11 December 2015

Ordinariate Use (14) [and "the Vatican Document"]

A small but growing group of clergy consists of priests incardinated into one or other of the three ordinariates from time to time use the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, as well as the Ordinary and Anglican Use Forms. The Pope Francis (i.e. Ordinariate) Missal helps to solve one or two minor rubrical problems which such admirable (often younger) clergy might have. Example:

When Blessed John Henry Newman was beatified, he acquired a liturgical Collect for Mass and Office. But as far as I know, no provision was made for which of the two alternative Commons for a Confessor Not A Pontiff in the 1962 Missal should be used: Os iusti or Iustus ut palma. So ... on his feast day, or if you wish to say a Votive, which Mass should you select?

The Pope Francis Missal (substantially) reverts to the provision of Commons found in the old English Missal, which, of course, was an English rendering of the Missal of S Pius V. So ... look up Blessed John Henry on October 9. Do you see the words "From the Common of Confessors ... (pp 932-934)"? If you turn to those pages, you will discover ... the Mass Os iusti!

MY DAILY PIECES ON NOSTRA AETATE WILL CONTINUE TOMORROW. And: I have read the Vatican Document and find it distinctly more nuanced than do either those who laud it or those who are appalled and horrified. But there are glaring omissions, of which I will briefly list one. Videlicet: it sets rabbinic, Synagogue, Judaism beside Catholicism, without mentioning Temple, sacrificial Judaism. This is of course because the latter no longer (really) exists. And possibly because Catholic ecumenists, since the liturgical corruptions that followed the Council, do not see their own Faith through sacrificial lenses. BUT ... I shall, of course return to this.


mark wauck said...

1. I haven't read the entire "document" but from what I've seen I believe Fr Hunwicke is correct in saying that it's more "nuanced" than are most accounts of it.

2. If I may draw an inference from Fr Hunwicke's brief comments, however, I think it's fair to say that, unlike Ratzinger/Benedicts's statements on these issues, this document isn't informed with terribly deep scholarship--or, sadly, understanding of the Catholic faith.

That said, here is a portion of what I just read in the WSJ. No doubt other members of the commission may have differing interpretations, but the distinctly unnuanced views of Joseph Sievers are those that will be receiving widespread publicity:

"According to Joseph Sievers, a professor at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute and a member of the commission that produced the new document, it goes farther than Vatican II in renouncing any attempts to turn Jews into Christians.

“’Nostra Aetate had eliminated any language referring to hope for a conversion,” he said, “but it did not explicitly say ‘we do not want to convert Jews.’ This document wants to make that clear.”

"Mr. Sievers said in his view, the new document should be read not only as a disavowal of institutional missionary efforts directed at Jews, but also as an exhortation to individual Christians not to seek Jews’ conversion."

Matthew M said...

Fr. John Hunwicke-
As an on-line follower of yours for many years I greatly appreciate your knowledge and scholarship, your love of Latin and the Liturgies of the Church.
I have seldom if ever up to now taken any strong issue with any of your comments, HOWEVER....................I am totally dismayed that you refer to the new Anglican Ordinariate Missal as "Pope Francis" (Ordinariate) Missal. If anyone's name should be attached to it, it should be Pope Benedict XVI. After all, the Ordinariates, the Liturgy and other services are based upon his liturgical scholarship and Pope Francis had nothing to do with it. Please rethink your usage and if it must be named then either Pope Benedict XVI should be the reference point or at least call it the ANGLICAN ORDINARIATE MISSAL.

Thank you for your continued service to Holy Mother Church.

Matthew Markovich

OreamnosAmericanus said...

Although I do not practice Catholicism, I have a deep interest in the health of Western Civilization, of which Catholicism has been a crucial part until recently. Its accelerating decline in its ancient homelands among the European peoples --self-provoked, IMHO-- saddens me.

Here in this document we see enacted on a matter of basic self identity what the Kasperites want in terms of marriage: a pastoral practice that pays lip service to the foundational doctrine while eviscerating it in practice.

My question: if this document represents the attitude of the Church of Rome toward Jews --the vast majority of whom are no longer at all practitioners of Judaism-- then why did the Apostles bother?

The Western churches are all busily engaged in pulling the plug on themselves in order to please people who either overtly or covertly hold them in utter contempt. Such an awful spectacle.

Matthew Roth said...

Did you miss Father's post wherein he first referred to it as such? He explained his position, and I suppose you don't have to accept it, but I am not sure why you are so flabbergasted.

It also has an official name, Divine Worship: the Missal. “Anglican Ordinariate Missal" might be more clear, though “Anglican Ordinariate" is not very clear except to those in the know.

William said...

Matthew M:
Your point was addressed by Fr H on December 9th in the final paragraph of his post "Who is entitled to use the Pope Francis Missal?"
And while I would of course never claim to know whether it applies in this particular instance, one might also point to Father's post of December 11th, 2009, referring to the "provocative humour … of Anglo-Catholic England", as exampled in the Society of SS. Peter and Paul's "Latimer and Ridley Votive-candle stands" – a wonderfully improbable, if tenuously defensible, association of name with item.