending Holy Mass at an Anglican Use parish. They are in communion with the Holy Father and have a rapport with the local bishop. They are celebrating valid sacraments according to the Church’s duly promulgated laws. They have worthy worship in a Catholic Rite in the tradition of that which is familiar to Anglicans.
It seems to me that you can go to these Masses without second guessing. You can also attend the Divine Liturgy of Ukrainian Catholics or Maronites, etc.
In the meantime, perhaps some of you readers can talk about the differences between the TLM and the Anglican Use. I believe, for example, that there is in the high liturgical Anglican tradition a virtual translation of the older Roman Missal. I don’t think that has much traction in the Anglican Ordinariates, however. They are sticking, if I am not mistaken, to an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer.
I think it is wonderful that these good people are helping to raise the level of Holy Church’s worship. When the water rises, all boats rise.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
Loading ...
“I don’t think that has much traction in the Anglican Ordinariates, however. They are sticking, if I am not mistaken, to an adaptation of the Book of Common Prayer.”
I wouldn’t count on that lasting much longer. Many of those now being received were long attached to the Missale Anglicanum, and there are indications that the question of which set of books to use is getting a second look. (Recent developments with the Traditional Latin Mass have helped this trend along.)
Book of Divine Worship (i.e., Anglican Use Missal) > 2011 English translation of the Missale Romanum. It’s not even close, especially considering the state of most liturgies offered according to the former missal. Watch one here if you don’t believe me.
Dear Father, I believe Canon 1248 is the canonical authority for a Catholic to satisfy his Mass obligation at a Mass of any Catholic rite. The Anglican Usage (AU) of course, is not a rite but a usage of the Roman rite, so it is even closer to what we are used to than, e.g., the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Melkites, etc. The AU liturgy is found in the Book of Divine Worship (BDW), which is complete with imprimatur. Although the BDW has several options, the liturgy that is almost universally used in the AU and the Ordinariates is Rite One, which basically has its liturgy of the word from Rite One of the 1979 US Book of Common Prayer, including Credo in Elizabethan English, the offertory is essentially that of the Pauline Roman Missal (this feature being what seems to be most objectionable to hard core traditionalists), then what follows is the Roman Canon in Elizabethan English, very faithful to the Latin and somewhat more poetic than even the new Roman Missal translation. Then follows the Our Father, with the doxology, followed by “V. Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. R. Therefore let us keep the feast.” Then the Agnus Dei, followed by the Prayer of Humble Access, and the Lord I am not worthy, said three times. Holy Communion is administered at the altar rail, by intinction, on the tongue, to the words “The Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep you unto everlasting life.” The final collect is often either a set prayer recited by all the faithful with the priest, or another collect said by the priest. Unless otherwise prevented by the altar arrangements, such as was the case at the installation of the Ordinary in Houston, the priest faces East. Hopefully this is helpful.
Right, Pater. 1983 CIC 1248.1.
I would really appreciate a mass like that (assuming it was truly a faithful translation of the TLM) in lieu of the NO. I wish it was more widespread.
The worship at Our Lady of the Atonement is very reverent. However, they have quite a few “peculiarities” in their way of celebrating the Mass which do not reflect the practise in the more traditional Anglo-catholic parishes. For example, the celebrant wearing a cope for the fore-mass rather than the chasuble, even though there is neither Asperges nor a solemn procession and retaing it until the Offertory, removing it “at the altar”. Or the way the thurible was charged by the deacon, at the foot of the altar, or the deep postrations at the confession, etc. Also, are they using a thurible with bell, in the eastern style, or, is there just a lot of clanging? I hope those who look to set a more standardized ritual for Anglican Use / Ordinariate parishes are careful as to what they emulate.
But would the answer be different if the question were “May I as a regular Roman Catholic, With no prior Anglican affiliation, lawfully become registered as a parishioner at an Anglican Rite Parish and receive all the sacraments there regularly (e.g. Marriage, children baptized, funeral, etc.) going forward?
Echoing our genial host: if the celebration of the sacraments is in communion with the Successor to Peter…you can take part.
Anglican Use…Maronite…Byzantine…Malabar…I can’t even think of all the variations. It doesn’t matter.
In communion with Peter…you can take part.
We attend the first Anglican use parish in Canada to come entirely over (90%), having moved from an increasingly uncharitable TLM parish. It’s a beautiful parish, and the congregation is SO grateful to be Catholic. The ruling from the CDF (I believe) is that the Anglican use has the same status in a Roman diocese as the OF and EF, meaning that people can move freely between different uses of the same rite. Brilliant. A third leg to the liturgical reform, after SP and the new translation.
The Canon is almost word-for-word translated Trent, but there are a couple of interesting twists elsewhere, reportedly some Sarum, some lingering Cranmer, like:
— after Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, an ordinary Collect for Purity, followed by a Summary of the Law, before the Kyrie (in Greek)
— the penitential prayer (quite penitential) after the Nicene Creed,
–a hymn between the Gradual and the Gospel (They do a LOT of singing, every verse, and do it very well…)
— the Prayer for Humble Access, just before Communion, and a Prayer of Thanksgiving after.
The one obvious Cranmer lingering is the Comfortable Words, immediately before the Offertory, but it’s unobjectionable, if strangely anti-Calvinist.
The old Anglican hymns are beautiful, almost “modal” in some strange way.
Pingback: Traditional Catholic Priest Blogs Anglican Use Parish | Big Pulpit
I confess: the answer to this question seems so obvious that I was struck that it had to be asked. Not only can you attend one, but you should, at least once, if you have the chance.
I believe, for example, that there is in the high liturgical Anglican tradition a virtual translation of the older Roman Missal.
That would be the English Missal, sometimes also called the “Knott Missal” (for the publisher), sometimes seen in very high church Anglo-Catholic parishes. A few of the ordinariate churches still use it, albeit with a few necessary modifications – some good (Cranmerian formulae corrected in the Canon) and some bad (enforced use of the three year lectionary). Otherwise, it’s the TLM In hieratic English, with a couple extra prayers, and communion usually in both kinds. Mount Calvary in Baltimore uses it for its sole Sunday mass (and they also, I might add, celebrate a Tridentine low mass every Friday).
If we’re to have mass in the vernacular, I wouldn’t object nearly so much if it were done this way.
I have a vague recollection that there was some sort of limitation on the anglican use liturgy. I’m still looking it up. I agree with Father’s assessment that attendance is no different than doing so with any of the Eastern Rites in communion with Rome. But even so, one can’t just become an eastern rite Catholic if one’s currently a Latin-Rite Catholic. So a precedent may exist (even though Anglican Use is technically part of the Latin Rite). Perhaps it comes into play when one receives the sacraments, other than Eucharist.
But would the answer be different if the question were “May I as a regular Roman Catholic, With no prior Anglican affiliation, lawfully become registered as a parishioner at an Anglican Rite Parish and receive all the sacraments there regularly (e.g. Marriage, children baptized, funeral, etc.) going forward? (Allan S.)
As registration has pretty much zero standing canonically (see earlier thread, Hawaii seems the exception – and it would be interesting to see how membership in the Anglican use parishes is in fact defined) the question really boils down to the other sacraments – and if you can’t receive them, I guess that a registration would be frowned upon by the Anglican use parish itself, as it could needlessly sour the relation with the bishop. And the reception of the other sacraments is of course a whole other can of worms.
Confession? probably not an issue. Baptism? Gets dicier, unless in a pinch. Marriage and ordination? Almost certainly not.
It would be interesting to hear a canonist on this.
The Book of Divine Worship is being revised. There are rumors that it will follow closely to the Anglican Missal, including the Gregorian Canon, which is used in the BDW.
As a former Anglo Catholic our priest always wore a cope when processing to the altar, said the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and we had the Asperges the the Last Gospel.
The Ordinariate parish I attend now has brought back all of the above, including the Angelus and the Last Gospel.
Yes there are parts in the BDW that are from the OF Mass, this was Rome’s decision. I believe that 30 years ago when AU parishes started, the liturgy was attended by higher ups to make sure that only the BDW was followed exactly. Now hopefully Anglican Use parishes will be allowed to bring back much that was lost, and if one looks they will see that what was denied were many of the prayers etc. from the TLM.
It is very early to know how the final version will be. In our group we have Latin Rite Catholics who have joined the parish and one who is planning on becoming a priest within the Ordinariate. Whether he is allowed or not, time will tell. It is too soon to make any judgements on the final outcome of what the Ordinariate liturgy will be.
Fascinating. The endless hymns would have to go, but one wonders if this is not what Vat II had in mind before the whole process was hi-jacked by Bugnini and co. It retains beautiful English, much of the symbolism and ritual (though some of it a little odd) or at least its spirit which, alas, in some parishes is almost non-existent now and it does not pander to an endless dialogue with the people or descend into the banalities we see too often. I am very pleasantly surprised.
There must be, and I hope won’t be, any suggestion that Ordinariate Catholics are in any way second class Catholics. There is only one type of Catholic – one in communion with the See of Rome. The Latin Rite is, historically, so important and wonderful, but it is not the whole of the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict is the Pope of Christian unity – multos annos.
asperges, I think you are right; I think this might be what the Holy Father had in mind by a “reform of the reform”. I have to disagree with you about the hymns, having been an Anglican. The Anglican hymn book makes “Gather” (or whatever that thing is called) look like a pre-school song book.
Putting aside the question of the importance of being a “registered member” of a parish, the answer to Allan S.’s question, “May I as a regular Roman Catholic, With no prior Anglican affiliation, lawfully become registered as a parishioner at an Anglican Rite Parish and receive all the sacraments there regularly?” is “No.”
As to the missals, the English Missal (Knott Missal) is a translation of the Tridentine Rite into “Cranmerian English,” and contains no distinctively Anglican features or prayers whatsoever. The “Anglican Missal” (produced in England) and the “American Missal” (and, IIRC, I think that the latter was an adaptation of the former for American Episcopalian use) has various Prayer Book features alongside Tridentine ones, usually as implicit options, e.g., there is the Prayer of Humble Access as a pre-communion penitential prayer, and, e.g. again, there is Cranmer’s brief and (in Catholic terms) inadequate Prayer of Consecration as found in the 1552/1662 English BCPs, placed in the middle of the Roman Canon, the implicit suggestion clearly being that Cranmer’s prayer is to be recited aloud, preceded and followed by the silent use of the Roman Canon.
The Book of Divine Worship, on the other hand, is based solely and exclusively on the 1979 “revisionist” Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer and, like its model, has two Eucharistic rites, one in “sacral” English (Rite I) and the other (Rite II) in “contemporary” English (the latter far more dignified in tone than the 1973 ICEL farrago). In the former, the two “Eucharistic prayers” of the Episcopalian rite (one that of the 1928 Episcopalian BCP, the other a “condensed” or “streamlined” version of that prayer) are replaced by a 16th-Century translation of the Roman Canon; in the latter, the four modern Episcopalian EPs are replaced by those of the 1970 Novus Ordo. One highly peculiar feature of the BDW is that in both “rites” is that the Offertory Rite is that of the 1970 Novus Ordo in its lacklustre English, so that there is a jarring intrusion of “contemporary English” in the midst of Rite I at the Offertory. (I understand that in many Anglican Use parishes, the Rite I Offertory has been unofficially “retrotranslated” into “sacral English.”)
I was long ago informed by some of those active in the formulation of the BDW in the early/mid 1980s that they had to argue/fight hard, in the face of some considerable opposition from “curialists” in Rome, for permission to have a “sacral English” eucharistic rite at all, and particularly to be allowed a “sacral English” version of the Roman Canon. Some of these “curialists” even suggested omitting the Roman Canon from both rites!
@Sissy: I simply meant that there were a few too many hymns for my taste – I don’t like lots of hymns at Mass – not that they were not good and tasteful hymns. The whole effect, as I mentioned, was quite an eye-opener and I was very favourably impressed.
No offense taken, asperges! I was being lighthearted. One of the things I’ve had to adjust to since becoming Catholic is how few (in comparison) hymns there are. It’s all just a matter of what you are accustomed to. After I saw how really bad some of the modern Catholic music is, I was relieved there were no more hymns than there are. All kidding aside, I now realize that the Catholic Mass is focused on the Word. It’s a protestant compensation to focus so much on music and sermons.
After I saw how really bad some of the modern Catholic music is, I was relieved there were no more hymns than there are.
Modern Catholic music? You mean the stuff by Haugen (Protestant) or Daniel Schutte (left the Jesuits in 1986)? Anything (almost) written after Vatican II gives new meaning to banality.
And how is it that the wording is so often “improved” in the responsorial psalms? And a refrain added to the Gloria? Musically, we are already in Hell.
“I was long ago informed by some of those active in the formulation of the BDW in the early/mid 1980s that they had to argue/fight hard, in the face of some considerable opposition from “curialists” in Rome, for permission to have a “sacral English” eucharistic rite at all, and particularly to be allowed a “sacral English” version of the Roman Canon. Some of these “curialists” even suggested omitting the Roman Canon from both rites!”
I know personally nothing about any of this. But some time ago I read an account by one of the Anglican Use principals of the negotiations involved in the formulation of the BDW. Who said that foremost among those “curalists” insisting that it not include the Roman Canon was Msgr. Bugnini’s protege Msgr. Piero Marini–apparently carrying on the campaign of his mentor, who had attempted to purge the Roman Canon from the Novus Ordo missal (though Paul VI to his credit ruled that it be kept among the four EP’s). According to this account, the cause for the RC seemed lost until a last-ditch appeal to one Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger succeeded.
Putting aside the question of the importance of being a “registered member” of a parish, the answer to Allan S.’s question, “May I as a regular Roman Catholic, With no prior Anglican affiliation, lawfully become registered as a parishioner at an Anglican Rite Parish and receive all the sacraments there regularly?” is “No.”
Dr. Peters: is this guy right? Am I missing something here?
My husband was planning to join the Anglican Use when the Church of the Incarnation in Orlando enters the Church this coming Sunday. We received lots of applications and paperwork. According to what we were sent, a Roman Rite Catholic (me) could join the Anglican Use if a close family member (my husband) was a member. Another reason given was something like a long period of attachment to traditional Anglicanism. I think any Catholic can visit and receive the Eucharist, but if you want to actually register as an Anglican Use Catholic, you need to fall within one of those two categories. I’m guessing the American Bishops wanted it set up that way to prevent too many traditional Catholics from making a mad rush to the local Anglican Use church [I’m kidding, of course. Would that we had that many Anglican Use churches around!!].
Is the Anglican Ordinariate any different from the Military Ordinariate as far as who can receive the recordable sacraments, when and where? I ask because for over two decades my “diocese” was the Miliatary Ordinariate of Canada and many non-military people attended our parish on a regular basis. If they lived on the Base but were not military (on some Bases surplus housing was rented to outside agencies), they still attended our parish and received the sacraments there even if there were parishes off-Base that could have accommodated them and to which they ‘officially’ belonged by virtue of not being affiliated with the military.
The reverse question also crops up: If you are military and living off-Base you still belong to the military parish but most people in fact will attend the geographic parish in which they live and I’ve never known them to be refused Marriage or the Sacraments of Initiation for their children based on that.
Volanges, my understanding is that the Anglican Ordinariate is analogous to the Military Ordinariate.
From the web site of a prominent Anglican Use parish:
Membership
In 1983, Our Lady of the Atonement Parish was established primarily for former Episcopalians who converted to the Catholic Church, and according to the Decree of Erection promulgated by Archbishop Patrick F. Flores, all former Episcopalians and other former members of the world-wide Anglican Communion who reside in this Archdiocese have a right to belong to the parish. In addition to these individuals from an Anglican background, we count converts from numerous other religious bodies as well as many life-long Roman Catholics as members. The parish is not territorial, but rather is a Personal Parish as outlined in Canon 518. The Archbishop has placed no restrictions on participation in the parish, since all Catholics may fulfill their religious obligations in any approved rite of the Catholic Church; therefore, all Catholics are welcome to take a full and active part in parish life and worship.
My understanding from similar sources is that a substantial portion–perhaps a majority in some cases–of the members of some Anglican Use parishes are “ordinary” Roman Catholics with no previous Anglican connection.
The Anglican Use liturty from the Book of Divine Worship.
http://www.cin.org/anguse.html
Or here
http://www.atonementonline.com/bodw.php
or
http://www.atonementonline.com/BODW.pdf
I believe the “restrictions” are to determine jurisdiction only. This is not analogous to parish registration. All those initiated in the Latin Rite fall under the jurisdiction of the Latin Rite diocese in which they reside. To fall under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Ordinariate, one must either be initiated within it or be a family member of one who is. I don’t know if this has any practical implications for lay Catholics. You can certainly attend an Anglican Use Liturgy. There are some legal consequences but even they may be rare since the Ordinariate’s ordinary exercises the authority of a diocesan bishop only in coordination with the local Latin Rite bishop. E.g., the ordinary can create a tribunal for its members but the diocesan tribunal would still have original jurisdiction.