... one of the most elegant and kindly operators in Blogland, explained that Anglicans in an Ordinariate would have to be more liturgically disciplined. He has a point; but I think he is being less than fair to the great majority of English Anglican Catholic Clergy. It is simply because they have felt that they should, as good Catholics, obey the edicts of the Holy See precisely and to the letter that nearly all of them use the dreadful Old ICEL version of Dr Bugnini's grotesque rite. And that is why snide papists are now making unpleasant cracks about how we don't actually have a Patrimony. A 'can't win' situation: obey the rules and you haven't got a Patrimony; disregard them, and you are accused of individualistic anarchy.
I am unlike most such Anglo-Catholics. The reason for this is that, although a Papalist, I never desired to to be in an ecclesial ghetto. My first parish was Prayer Book and surplice and stole, with Mattins for the brigadiers and stockbrokers at 11.00. My succeeding ministries were all in fairly mainstream C of E churches where I could not have got away with just dumping on them the rite imposed by Rome. In every case the only option was a gradual and organic evolution into something better. This is an approach which has a very respectable history among Catholic Anglicans from the 1840s down to 1970. And even when I came to S Thomas's a couple of years ago, I found that the priest who had cared for it during the long interregnum had, very shortly before I arrived, had splendid little books printed giving the rather peculiar combination of Cranmer, Common Worship, and Old ICEL which he had evolved to suit his own taste. The congregation was minute, and I did not want to scare away the few I had, so I proceeded gently. We have now moved on to something a little less idiosyncratic - at least I always use the Canon Romanus - although the rite remains rather sui generis; not least because, at first, I did not want to revise it without taking account of the then imminent New ICEL texts; and secondly, because I now wish to take account of what the Ordinariate comes up with.
In this rather betwixt and between time, it is true that I have also naughtily indulged myself the use of the 1939 EF Roman Rite. This does not mean that, should I happily find my position canonically regularised, I would decline to use the 1962 rite. But I confess that I will rather miss some of the things that disappeared during the protoBugnini period late in the Pontificate of Papa Pacelli.
Some practical points:
(1) The question of Calendar must be sorted out. Utraquism is bound to be a long term phenomenon, and sensible provision must be made for Utraquist churches. Anecdotally ... there are RC clergy who do use the EF with the OF calendar. I know Pastor wouldn't do something so wicked ... any more than you would catch him toying with the Sarum Rite ...
(2) Perhaps Pastor, given the connections that he has, could find out for me definitively whether I should be naming S Joseph in the EF 1962 Canon; and whether the Third Confiteor is still mandatory, abolished, or optional. Then I shall be at least better placed to know exactly what it is that I doing right or wrong.
(3) On the 25th of February Fr Zed did a post, full of gung-ho zest, in which he criticised the OF rubrics which prescribe that, at the OF Mass, servers and clergy genuflect towards the Tabernacle only at the start and the end of Mass. He said that, of course, it was his inflexible rule that people should Do the Red ... and then added "but ...". He also asserted his belief that ignoring these rubrics was not even a venial sin. Did Pastor whack Fr Zed for this? And ... gracious me ... Fr Zed is the Great High Priest of complete rubrical obedience!
Isn't that concept in its absolute form getting just a tiny bit frayed round the edges as both the EF movement and the Reform of the Reform gain in confidence? When Fr Schmidt was in London a year or two ago, he spoke in a way that made me rather wonder if he was quite squeaky clean when it came to not using the old and abolished Commemorationes de Tempore. And I believe that Lawrence Hemming uses an Urban VIII Breviary for his Office. Does this, in Pastor's view, fulfill the obligation? Papa Sarto, in promulgating his new distribution of the Psalter, categorically stated that it did not.
O'Connell, writing in the early 1940s, is fairly relaxed about some usages praeter and even contra legem, and cites SRC decrees in his support ("In some cases, the SRC has even ordered usages contra legem to be followed"). Some people ... like Fr Zed ... have been hammering home the concept of total obedience to the rubrics; and understandably so, because this is the only way in which the liberals can be restrained in the dark aftermath of Bugnini. But anybody who has studied the matter knows that rubrics have never really been accorded quite such a status: certainly not in the centuries before the invention of printing; and not even entirely in the more centralising times since.
Oh, and do SSPX clergy wear birettas on the way to the altar?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Immemorial custom (meaning, we can't recall when we made this up) covers a multitude of sins.
Fr Z himself noted some years back that - for the first time in his experience - he was paratus at a High Mass that was absolutely-to-the-letter following the 1962 rubrics (so no censing the celebrant after the first censing of the altar, nor after the Gospel, for instance): in other words, nearly everybody Trad. is really more 1950's than pure 1962.
In my former parish, just to give examples, Fr Rowe always sang Benedicamus Domino when there was no Gloria in excelsis; each Corpus Christi, he sang Mass coram Sanctissimo; yet he also used the special Advent Preface for aliquibus locis... withal, he always had the 3rd Confiteor.
Hurrah for the 3rd Confiteor!
I cannot answer all these points but I can answer a few (based upon my experience of attending an FSSP parish served by a priest who used to be SSPX and so has a clear line of unbroken adherence to the Old Rite behind him with no making-it-up-cos-he-actually-learned-how-to-say-Mass-out-of-a-book).
Yes, St Joseph's name is always included in the Canon. Not including it is usually taken as a sign of sedevacantism.
The "Third Confiteor" (actually always referred to as the Second Confiteor) is abolished. The FSSP and some other traditionalist orders have an indult to have it "where it would be expected by the faithful." This rule is, however, generally ignored.
The Urban VIII Breviary does *not* fulfil his obligation to the Office. As he is a permanent deacon he might not actually be bound to the office though.
SSPX seminarians are banned from wearing birettas and many of their priests do not wear them. Some, however, do. This ban was because the late Archbishop was concerned to show that he was making a stand on principle and thought anything that might smack of frippery should be excluded.
Thanks, Christian.
There is a video put out by PCED on how to say Mass ... in which S Joseph does not appear in the Canon! A nest of Sedevacantists right at the heart of the Curia! I have been told that some 1962 Missals have s Joseph, some don't, because he got his leg-up while the print was actually running.
As always, a careful and thought-provoking post, Father - than you.
So, some random thoughts:
There is certainly a case to be made for harmonising the Universal[!] Calendar. One has memories of the achievement of the Synod of Whitby in an earlier age...part of the Anglican patrimony??
It was very odd, one year, missing All Saints' day completely because in South Africa it ahd been transferred to the following Sunday, and in England, whither I returned, it had been kept on the preceding Sunday.
There is also the question, somewhat more vexed, I suspect, of the Lectionary. There is much to be said, in days of increased travel, for hearing the same series of lections wherever one is in the world. It was so in both Roman and Anglican traditions until the advent of the 3 year lectionary for modern rites [in Anglicanism passing ASB on the way]. But how one can reconcile the two approaches seems an almost insurmountable problem?
With regard to your second paragraph, all was plain sailing, liturgically, for Anglo-Papalists (and indeed Anglo-Catholics generally) up to and including 1965. Aided by Fr.Whatton on their side and O'Connell's little books from Burns and Oates [was there any truth in the rumour that the rapid liturgical changes of the 1960s and '70s sent them towards insolvency?] English and Anglican Missals, and Ritual Notes were duly adapted. The last altar edition of the English Missal [5th.edn.1958] had (pre-cursor of things to come) had from 1967 Alternative Services Series 2 bound in with it, specially printed by Knotts, who had moved from London to Rochester.
Two thing seem (to me) to have happened which pulled the liturgical rug from beneath the feet of Anglo-Catholics. Across the Tiber, Vatican II delegated much liturgical decision making (albeit to be ratified by Rome) in the hands of the local Episcopal Conferences. What, for Anglicans, was the local Episcopal Conference? Eccleston Square or Church House? On this side of the Tiber, the C.ofE. not only rapidly revised its liturgy, providing Eucharistic canons acceptable to Catholics and embracing the 3-year Lectionary, but also introducing a wide ranging canon [the minster make make variations in the sevrice he is conducting not of substantial importance) and a rubric in Common Worship (in any place where not provided traditional texts may be used (leaving entirely open the meanings of substantial and traditional.
Although most Anglo-Catholics in practice adopted, as your first paragraph points out, teh new Missale Romanum in its English tanslation/paraphrase,in fact each parish priest, indeed each celebrant, was now his own CDW. Many more, like yourself, strove to adapt CW to conform to Roman revisions, and a few continued to maintain their own Anglican EF, using the English Missal and traditional language.
[It was curious how the moment the Pope said maniples were optional Rochester Cathedral obediently ceased using them, yet refused to countenance the reservation of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar enjoined by Lyndwood's Provinciale!)
...to be continued...
Regards
John U.K.
Continued ....
Although whatever each priest does no doubt make perfect pastoral and liiturgical sense to him, I suspect that from the outside it looks like liturgical anarchy (albeit reflecting the liturgical anarchy of the C.of E. itself). It is, as bloggers elswhere have pointed out, a matter which any Ordinariate will have to urgently address in consultation with Rome, for the one bit of Anglican patrimony which must surely be left behind will surely be the protestant "Every man his own Pope" mentality.
A couple of asides:
I always found it strange that, at the time of increasing travel and the introduction of colour television, the R.C. Church dropped Latin from its liturgy and the wonderfully simple to understand colour changes of the Holy Week rites.
I concur with others who have expressed the view that the organic development of the Roman riMissal reached its apogee not in 1962 but in 1965.
As for your final paragraph, I seem to recall the present pontiff saying something to the effect that te two forms, OF and EF, were to be mutually enriching, despite the CDW rulings at
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girmappx2.html
and Fr Z's emphasis on do the Red.
Regards
John U.K.
This ban was because the late Archbishop was concerned to show that he was making a stand on principle and thought anything that might smack of frippery should be excluded.
The so-called "ban" was actually due to the fact that Archbishop Lefebrve was a Holy Ghost father and so did wear a biretta when out on missions. I don't think they even wore a biretta when not on missions either. The SSPX seminarians in the early days simply copied him.
The SSPX priests in England wear birettas, whereas the ones in France and Germany don't.
And with all due respect, I wouldn't take any advice from Fr. Zzzz when it comes to rubrical obedience for the reasons noted by Joshua. He does comes across as a 1962 Nazi, who even does not know the 1962 rubrics himself.
Dear Fr H:
I am so sorry if my words irritated you, but I suppose we human beings do that to each other when we believe passionately about things; God forbid that we should become merely anodyne!
I am certainly not one who would claim that there is no such thing as an Anglican Patrimony, but it I think that it is vital that there be a broad consensus about what it actually is, even if such a consensus itself be foreign to the spirit of the Patrimony (rather, I mean, than simply accepting that the Patrimony means what it means to each individual, and tolerating the divergence). Such a consensus would enable the Ordinariates to hold their own among the other forms of the Latin Rite. Some Religious Congregations (orders, I mean, not parishes) have been encouraged to spell out in a document their 'Spiritual Path'; I am thinking right now of the Oratorian one. This lays out in general terms what is the particular genius of that Congregation's spirituality. It would be a shame for the Anglican Patrimony simply to dissolve away in a generation for the lack of some underpinning. I freely admit that I am doing quite a bit of prodding at the moment to try and get you chaps to explain to me what you believe the Patrimony to be; the chances are that if you can explain it to me, then you can explain it to Rome.
I think that your explanation of how and why the rites at St Thomas have been sui generis is far from uncommon, and that was exactly my point. All perfectly understandable, but you chaps will need to decide just what you want in the new Transtiberine dispensation. I don't think Rome is going to dictate to you your new rites, but it is going to ask you to propose what you want, and is not going to be satisfied with a new prayer book that includes Sarum (Latin, Cranmer English, Modern English and Modernized), Roman Rite (EF, OF, English Missal, ICEL1, ICEL2), Book of Common Prayer á la 1662 straight, 1928 straight, either one pruned or tinkered with, Book of Divine Worship —all of which I have seen strenuously argued for as being part of the future worship of the Patrimony. I really think you chaps need to be working on what you want, rather than carrying on doing what you are doing and waiting for someone else to make the decision. If you leave it to Rome, you will almost certainly end up with the Book of Divine Worship, with the Roman Use permitted by virtue of Quo Primum, probably in either form. This would satisfy many, perhaps most, but it would be sensible to spell it out.
t.b.cont……
……Cont.
Your practical points:
1) Yes, you are quite right that I have been using the OF calendar with the EF. But that was not discouraged until last week, and I am now applying my mind to it. And I believe the Sarum Mass to be perfectly legal (though perhaps not desireable for daily wear right now); see the note on my blog.
2) Yes, St Joseph should be mentioned in the Canon, and no, there should not be a third confiteor. PCED has pronounced on both these things, though I cannot recall right now the exact place.
3) Immemorial custom is a perfectly good principle of liturgical law, and I suppose Fr Z is entitled to make use of it, though in my parish we generally adhere to the rubric, though I share his dislike.
No doubt it is the privilege of Canon Law to decide what fulfils the obligation of the office; St Pius X, as you say, decided that the ancient office did not. I question, though, whether Pius X really had the moral right to legislate in this way. Benedict XVI said (in Summ. Pont) that the traditional office may be used; he does not specify a version. Personally, I celebrate the 1961 breviary, as that has unambiguously received Church approval.
In the end, I agree with your penultimate paragraph pretty wholeheartedly. There is no point in fetishizing rubrics which are, as I have written elsewhere, only God's table manners and not the meal itself. But in the sheer divergence of the Anglican customs we see a lot more than a genuflection here or a confiteor there; they amount to almost differences of rite; this, in my opinion is what needs tidying up.
Please excuse any infelicities in this; trying to keep thoughts cogent when typing in a little box isn't easy; I should have written in another document and then copied and pasted it in.
Thank you for the debate, Father H; and again, please forgive me if I have offered offence.
On reflection: not sure about St Joseph; I can't recall with certainty that that has been mentioned by PCED. But the Communion Confiteor certainly has.
Joshua,
The celebrant at a 1962 Missa cantata is censed after the introit but not after the Gospel (c.f. Ritus servandus IV, 8; VI, 8).
Christian,
"The FSSP and some other traditionalist orders have an indult to have it "where it would be expected by the faithful."
Could you please give a reference for this 'indult'?
As for the Second Confiteor, there might be some change in the PCED'S attitude, just as there certainly has been one in the case of the calendar.
Consider this picture:
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4022/84872240.jpg
It shows Mons. Pozzo on 20th December 2009 during a Second Confiteor at the Roman apostolate of the ICRSS, Chiesa di Gesù e Maria (in via del Corso).
With regards to the Third Confiteor: in 2009 the Congregation for Divine Worship was asked a dubium about whether the priest should communicate before the people or after them. Naturally they said before BUT amongst their reasoning they wrote [remember that this is an Official Response of the Congregation] "...in editione Missalis Romani quae anno 1962 apparuit , qua communio sacerdotis disiungitur a communione fidelium per recitationem 'Confiteor' , per preces 'Misereatur', 'Indulgentiam', 'Agnus Dei' et 'Domine non sum dignus'" If even the Congregation think that its required ...
[cf. Notitiae 46 (2009) p.242]
I think it is somewhat easier to sort out what the Anglican Patrimony is in the USA. When a group of Anglo-Catholics here applied for and received the Pastoral Provision, along with it they received a "Rome-approved" version of the 1979 BCP. The main changes were the replacement of the American Canon with Coverdales translation of the Gregorian in Rite One, and the addition of the three "new" Canons of 1968 from the Roman Missal. In the Rite Two Eucharist, and the replacement of the four ECUSA Canons with the four EPs from the Novus Ordo Mass. As for ceremonial, Fortescue and a little water seems to have remained the rule.
In the Continuing Anglican Movement, the rule seems to be a slightly "spiked-up" version of the 1928 BCP. This holds true in the United Episcopal Church, where the spiking up is relatively limited; through to the Anglican Province of Christ the King were the Anglican Missal is dominant. In the Anglican Catholic Church, and most other continuing groups, seem to be able to contain both ends of the spectrum. However, we have to deal with a different set of problems.
+PDR
What is perhaps strange is that in the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in North America a fully Anglican rite has been approved and is celebrated in about ten to fifteen parishes, some of which are quite large.
The same Vicariate also uses, for its Roman rite communities, the Knott Missal (An earlier version than 1958, a draft of what they are preparing for publication can be found here:
http://storage.cloversites.com/ststephensorthodoxcatholicchurch/documents/Altar%20Missal%20-%20Draft%20edition.pdf
They have also reprinted for their own use the Monastic Diurnal as well as the Monastic Matins office as well. Recently they have prepared and published a really beautiful, cheap and usable Book of Common Prayer for the pews (based upon the first Pray Book, and not the Roman Anglican Use parishes using that dreadful abomination of 1979...scares me that Rome would prefer such a piece of trash over the traditional Anglican BCP). They are also reprinting the American Missal for use in their Anglican rite communities.
If the Orthodox can use a real Anglican rite, using a real Anglican canon, I am confused as to why those going to Rome, who wish to use a truly Anglican rite, cannot simply use these editions. I was under the impression, that Rome accepts the full validity of rites used in Eastern Orthodox churches.
The last comment is a good one.
Of course, Fr Phillips et al. have explained that, in order to get any Anglican Use at all out of Rome in the eighties, when bad liturgy was king, was a huge effort, and they asked for tarted-up bits of the 1979 US BCP because Rome could understand that, whereas the unspoken fear was then that if they asked for the 1928 plus nice Tridentine bits they would have been told to bugger off - since that was before even the 1984 indult, and the Latin Mass was rigidly excluded as a taboo.
Times have now changed, and it would seem that Rome won't have such hang-ups this time round.
As for Western Rite Orthodoxy, well, I suppose that itself may be on the nose - it amuses me that the Orthodox froth at the mouth about "Uniatism" while setting up Uniate groups of their own: hypocrisy never goes down well. Such groups are viewed as "sacramental Protestants" (i.e. they still fear the Pope, albeit they've accepted all else), to quote a bishop of my acquaintance.
And the WRO rites would be viewed with suspicion for two reasons:
- in defiance of all tradition, the Roman Canon is mutilated by inserting a consecratory epiclesis, which to any decent liturgist is an outrageous and egregious hybridization: after all, the Roman Canon is older than all Byzantine anaphorai, and its validity was never questioned of all, nay, Byzantine writers even defend it;
- the Anglican Canon is again a hybrid beast, with bits of the Roman Canon inserted, plus an Eastern-style epiclesis, again producing a chimaera that any liturgical scholar would be aghast at.
There is something very ugly about doing a Dr Frankenstein and sewing together mismatched bits and pieces.
I am engaged in writing an article on the matters mentioned in the two last comments, an article I expect will go up on "The Anglo-Catholic" blog this weekend or Monday.
The Antiochian "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" is a strange production. It has nothing to do with that saint, but was produced in the 1970s, ca. 1977. Its anaphora (Anglican Canon) is indeed hybrid; what's more, a paperback version from ca. 1977 that I have differs in significant, if small, respects from that of the recent "Western-Rite Book of Common Prayer." The opening paragraph of the former's anaphora, for instance, follows exactly that of the 1764 Scottish Communion Office, while that of the latter seems to conflate the phraseology of the former together with that of the 1789/1928 American Episcopalian prayer.
Any "correction" of the venerable Roman Canon by inserting an epiklesis is not only in bad taste but is out-and-out sacrilege.
The Antiochians have never pretended that their Anglican liturgy is one produced by St. Tykhon, what they did do is to put into a reality the 'Observations on the Prayer Book." But regardless of what one may think, it, unlike the BDW, is indeed an Anglican inspired liturgy. The liturgy was also used by a congregation, since closed, in Escondido, California, by a mission of Moscow Patriarchate. The Russian Church Outside of Russia also has an Anglican Liturgy based upon the first Prayer Book.
My contention is the Orthodox can produce a truly Anglican liturgy, I see no reason that Rome cannot do so. The differences from the first 1977 edition and the one now used are very, very minor indeed, and revolve around the insertion of Amens after the invocation and a prayer expressive of the real presence said before the communion of the people.
As for the Roman rite in Orthodoxy, anything done by the Romans would certainly not follow the insertion of a byzantine style epiclesis! The very contention is rather stupid. One should also add that the Roman Canon, in both English and Latin, included in their new BCP does NOT have this insertion.
As for the dangers of reverse-Uniatism, the Antiochians do not have the same dislike of Greek Catholics that one finds amongst the Russians, and maintain very good relations with the Melkites. One should add that one of the problems with Uniatism from even the Russian persepctive is the fact that often these conversions were more a question of either a Polish or Austro-Hungarian military occupation than a religious movement. The Melkites were a religious movement towards Rome done without coercion, the same can be said for those small groups who have converted to Orthodoxy maintaining their western traditions.
As for liturgical "Hybrid Beasts" one need look no further than the American 1979 BCP!
One needs to add that the American Anglican canon, following its Scottish antecedent, has always had an epiclesis.
I would submit that the Orthodox Church has not really come to grips with the fact that classic Prayer Book communion prayer itself is theologically informed through-and-through by Cranmer's reformed eucharistic theology, while keeping some of the old time-honored phrases from the Roman Canon to give a superficial patina of theological continuity. While this is less true of the Scottish 1764 Office, even the beloved American Anglican "canon" from 1789-1928 deliberately changed the wording of the former so as to assure that the sacrificial offering was understood to be ourselves, and not the body and blood of christ. Although it is difficult for American Anglican-Catholic traditionalists to accept, both the 1979 BCP EP A, Rite II and the Novus Ordo EP II is more theologically correct and "Catholic" in this respect to BCP 1928.
I must agree with Digusted on this.
The language of the BCP, even in its highest versions (the Scottish above all), still shies away from affirming that the Sacrifice being offered up is Christ.
And only the 1929 Scottish (ideally the 1764) has a proper consecratory epiclesis: all others sound horribly Receptionist, as e.g. the 1662: "that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine" (so no substantial change occurs, they remain what they were) "...may be partakers of [Christ's] Body and Blood".
The American 1928 fails in the same way, having a Receptionist epiclesis. Of the Eucharistic Prayers in the 1979 US BCP Rite I, the first again is defective in its epiclesis, while the second, quite unexpectedly, almost gets it right:
"And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, to bless and sanctify these gifts of bread and wine, that they may *be unto us* the Body and Blood of thy dearly-beloved Son Jesus Christ."
The Scottish version uses "become", which signifies an objective change in the substance, whereas even this quoted epiclesis seems to suggest but a subjective change (a transsignification or transfinalization, not a proper transsubstantiation).
Furthermore, this second prayer weakens still further what is said of sacrifice: "And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness to accept this
our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, whereby we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies."
At least the first 1979 prayer included the traditional words "most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion." - phraseology which may be understood in line with the Sacrifice of the Mass being the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ for all the living and the dead.
Looking at the US 1979 BCP's Eucharistic Liturgy, one can see why it was taken over, almost word for word, for the Catholic Book of Divine Worship - BUT omitting the Episcopalian Eucharistic Prayer as insufficient, and inserting a number of Catholic bits and pieces, such as the Roman Canon above all, and even the much-maligned Novus Ordo offertory, which is certainly better than nothing.
Turning to the 1979 US Rite II prayers, well, one finds nice phrases, some significant, but even less sense that the Sacrifice is being offered up for determinate ends.
As Dom Cipriano Vaggagini observed back in the '60's - and he was the one who drew up the drafts for the Roman Eucharistic Prayers II and III - a Eucharistic Prayer must contain abundant intercession, offering up the Oblation for the church, the world, the living and the dead, else the whole notion of Impetratory Sacrifice will be forgotten.
The project of an Anglican Canon is a fraught one, and uncertain at best I think.
(I recall that Fr H has himself written that Cranmer's devious compositions for the Prayer of Consecration are fundamentally vitiated, and would require thorough recasting at the very least.)
MISPRINT:
I should have written "Dom Cipriano Vaggagini... drew up the drafts for the Roman Eucharistic Prayers III and IV" - obviously basing the latter on a recension of St Basil's Anaphora (the Egyptian recension? I forget).
The US 1979 BCP, Rite II, contains something entitled "Eucharistic Prayer D", which is a rehash of the Roman Eucharistic Prayer IV, but toning down some of the latter's outrageously sacrificial language...
I mean, what decent Episcopalian could bring herself to utter the words "we offer you [Father] his [Christ's]body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice that brings salvation to the whole world. Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church... remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice..."?
Those who go on about how dreadful the modern Roman Eucharistic Prayers are do them a disservice: imperfectly paraphrased into English maybe, but their theology is Catholic. I think here especially of Eucharistic Prayers III and IV - even I find defending no. II, "the quickie Canon", rather disheartening: it's sufficient, but as priests joke, "It's like the miniskirt -barely enough to cover the mystery."
But why create modern Eucharistic prayers for the Roman Liturgy when the antiquity of the Roman Canon is already established? Wouldn't it be better to stick to what was given to us. I recall Dr. Tighe saying that the roman canon's antiquity can only be challenged by the anaphora of addai and mari. so why change or add new ones when its venerability is clear? Is it because the Eastern insistence on the epiclesis because the new eucharistic prayers seem to have explicit ones?
I am rather confused by the last few comments. It appears that when the Orthodox do correct some series defects in the American Canon, it is referred to as a "Hybrid Beast"! That is exactly why the invocation was strengthened and parts of the Roman canon, the preferred canon amongst the Orthodox, was inserted (one might also add that these insertions were not originally made by the Orthodox, but by American Anglo-Catholics in the last century and appear in the American edition of the 'Anglican Missal"). It would appear that anything the Orthodox do will be condemned by a certain type of Roman convert mentality, and one should add, not always convert.
I should think that the 1979 BCP, which has even more serious theological problems than 1928 or 1549, with a memorial offertory, instead of a stated sacrificial intention, with the full Roman Canon stuck in is far, far more a "Hybrid beast" than any thing I could possibly imagine.
I am also concerned about reference to the Orthodox as "Sacramental Protestants." I have had a very long discussion with an Orthodox priest who considers that the Pope's recent overtures to the Orthodox, which I have taken as serious, are only so much ecumenical prater, perhaps this priest was correct.
Post a Comment