Friday, May 15, 2009

Prayer Book Catholic vs Missal Catholic?

Some of our respected interlocutors, Death Bredon and Canon Tallis especially, have claimed in the past that use of the Missals by Anglican Catholics is opposed either to sound doctrine or fidelity to the Anglican liturgical patrimony, or both. They believe that the use of the Prayer Books according to “English Use”, as explained by, for example, Percy Dearmer in The Parson's Handbook, is in fact the only acceptable or honest alternative. Subsidiary to this is the claim that use of the Missals is contrary to the Affirmation of St Louis.

Taking the second claim first, the claim that the 1928 and 1962 Books of Common Prayer (BCP henceforth) have some absolute liturgical priority due to the Affirmation ignores the fact that its historical context was North America, just as new, questionable liturgies were taking hold in ECUSA and the AC-Canada, at the beginning of the Continuing Church. Which is why those 2 books were said to be the exclusive standard at that time: "No other standard ... exists". Since then the Anglican Catholic Church has become international and other BCPs have joined the authorised list of liturgical resources described as the "Standard of Public Worship" (in Article XIV of the Constitution), such as the Indian and South African, "together with" the Missals. The Missals thus form part of that standard. Indeed, Abp Haverland appeals to them to make the point that receptionism is ruled out by our liturgical formularies considered in full (see p.113 of Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice, Second Edition).

On the other aspects of the BCP vs Missal, Sarum vs Tridentine issue, permit me to quote something I have written before, with new material added:

All Anglican Catholics agree that the BCP was never intended to be a full ceremonial instruction manuali, and that therefore resort must be had to wider and/or earlier Catholic custom to “fill in the gaps”. Supporters of the English use have focussed on what was earlier, and specifically English, and so a genuinely “ancestral” Catholic custom for Anglicans. Supporters of the Roman or Western use have focussed on what is wider and more contemporaneous, and so a living Catholic custom as practised in the Roman Catholic Church. The former are less prone to varying from or adding to the BCP rite in the actual prayers, the latter more so.

There are two related aspects of the English vs Roman use choice, ritual (the words) and ceremonial (the actions).

All the talk about Church architecture, decoration and extra-liturgical devotions that is often brought in is a separate issue in reality, as neither the BCP nor the Missals say anything about these. One could and can find parishes using the missal but with reserved practices in the other areas, and parishes that have BCP Mass but also Benediction at times.

So, if one sticks to the main question, one finds that the argument for English usage (BCP and Percy Dearmer) and against Roman usage (the Missals and
Ritual Notes) may be summarised as follows:-

1. Catholics must go by authority in liturgical matters.
2. The BCP and all that its Ornament Rubric implies, as well as its "lack of rejection/overuling of mediaeval ceremonial customs implying permitted/expected retention" are that authority for Anglicans, along with what Bishops command.
3. The Roman Church and its decrees on liturgy are not authoritative for Anglicans.
4. Therefore, the English Rite is obligatory for Anglican Catholics and the Roman rite illicit.

The problem is that we know that insertions of non-BCP ritual material into the post-Reformation English Liturgy were made in the 16th Century from the Roman Missal by Catholic-minded C of E priests, in the 17th Century by Bishops such as Andrewes from personal compositions based on ancient precedents, and in the 18th Century by the Non-Jurors using similar sources. The latter two groups at least are heroes of "PB Catholics", as is early 17th Century Anglican apologist Dean Field, who said the Latin Rite contained nothing in its Missals contrary to sound doctrine. More than 200 years later we had the Evangelical Dean of Canterbury, Henry Wace, saying the same thing. So, the High Churchmen were not as different to the 19th Century Ritualists as has been implied. Even one who largely stuck to the Prayer Book, Bp Overall, did so by re-appending the prayer of oblation and thanksgiving to the Consecration prayer, showing that he was not enamoured of the then-contemporaneous (and authoritative!) English BCP Rite unaltered. And, in fact, it was successfully argued long ago (1685!) in a legal context that additions to the BCP service that did not substitute for it were permissible.

An extraordinary oversight by those opposing as illicit additions to the BCP rite which are not covered by any rubric is consideration of the history of hymnody in the Church of England. At first hymns were inserted into the liturgy by Low Church clergy for what can fairly be called evangelical reasons. This was frowned upon by authority but not stamped out. Indeed, by the beginning of the 19th Century, even the “frowns” were disappearing. Nevertheless, while the use of hymns in Holy Communion increased and became generally accepted during the 19th Century, it was not until 1890 that the Lincoln Judgement officially “allowed the use of hymns provided they did not interrupt the course of the service” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Third Edition, p. 811). And there was still no rubrical permission at all within the BCP liturgy itself for these additions, which are undeniably the addition of extra public prayers. These hymns are the source of the Sarum-based additions defenders of the English Rite inserted, including the Introit, Gradual, Offertory and Communion sentences. Now, if such additions to the authorised public prayers were accepted by all, based on a common-sense understanding of the need for enrichment of the service and a resultant developing custom, how much more must Missal additions of non-public prayers be justifiable? After all, the forbidding of unauthorised prayer seen in, for example, Elizabethan legislation -- “all Ministers shall be bound to ... use ... all ... Common and Open Prayer, in such Order and Form as is mentioned in the said Book ... and None other or otherwise” [emphasis added] – clearly does not apply to personal prayers of the Celebrant not said to be audible to the people, but just as clearly does apply to all those hymns and other public services or rituals additional to the BCP which either Evangelicals or “Prayer Book Catholics” of the English Rite have accepted happily. Therefore, if anything, the Missal approach had less of an “authority problem” than the alternatives, especially given that Low Church Anglicans had often illegally varied from the rite, including by deletion, for a long time before the Ritualists came along. But, in fact, the forbidding abovementioned was never taken absolutely literally or applied consistently by the Church of England, and High Church Anglicans always understood Catholic tradition to have priority.

Therefore, at the very least, Missals which take the BCP rites and add to them from the Latin rite are following Anglican precedents in principle and not breaking any Church laws, especially since most of what is added consists of private prayers of the priest said in the low voice. (In other words, when I say the Mass according to the Anglican Missal 1549 Canon option, I am being a faithful Anglican Catholic.) If there are plausible arguments that the introduction of the BCPs and quashing of the old rites were not done in a completely canonically regular manner, which there are, then even the "BCP must not be contradicted in any way" principle need not be considered sacrosanct. (That means if I wanted to use the Gelasian Canon translated into English in the Missal instead of the 1549 BCP Canon, I need feel no discomfort. However, I prefer the 1549.)

As for the rulings of bishops, which naughty Ritualists are supposed to have ignored to their own condemnation as congregationalists, the following facts should be noted. Many 19th and 20th Century bishops tried to stop anything looking Catholic, even those things mandated by the Ornaments Rubric, and they made no distinction between English and Roman ritualism. Anybody who supported Eucharistic Vestments, Candles, Incense, etc., was the enemy. By the time such unjustified and uncanonical persecution ceased, the bishops who were happy for all these Catholic customs to be re-introduced also made little distinction between the Rites in the main, as I understand it. So the episcopal
jus liturgicum was to begin with largely irrelevant to the choice between Rites because unlawfully anti-BCP, and irrelevant to the choice later because by then many bishops were either permitting the Roman usages (being by then well-established customs) or turning a blind-eye to them.

Therefore, the claim that the BCP rite and its explicit and implicit [i.e., neo-Sarum, Ornaments Rubric-based] ceremonial cannot be touched or enriched without being unAnglican and unCatholic is false. Once tradition, law and reason are taken into account, the authorities mentioned in point 2 above are seen to be important but relative, not absolute.

The question then becomes "but is the Latin Liturgy after Trent in any way appropriate or authoritative as a source for Anglicans?" The answer is "Yes" for three reasons. One, the RCC is our main sister Church in the West, to whom we are in many ways closer liturgically and culturally (at least with respect to their Latin Rite) than to the EOC, so its practices provide a relevant, easily accessible and useful precedent. Even the Old Catholics with whom we were in communion used the Tridentine rite. Two, common-sense reference to such a handy precendent is NOT equivalent to claiming that this option MUST be taken simply because it has Papal backing. So, the fear that using the Tridentine Rite for supplementary or alternative material is the same as uncritically accepting the absolute monarchy of the Pope is an unreasonable one. Three, even the cleverest arguments by pro-English Rite apologists cannot hide the fact that when it came to determining how we should "clothe" the BCP liturgy when that need became more apparent and pressing in the 19th Century there was a lack of binding, explicit and unambiguous instruction within Anglicanism that answered that question in detail. The Ornaments Rubric implies the tools to be used, but not how to use them. And the pre-Reformation English ceremonial said to have implicit authority (at most) had in fact been in desuetude for centuries, and had perhaps never been actually used by anybody with the 1662 rite until then. With such an authority vacuum, once the convenient Roman option had been established, and then become customary and eventually explicitly permitted in places, any later attempt to paint this option as merely rebellious has to be seen as illegitimate. Basically, Anglican Catholics of the 19
th Century had a choice between: painstaking historical reconstruction of old, native ceremonial to be re-inserted as much as appropriate into an (almost) unchanged BCP rite in a way that quite possibly had never been done before, but which could be rationally defended on the basis that the loss of ceremonial had never been necessary or mandated and so remained a valid source; or quick reference to the most closely related living rite of the time, but one which had diverged a bit from the native precursors, in order to use both ceremonial and extra non-public prayers. Either could be defended as according with respect for Catholic custom and common-sense.

Finally, this is largely an argument about nothing. Most Prayer Book Catholics are content to follow their traditions and let Missal users follow theirs without interference, and the feeling is mutual, even within the ACC. The differences in ceremonial are not very great since both "The Parson's Handbook" and "Ritual Notes" allow use of incense, the mixed chalice, Vestments, Frontals, Candles, crossings, etc., etc. The differences in the prayers used are somewhat greater but irrelevant, since the pre-Tridentine English Rites (e.g., Sarum) were not that different to the Tridentine rite, and, as mentioned above, the insertions from these and other sources had been made long before Tractarians or Ritualists existed and such insertions were never condemned by lawful authority but instead sometimes used by respected bishops! More importantly, both English and Western/Roman rites within Anglican Catholicism are almost 100% BCP when it comes to the “Common” prayers anyway, if the Gelasian Canon is not used. In some parts of the liturgy, where Missal usage could be justly criticised for unnecessary duplication of supplications or thanksgivings already covered by BCP material, the Anglican Missal makes explicit the optional nature of the Missal addition for just this reason, e.g., the rubric before
Domine Jesu Christi, Fili Dei vivi. Indeed The People's Anglican Missal, in speaking of the prayers additional to the BCP said by the priest in a low voice, states on page 256: “The worshipper may profitably recite these devotions even if the Celebrant omits them ... no Rubric requires their use”. Therefore, it must be remembered that Missal additions to the BCP rite are intentionally given as optional, not mandatory.

These are just some of the reasons why I have followed both traditions at different times and felt comfortable with both. There is no need to pronounce against those who use a tradition you don't prefer, as both have a defensible place within the greater tradition, and both are used to worship God in reverence and truth and to edify the people of God.

iThe agreement on this point is important and worth noting. The arguments given by English and Roman use supporters are bascially identical. Compare, for example, the Preface to the Directorium Anglicanum (pro-Western use) and the essay “English or Roman Use?” (pro-English use).

22 comments:

charles said...

Fr. Kirby,

The argument for insertion... does this resonate or echo reasons given for other PB revisions, particularly the options of 79?

sincerely,
charles

Fr Matthew Kirby said...

I suppose it does echo to some extent the reasons for PB revisions ever since the 1662, including the American 1928, the Scottish 1929, and the Canadian 1962. The Korean revision (the Eucharistic rite being approved in 1939) is a clear example, given that it is very Missal-like indeed.

But the 1979 American Book was not primarily about bringing the BCP closer to either wider Catholic or older Catholic practice, but making it look like that in some parts and introducing un-Evangelical, un-Catholic innovations in other parts. That is what those in the ACC with best knowledge of the book tell me. Not being American, I have no direct knowledge of the book.

Shaughn said...

I think, because of where we are, we have the advantage of being somewhat comprehensive about Sarum or Tridentine usages.

Prior to Vatican II and the revisions of the prayerbook now in use by the Episcopal Church, I'm given to understand the arguments went something like this: those who favored the Sarum Rite were celebrating something uniquely English in its heritage, they would argue. Those favoring a more Tridentine approach would argue that the Sarum folks were being "quaintly antiquarian," whereas the Tridentines were trying to be more contemporary--trying to be more like what their Roman contemporaries were doing.

Now we're in the peculiar position where a) basically no church body officially does Sarum and b) basically no church body officially does the Tridentine service. They're both, in many circles, considered to be antiquarian.

Now, you have the liturgical revision which Fr. Kirby describes, and which I have seen at work in the '79 "BCP," where various ancient practices are picked and chosen as a thin coat of paint over what is in truth a serious change in Eucharistic and Baptismal theology.

You also have Anglicans who want to do Sarum -- and do it right -- and Anglicans who want to be more Tridentine -- and do it right. I, personally, don't find the arguments for Sarum use very compelling. In the interest of comprehensiveness and general getting-along-ness, however, I'm more than willing to let the Sarum folks do their thing wherever they are if I can do my Tridentine thing wherever I am.

This seems to me a much better proposal than some artificial liturgy with a half dozen "Eucharistic Prayers" devised via committee. To be clear, I'm not at all bitter about the "new prayerbook." (Now 30+ years old!) I just think everyone from Cranmer to CS Lewis and everyone in between would be horrified by the deliberate artifice and differences in theology that it suggests.

-S.

The veriword is pings. Can I get a pong?

Fr Odhran-Mary TFSC said...

We use the missal where I worship, but when it is hot, we use the BCP, as the BCP is quicker. I like both and am reminded of a statement about magic.
In Magic one must get all of the incantations exactly or the spell does not work.
In Christianity our worship can be formal but is just as pleasing to God even if we don't get the words exactly right.
Good thing too!

Alice C. Linsley said...

Thank you for the clarification that the Missals form part of the standard.

In reality, Anglicans are the only people who are free to embrace the fullness of the liturgical richness that has come down from the Fathers. So I urge you to embrace it without hesitancy! (I say this as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.)

Obviously some of the Anglican prayer books embrace the fullness more than others. The 1928 BCP is, in my thinking, the pinnacle of the BCP. The 1549 is consistent with the catholic faith once delivered, but not extensive. The 1555 is strong on baptismal regeneration, but makes too many concessions to the Continental Reformation. The 1662 is influenced by Enlightenment ideas and too Protestant.

Sandra McColl said...

Shaughn, what would you do with one if you got one?

Mine's 'eneurv'. Sounds dangerous.

Brian G. said...

I think there's plenty of room for both approaches, but the Tridentine tradition does contain the danger that one will lose entirely the unique 'reformed catholic' ethos of Anglicanism and become functional Old Catholics with a fondness for Tudor English. But that's far from a given, and I could live with either stream.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

The Missal must be used only as subordinate to the Book of Common Prayer. Unlike the BCP, the Missal cannot be used without a degree of discretion. For example, one Ash Wednesday prayer says that we make atonement. I will never say such words, not even to save my life. We do not make atonement; we repent, and sometimes sinners make satisfaction by restoration, when true repentance calls for it. But, we do not make atonement: Christ did that for us.

The Missal is not above criticism.

ACC-WI said...

the Tridentine tradition does contain the danger that one will lose entirely the unique 'reformed catholic' ethos of Anglicanism and become functional Old CatholicsThat's a double-edged sword. The Dearmer/Sarum tradition also has the temptation of cultural snobbery, as if being Anglican meant being English. As an American Anglican who doesn't have a drop of English blood running through his veins (I'm ethnically German and Croatian and grew up in a community that was very in touch with its German heritage), Dearmer can at times seem to me like he is trying to lock Anglicanism into an exclusively English mold. While that doesn't mean we should ignore our English theological patrimony, I tend to see Dearmer as more relevant in England than in a melting pot such as America. I guess that's why I'm drawn to the Missals - there is an element of universality to them, rather than the thoroughly local character of the Sarum rite.

Perhaps that's also a reason why the Midwest (where I live) became the 'biretta belt'; there has never been a strong English cultural presence here and therefore Anglicanism in places like Wisconsin was much less likely to become an English culture club. That's not to say 'missal catholics' are immune from excesses, but when you live in a place where most have a continental heritage, it's not necessarily a bad thing if there is a more continental flavour to your Anglicanism.

In the end, however, I agree with Brian: both streams are orthodox and I could live with either.

Anonymous said...

Interesting comments from various perspectives. What is important to me as Anglican is the BCP. If we don't stress that and don't see a certain beautiful, reformed catholic simplicity there, then I think we loose any reason for existing as a separate tradition. If the missal is the ultimate standard, then why not be Old Catholic? If the BCP is not basically catholic enough, then why not go to Roman, an Eastern Orthodox or an Old Catholic group? I'm not saying that a good Anglican can't borrow some introits, prayers, etc. from other sources, ancient and modern. However, our beating heart in the Prayerbook tradition.

poetreader said...

I can basically agree with anonymous, which may sound strange from one who prefers that the Mass be as close as pastorally possible to the Missal observation. You see, it is not Missale Romanum that I'd advocate, but either the Anglican or the American Missal, both of which start from the BCP and enrich its rite appropriately. I do not think that in so doing we are supplying anything at all of Catholic teaching or practice that is not there already, but rather that we are bringing out and illustrating what the BCP actually contains.

ed

Alice C. Linsley said...

Anonymous, that depends on how you define "catholicity". The 1928 and earlier versions of the BCP are "catholic". Are you confusing catholic with Roman?

Fr. Hart has explained that for Anglicans, "The Missal must be used only as subordinate to the Book of Common Prayer. Unlike the BCP, the Missal cannot be used without a degree of discretion." I agree with this. I'd add that, even the BCP, as solid as it is, should be used with a degree of discretion. To the degree that prayer books, missals and priest manuals rely on humans to prepare them, they all require discernment. That is why the Church has been given the Promised Holy Spirit. The Spirit, the Blood and the Water, these 3 bear witness to the unchanging Truth.

C. Wingate said...

I have puzzled over the years over criticisms leveled against the 1979 BCP, in no small part because it seemed to be to be standing for objectionable trends rather than being read for its own words. In longer retrospect it seems to present Catholicizing trends in some directions and liberalizing trends in others, and it bears the marks of having been composed over a period of time in which matters were in great flux; different texts seem to me to represent the thinking of different times and places. I don't think it's insignificant that Hatchett doesn't discuss the ordinal at all. Perhaps its strongest legacy is not theological, but structural: everything I have seen that looks to it as a starting point takes as given its ordering of the liturgy.

Anonymous said...

I've often thought that the continuing Churches (at least in the UK) 'talk' a lot about the BCP and but rarely use it. You always see it mentioned on websites but of the three continuing Churches I've been to in the UK none of them use the 1662 or 1928 (UK) BCP for Mass - it's all been English Missal. One Priest told me that he'd reluctantly printed the Prayer of Humble Access for devotional use in the Mass booklets but refused to say it himself. Personally, I find this disappointing. Whatever the short-comings of the 1662 Order for Communion may be, I believe it is still regarded as having 'all things necessary'. I notice that the 1928 Deposited book has just been re-printed!

Knowing the American BCP, I can't think why you'd want to use anything else.

Fr Edward

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Anyone who fails to appreciate the Prayer of Humble Access simply does not understand the sacrament itself. This kind of self-loathing "Anglican" ought to go elsewhere.

Canon Tallis said...

The arguments which Father Kirby made are not his, but those of the supporters of all things more Romano since the beginning of the Society of Saints Peter and Paul in 1910. The difference is that he makes them in a spirit of charity which has never been seen before. But then he is our Father Kirby and anything else would be a real surprise. Indeed, unthinkable.

But what to my mind they do betray is a lack of knowledge of the exact history of the revival. The ordinary "Catholic minded" cleric probably believed that what he saw abroad was what was to be found in England after all the uses except Sarum had been suppressed and the introduction of the first prayer book. The scholars knew better.

We think of Rome as maintaining up until Paul VI an ancient and unbroken usage. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Roman ceremonial and church dressing was changing drastically during the 16th century. It was rejecting ancient custom for that invented by Alexander VI's Master of Ceremonies, with the result that the appearance of a celebration of the mass in late 15th century Rome and one a century later would be quite different, drastically different. In the meantime, the ancient uses of the rest of Europe would have and did have a ceremonial more in common with that of a moderate low churchman than most of us would recognize. A reading of V. Staley's Studies in Ceremonial would be entirely to the point.

And Dearmer is not the real authority for English usage, but the committee of the Alcuin Club which at its height contained every major English liturgical scholar, but especially bishops Frere and Gore. You know, those who are still quoted in scholarly Roman studies of the liturgies of the Western Church. No English cultural snobbishness there.

What I am arguing for is a rejection of the Roman innovations of the 16th century and a return to what was done in ceremonial in most of Europe from the earliest period until then. I do not regard the Roman Church as a sister unless one thinks of it in terms of Cain and Abel.

poetreader said...

Canon Tallis,
I found your comment to be a very interesting and thoughtful one, but one I find myself impelled to answer in detail. I'll be quoting much of your words below in italics.

"The arguments which Father Kirby made are not his, but those of the supporters of all things more Romano since the beginning of the Society of Saints Peter and Paul in 1910. The difference is that he makes them in a spirit of charity which has never been seen before. But then he is our Father Kirby and anything else would be a real surprise. Indeed, unthinkable."To some extent you are correct in the source of the thoughts, but to say that they've never been presented in a spirit of charity before now betrays the attitude of a controversialist more than of either pastor or scholar. Yes, some of the advocates of Roman usage may indeed have spoken over-strongly, as have advocates of the Sarum or English Use. (I hope I'm not too disrespectful in stating that I find most of what you write on such matters to be like that.), but others, including, I hope myself, have long presented these ideas in a far more moderate way. The huge majority of Romanizing AngloCatholics I've known have been both interested in and appreciative of the "Sarum" practices, though preferring to do otherwise. Sure there are unplerasant people, on both sides, but to say that it's never been presented in charity is enough of an exaggeration to be reprehensible.

"But what to my mind they do betray is a lack of knowledge of the exact history of the revival. The ordinary "Catholic minded" cleric probably believed that what he saw abroad was what was to be found in England after all the uses except Sarum had been suppressed and the introduction of the first prayer book. The scholars knew better."I've read a lot of travelogues by AngloCatholic clergy from the period touring the Continent. Many of them were sharp observers of the difference of local practice even then, and compared it to what they knew of Medieval English use. Their preference for the continental usage stemmed not from ignorance of history, but rather from their concept that the history had been in abeyance for so long that contemporary practices would serve better.

"We think of Rome as maintaining up until Paul VI an ancient and unbroken usage. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Roman ceremonial and church dressing was changing drastically during the 16th century. It was rejecting ancient custom for that invented by Alexander VI's Master of Ceremonies, with the result that the appearance of a celebration of the mass in late 15th century Rome and one a century later would be quite different, drastically different. In the meantime, the ancient uses of the rest of Europe would have and did have a ceremonial more in common with that of a moderate low churchman than most of us would recognize. A reading of V. Staley's Studies in Ceremonial would be entirely to the point."Who is this "we"? I've never thought that way. Only the most uneducated RCs would think of liturgy as static in that sense.

(continued next post)

poetreader said...

"What I am arguing for is a rejection of the Roman innovations of the 16th century and a return to what was done in ceremonial in most of Europe from the earliest period until then.Innovations can't be much of a problem if you are using such quite mof\dern things as hymns. You are making a very plausible choice here. I attended, some years ago, a parish that did a splendid job of the "English Use", found it beautiful and devotional, and certainly have no objection to what they did, but it also felt a bit archaic and stagy to me, and wouldn't really serve me as my major experience. There is plenty of room for more than one way of celebrating the Divine Mysteries. This was so in the Middle Ages, and is so today.

" I do not regard the Roman Church as a sister unless one thinks of it in terms of Cain and Abel."

And this zinger is perhaps the key to all the rest of the problems I have with your presentation. Sure, there are differences, some of them significant, but you've just consigned the Roman Church, constituting the largest chunk of Christianity, (as neither Hooker nor the other divines did) to an unchurched Limbo. This I believe to be a thoroughly unAnglican position to take.

Father, I could gladly worship in your church. I find it tragic that you apparently could npot do so in mine.

ed pacht

Alice C. Linsley said...

Though Cain didn't repent as far as we know, he still received a measure of mercy. He was granted his life, though his just punishment was death, and his offspring are counted in the line of Messiah.

Perhaps we are too quick to cast aside those to whom God shows mercy?

Anonymous said...

Canon Tallis is misinformed about the Roman Rite and about Roman traditionalists' assumption that it has been the same since the Gregorian Missal. RC Traditionalists have read their history and they understand the many changes the Roman Rite went through from the beginning to 1962. The typical RC Traditionalist is well-nigh obsessed with learning more about the Tridentine Rite so as to preserve and defend it.

To suggest that Roman Traditionalists are unaware of their own liturgical history and development is nothing short of a Straw Man.

1962 remains frozen for them only because they need to keep the Rite immobilized until the nonsense of the modern rite goes away. The modern rite was, in Anabale Bugnini and the Concilium's estimation a reform of the rite to eliminate medieval and renaissance accretions. Familiar sounding phrase, innit?

Death Bredon said...

In addition to St. Vincent's Canon, which relates to doctrine, and equally venerable maxim applies to worhips: "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi." And this truism refutes the jesuitical apology for the Tridentine Mass in Anglicanism.

Indeed, once a parish begins using the Roman Counter-Reformation as its pattern for worship, it necessarily enters into that movement, just as a parish that began to introduce snake-handling and speaking in tongues into its regular Sunday program would likewise be entering into non-Anglican territory, regardless of all protestations to the contrary. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....

Thus, when a priest resorts to the "Anglican" Missals and Ritual Notes to "fill the gaps" in the Book of Common Prayer because the Roman liturgical tradition is "related" to, and somewhat "similar" to the Anglican liturgical tradition, we must make three observations. First, he is ignoring the Ornaments Rubric, one of the constitutional pillars of the English Religious Settled, which indicates that all liturgical supplementation to the BCP is to come from within the vast treasury of English patrimony -- not from Rome or Geneva. And in so doing, he is acting in violation of Article XXIV and as noncathohically as any meeting house Puritan. Second, what he is disingenuously saying is that the Anglican Missals and Ritual Notes are somehow more convenient to access and use than say the Parson's Handbook or numerous and readily available manuals setting out authentic post-Reformation liturgical norms. This sort of intellectual dishonesty should in itself be enough to give away his game. Third, if not acting out of profound and inexcusable ignorance, he is intentionally trying to sneak the Counter-Reformation into his parish through the back door and thereby undo the entire platform of the English Religious Settlement by the most devious of means.

But -- I myself have said enough: C.B. Moss and E.P.G. Wyatt have excellent articles on this matter readily available at Project Canterbury. I might also recommend Vernon Staley and Percy Dearmer's writings on matters liturgical. For a more thorough investigation of these matterrs, Peter Knockles, "The Oxford Movement in Context" is crucial reading, as is John Shelton Reed's, "The Glorious Battle." For a more classical work that reveals how little Romanist Anglo-Catholics have to do with Anglicanism, try Addleshaw's, "The High Church tradition.

For serious students of Anglican history, who are not fooled by the Advanced Ritualist's claims to be the successors of the Oxford or Tractarian Movement (false), the Old High Churchmen (false), and the Caroline Divines (false), we see that contemporary Missal "Anglo-Catholicism" is neither -- neither Anglican nor Catholic.

Benton H Marder said...

I know that this is a late posting. As I've written elsewhere, dinosaurs learn very slowly.
Here in the USA, the introduction of the earlier form of the American Missal in the 1930s was roundly condemned by the 'Catholic-minded' bishops in no uncertain terms as being divisive rather than uniting. The EC canons have always deemed the use of any other than the BCP itself for public worship to be grossly illegal. The only use of the breviaries and missals allowable was in religious communities---monasteries and convents.

Now, a careful examination of the BCP rite and the missals show that the missals were poorly compiled and edited. The deviations, dislocations, relocations involved were not well considered. The later versions of the missals compounded this poor compilation and editing.
If all this was not enough, the actual use of the missals borders upon unintelligent. The users simply do not grasp the context. Ape-ism is all, no matter how witless.
Let us consider the proper chants. The Introit, Gradual, etc are meant to be sung by choir and congregation, not read into the wall.
The constant use of the missal gradually causes the priest to completely ignore the provisions for the Decalogue and the Exhortations. I was present at a priest's bungled attempt to rehearse the Decalogue. He, a Nashotah man, simply did not have a clue about how to do this. He read them into the wall and followed with Kyries and Gloria.
Now, the early version of the American Missal followed the BCP order much more closely, and included much more BCP materiel. The later edition went whole hog Tridentine as did the Anglican Missal.
The ceremonial directions of the missals and Ritual notes for the Consecration betray an utter incomprehension of the '28 Canon---amounting to latreia to the un-consecrated elements. Why? Pure ape-ism.
Please, dear brethren, do learn something about the BCP. It is not the RC Mass. The closest thing to the Latin Mass was the 1549 rite. Since then, it has not been the Mass.

Now, some writers make much of the English Use. What Dearmer and the others never grasped is that the 1662 rite does not lend itself to Sarum style medievalism. It is sui generis. It's arch-type goes all the way back to the Upper Room. The English Use does fit the PBCP of 1928, our BCP, the Scottish BCP, etc. Some other rites almost require an Eastern style---the Bombay Liturgy for one.
This has been a long posting. The gist is that we all need to understand what it is that we are using and doing with it.

I'll be baaaack!

In +,

Benton