... was a distinguished Anglican Liturgist and Parish Priest. At the heart of the post-Conciliar ferment, in 1969, he advocated the adoption within the Church of England of the 'Gregorian Canon' ... just at the time when Roman Catholics were charging like great hordes of daft and mesmerised lemmings over the cliff and down onto the pseudo-hippolytan breakers beneath. He wrote: "It is superfluous to emphasise the liturgical advantages of this proposal. Very many priests supplement the exiguous rite of 1662 by the recitation, silent or open, of the Roman Canon, so that it would be very familiar, unlike an Hippolytean rite. In liturgical quality, both of language and structure, it excells all other eucharistic rites in the eyes of millions of Christians, and it was the only rite known to Englishmen for nearly a thousand years. It says what many people want to say at the Altar, and its use would draw the Church of England closer to to countless other Western Christians, and would therefore have great value in knitting together the splintered unity of Christ's Church ... the Roman Canon is the best one available, setting forth with great clarity the fourfold action of the Eucharist, and falling into three clearly defined stages, the offering of the gifts of bread and wine, their consecration by the recital of the dominical institution, and their offering to God as the Body and Blood of Christ. It is time for the Church Of England to forsake inveterate prejudices derived from Reformation Protestantism, and to accomplish something in liturgical revision which would give unity and peace on the basis of an ancient and well-tried form of prayer."
Who can doubt that Willis would have welcomed with enthusiasm our Ordinariate Missal?
Father Hunwicke,
ReplyDeleteCould you please elaborate on Willis' contention here: "[the Roman Canon] fall[s] into three clearly defined stages[:] the offering of the gifts of bread and wine, their consecration by the recital of the dominical institution, and their offering to God as the Body and Blood of Christ".
I am confused because I had heard it explained previously that the sacrificial language in the Offertory and in the parts of the Canon prior to the Unde et memores did not constitute a separate offering of the unconsecrated bread and wine, but rather were anticipatory of the action in the Quam oblationem, the consecration and the oblation of the Blessed Sacrament.
This latter definition made sense to me given the content of the Quam oblationem (and the Supra quae propitio and the Supplices te rogamus*), but is more difficult for me to square with the Novus Ordo offertory (which seems to explicitly offer unconsecrated bread and unconsecrated wine) than Willis' explanation.
I seem to recall a series of articles by Gregory DiPippo in the NLM a while back which contended that neither the EF offertory nor the NO offertory attempted to make two separate sacrifices, with the main thrust of the argument being that the Consilium did not have any mandate to change the theology of the offertory and thus did not attempt to do so, but perhaps my memory is failing me here (and I mean no disservice to Mr. DiPippo if I have mangled his point).
One might only wish that it had not included the modifications of 1962 and 1970.
ReplyDeleteHonorable mention, Father. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://dappledthings.org/11099/why-wearing-a-hat-is-so-important-to-me/
Would he have preferred it to the English Missal or Anglican Missal that he already had?
ReplyDeleteThe English Missal or Anglican Missal was surely to most catholic minded Anglicans only an interim expedient, which, inn the event of corporate re-union with Rome, would be jettisoned in favour of the Roman Missal. What reason would Dr Willis, in that case, have for perpetuating its use within the Roman church?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBut was Dr. Willis an Anglo-Papalist? I do not get that impression from his writings.