(Some of) The Newer Rite is Here

Yesterday, it was announced on the Ordinariate's website that on the 22 June, the Feast of St John Fisher and St Thomas More (to which we referred here), the Vatican had approved an Order for the Celebration of Holy Matrimony and an Order for Funerals for use in the various Ordinariates established under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

For more information on the new texts, you can watch these interviews given by Monsignor Andrew Burnham to Fr James Bradley at the Church of the Holy Rood in Oxford. 


Order for Marriage from UKOrdinariate on Vimeo.


Order for Funerals from UKOrdinariate on Vimeo.

The texts most definitely constitute a vernacular rite of great beauty.  Those who labour in the error that Anglican Patrimony is a fiction will see their misunderstanding corrected (some of you might have read this post, in which we took these liturgy-obsessed critics to task).  Now we are all able to see more and more of the liturgical contribution that Anglican Patrimony can bring, as part of a wider set of gifts that our Anglican heritage carries into the rich context of the Catholic Church.

This is concrete proof that the Ordinariate, fully part of the Catholic Church, fully in communion with the Successor of St Peter, helps to bring about in most clear way possible the advancement of the Catholic Faith in the very best of the Anglican tradition.

The language of both rites is very familiar, drawn largely from the Book of Common Prayer, and from the Church of England's "Series 1", which can perhaps be described as traditional language with some helpful amendments and with some catholicisation of the original texts, filling in the gaps (eg prayers for the dead) left by the Reformation and mainstream protestant theology.

The texts are definitely not protestant texts simply cut and pasted into a Catholic setting.  They have been thoroughly reviewed, and where necessary corrected and upgraded, in order to ensure total consistency with Catholic teaching.  This is not the wholesale, unthinking introduction of the Book of Common Prayer or of Anglican liturgy in general, but rather, these new texts are perfectly in line with the words of the Anglicanorum Coetibus itself :

III      Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

We have these texts for marriage and burial now, we already have some other texts (notably the rite used for Evensong and Benediction as at St James's back in January for the Ordinariate's anniversary), and very soon we shall have the Customary.  The "Ordinariate Mass" might take a little longer, but once it is ready, we can be assured that it will be totally and unquestionably consistent with Catholic teaching on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and that it will be presented in a vernacular text and in a manner worthy of the finest Anglican traditions.

You can find these new texts, along with some explanation of the context, on the website of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, the Ordinariate formed for Anglicans joining the Catholic Church in the USA and Canada.  The texts will be used there, in the UK (the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham), and in Australia (the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross).  As and when other Ordinariates spring up (eg in South Africa), we can expect that they will be able to use the same texts.

As recent former Anglicans, we can probably be forgiven for wondering whether any of those in the Church of England will find themselves tempted to use these texts, the Customary or even the form of the Ordinariate Mass when it is available.  No doubt their diocesan bishops would not be keen on the idea, as Dr Chartres of London has already made clear.  However, in that same blogpost, More than Words, we noted, in a quotation from the St Peter's London Docks blog, a phenomenon that means that we cannot exclude the possibility that Anglican clergy will seek to use these rather good new Catholic texts.:

There seems much jumping of the gun in the use of the new Missal, in the pre-fab form which is authorised from this Sunday. One cleric told me that the Ordinariate were already allowed to use it and he thought of himself as the Church of England wing of the Ordinariate and thus permitted. It's hard to think what to say to that.

Who can say what will happen.  Although some Anglican parishes have abandoned the Roman Rite altogether since the new translation was introduced late last year, replacing it with more clearly Anglican liturgy, others have ignored Dr Chartres's views, and have pressed ahead with the new translation of the Roman Rite regardless (for the simple reason that they like it better than the 1970 version).  Moreover, as noted in our post Denial Ain't Just a River in Egypt, one can only imagine what Dr Chartres thinks of the use of pre-1955 Holy Week rites in his diocese, forms of liturgy authorised nowhere in a translation never officially recognised anywhere.

We give thanks for the promulgation of the texts of these new rites, and rejoice that they add to the Anglican Patrimony that we have been able to bring with us into the Catholic Church.  These new texts are indeed, in the words of Anglicanorum Coetibus, a treasure to be shared. 

Dressed to Deceive

In the past couple of weeks, there has been some heated internet discussion on the subject of Anglican clergy who, either by actively misleading people or by letting incorrect assumptions remain uncorrected, preside over situations where Catholics receive communion in their churches.

First of all, I must say that this is something that I do not think I have ever come across personally. I have certainly heard of a Vicar X or or a Rector Y who regularly has one-time visiting Catholics who do not realise that his church is not part of the Catholic Church, but deliberate deception of visiting Catholics is not something I have ever witnessed myself, at least as far as I am aware.

Catholic commentators, such as Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith, have expressed forcefully and clearly that this kind of active deception should stop.   This is not really a discussion about the use of the new translation of the Roman Rite in the Church of England and the Diocese of London in particular (such as discussed in our most popular ever blogpost), but there is a link, since an Anglican clergyman has cited the familiarity of the Roman Rite to visiting Catholics as an argument in favour of using the Roman Rite in the Church of England. (as mentioned in our blogpost The End of the Year).  Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith views this as potentially deceitful, and taking the specific case of the Anglican Diocese of London, he rightly points out that neither the Catholic Bishop of the diocese covering the area (ie the Archbishop of Westminster) nor the Anglican Bishop of London (Dr Richard Chartres) have given their permission for the Roman Rite to be used in Anglican parishes.

The main counterargument (or defence against the charges of deception) that I have spotted on the internet appears to be along the lines of "Oh yes, I have several Catholics who come to my church, and they prefer it here because the Romans are so unfriendly to them and we are much more understanding about X or Y or Z".  One can agree or disagree with what those Catholics are doing, but ultimately they are making an informed choice on the basis of their reaction to their particular situation.  In these cases, no-one is deceiving anyone else (although some might wish to say that the Catholics receiving communion in an Anglican church might be deceiving themselves).  This is a matter of personal choice and religious freedom, and as such is most definitely not the target of Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith's article.  It is, therefore, no answer to his point.

Equally, we all know that London has a very large population of Continenental Europeans, who if croyant and pratiquant, each attach more or less importance to whether they attend a Catholic church on a Sunday morning or whether they go to one of the very dignified Anglican establishments, with their fine choirs, fine buildings and, depending on the venue and the Anglican churchmanship, fine vestments and ceremonial.  This will as often as not be a French phenomenon, although there are plenty of other nations represented too (there seems to be some kind of very effective preparation given in Poland to Poles departing for the UK that greatly minimises this among the Polish population).  State Mattins at St Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey or even the Royal Hospital in Chelsea can appeal strongly to some people: there is no denying that, even if it is not the Mass.  Moreover, it would be utterly hypocritical of those of us in the Marylebone Ordinariate Group if we were to pretend that the eucharistic liturgies (whether or not approved of by Dr Chartres) in some of London's Anglo-Catholic shrines did not have some considerable outward appeal.  We do not think that Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith had these people in mind either : these are people, in possession of the facts, making a choice, with which we are free to agree or disagree, that they will not attend a Catholic church but instead they will "go local" and enjoy what is on offer in London in the Church of England.  It is their call.

Neither are we talking about a casual visitor to a Church of England parish who doesn't spot the difference, who doesn't understand the subtleties of, how shall I put it, our country's rich ecclesial history, and who, for that one-time visit only, unthinkingly receives communion.  These things happen.  Short of introducing Paisleyite notices at the start of services proclaiming that the Bishop of Rome hath no dominion in this land, or even something along the lines of, as the old but rather unkind and mean-spirited joke about the more florid and extravagant forms of Anglo-Catholic ceremonial goes, "No Popery here, only Pot Pourri", there is no way it can be avoided.
 
No, this is about what must be a small and probably dwindling minority of Anglican clergy who will answer the polite question of e.g. a visiting Spaniard "Is this a Catholic church?" with a simple "Yes."  The person giving the response may very well wholeheartedly believe, hand on heart, that they are indeed part of the one universal Church, but equally they know very well that the individual putting the question to them means something very specific when they use the phrase "Is this a Catholic church?".  The visiting Spaniard is asking whether the church is in communion with Rome, and emphatically not whether the Vicar still manages to convince himself of the continuing claims of the Anglo-Catholic movement to be a partly separate branch of the Church.

Anglican clergy who respond to questions of that nature in that way are acting in a very plainly deceitful manner.  This has absolutely nothing to do with disputes over validity or recognition of orders, nothing at all : it is very simply a case of people quite deliberately giving misleading answers to visitors.  It is plain dishonesty.  There are one or two rather well-known Bible stories about the importance of being hospitable (and one might suggest that this includes honesty) to visitors, as the clergy in question almost certainly know.

Such clergy might defend themselves by saying that not only do they genuinely consider that they are part of the Catholic Church, even if based in a slightly separated branch, but that since they have no problem with offering eucharistic hospitality to visiting Catholics, why should they care about what the visiting Spaniard's priests or bishop might say?  If the Vicar says "I have no problem with you receiving communion, but I must advise you that your Catholic bishop would not be happy", then the information and the choice are with the individual concerned: but if he doesn't, he knows perfectly well that he is deliberately deceiving his visitor. 

Another attempt to justify not telling visitors the truth would seem to be the rather proud view that what the visitor witnesses is so much nicer in terms of music and ceremonial than what they would find at home in France or Spain that the visitor should immediately be able to tell the difference.  This strikes me as extremely unkind.  In any such circumstances, what the visitor is being told "I'm going to let you think that this is a Catholic church, and if you don't notice that it isn't, then that's just your tough luck."

We have to hope that this is an increasingly rare phenomenon.  We have to hope that Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith's article touched on something that is a folk memory of the heartier days of Anglo-Catholicism, and that it does not represent the likely experience of a Catholic visiting a Church of England church today.  My own view, flawed and imperfect as my opinions may be, suggests that this is indeed the case : let us pray that this is so.

Dishonesty is just dishonesty.  It has nothing to do with ecumenism, branch theories, ordinariates, votes of General Synod, Apostolicae Curae, Saepius Officio, translations of the Roman Rite or anything else.  It is most certainly conduct unbecoming of the office and work of a clerk in holy orders.

The End of the Year

Darkness has fallen over late November London, and the first Vigil Masses anticipating the beginning of a new liturgical year have been said.  Gold and green have given way to purple, and the last days of thanksgiving and great rejoicing have made way for a period of preparation. 

In our post last week entitled Christ the King, we reflected briefly on the sadness we feel at entering a new liturgical year without those beside whom we knelt at the communion rail for many years at St Mary's Bourne St.  That is not to say that we regret our decision to become Catholics: we most certainly do not, and we remain very grateful for the Holy Father's initiative of Anglicanorum Coetibus, but as with any Parting of Friends, unavoidably, there is a bittersweet edge to it. 

The post that has become by far the most read on our little blog is More than Words, which considers the implications for those who remain in the Church of England and who attempt to continue as faithful Anglo-Catholics, following the Anglican Bishop of London's latest pronouncements on the entitlement of Anglican clergy to use the new translation of the Roman Missal.  This sort of announcement, while it makes us more and more aware of the challenges faced by those of our brothers and sisters who have stayed behind, also makes us even more certain of the wisdom of our decision. 

An article in this week's Church Times (the main newspaper reporting on Church of England matters) reported Dr Chartres's comments, and mentioned how his edicts are to be interpreted at a parish that was historically a stronghold of Anglo-Catholicism.  The Vicar in that parish has announced that the Church of England's own liturgy, Common Worship, will be introduced from tomorrow, ending a 40-year tradition of using the Roman Rite, with all that that useage implied. 

For those in the Church of England who have no interest in the Ordinariate, then the Bishop of London's announcement and the issuing of the new translation of the Roman Rite, offer an opportunity to reflect, and to restate a more unambiguously Anglican position.  Perhaps that is what the good people of Holy Redeemer Clerkenwell have decided, and if so then it is of course their right to follow that path, and even if we might have wished that things were different, we must all wish each other all the best as we continue on our different paths.   For parishes in this position, wishing to move on and perhaps distance themselves from a more overtly pro-Catholic past, the latest developments might be welcome. 

However, there are still those in the Church of England who are in some turmoil over this. They may not feel ready to move to the Ordinariate or to elsewhere in the Catholic Church, but equally they have no wish to distance themselves even further from the Church founded on the Rock that is St Peter and his successors.  Our post More than Words concluded that the Bishop of London's logic seemed correct, but of course we would have found it a very unwelcome announcement during our own days as Anglicans.  As such, we understand very well how those in favour of using the Roman Rite in the Church of England must be feeling at the moment.

The easy, and in some ways over-simplistic, answer we could shout from the rooftops is of course to do as we have done.  Here in the Catholic Church, using a rite that expresses unity with the Pope and the Catholic Church is not something that has to be done secretly in corners, away from the disapproval of diocesan officials.  No, it is quite simply what happens every week and every day, without exception.

That over-simplistic answer understates many difficulties of course, and as former Anglicans we understand just how challenging it can be to make a decision to move.  We do not intend to be glib or smug about this, and we most certainly do not intend to be gleeful or triumphant : few are sadder than we are that the hopes of ecclesial unity that once seemed so real, even so very recently, are drifting further and further into the realms of fantasy.  Our blogpost on the first Feast of Blessed John Paul II compared the joyful hopes of unity that existed at the time of that great man's visit to the UK in 1982 with the situation today.  We too shared the dreams of Anglo-Catholicism that a form of corporate reunion would one day take place. 

Well, like the darkness falling over November London, we fear that the Bishop of London's letter is another step along the way towards the end of that dream.  As an Anglican bishop, he has every right to demand a more Anglican vision for, and practice in, his diocese, especially now that ever more accessible alternatives exist for those who wish to share, and to express, communion with the Successor of Peter.  Who can doubt that another step will come with next year's General Synod of the Church of England: the overwhelming support of Diocesan Synods across England (except that of London and that of one other diocese) for certain legislation that is unlikely to advance the cause of Catholic Unity must surely give some foretaste of what is ahead. 

The Church of England is, after many years of attempting to be many different things to many different people, moving towards a more confident and clear definition of itself.  That may not be the definition that we would have chosen for it, but it is the definition towards which its democratically elected system of governance is moving.  One may disagree with the idea that religious truth is something that depends on the assent of a majority, and one may say that something is either true or it isn't, regardless of whether people like it or not : but, as a matter of fact, the Church of England operates in that way, and has decided upon a certain path, and it has the right to follow that path.  The Church of England does not need our approval for any decision it makes.

So is it unkind, or is it actually rather merciful, for the Bishop of London to have written his letter in this way at this time?  Is he kicking people when they're down, or is he doing everyone a favour and asking them to make a decision about the future they truly want? 

Enough.  Let us not intrude further.

As we now enter Advent, a period of preparation, a period of readying ourselves for the marking of Christ's coming and of contemplation of his second coming, and a period when we focus on the Four Last Things and what might be our own futures, it is time now for a little Anglican Patrimony (in fact, almost Methodist....). 

One of the most powerful Advent hymns, as indeed already posted by our friends at the Facebook page of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is Lo, He Comes with Clouds Descending.  In the link in the previous sentence, you will find this majestic hymn in all its glory, with organ, timpani, trumpets and descant.

O, Come Quickly.  Alleluia, come Lord, come.

More Than Words

The new translation of the Mass is hitting the headlines.  As from next Sunday, it becomes compulsory for Catholic parishes in England and Wales to use this new, and in our view much-improved, translation.  The new translation was used for our Reception Mass on September 3rd, and seems to hit the right note between faithfulness to the Latin original, appropriate register and comprehensibility.  There might be one or two things that each of us might have altered, but overall this is a huge improvement. 

Yet the headlines are not about next Sunday's introduction.  Many if not most Catholic parishes have been using the new translation at least occasionally since September, and before long the previous translation will become firmly part of the past.  No, the headlines are about the Anglican Bishop of London and his approach to the use of the new translation in his diocese.

As former Anglo-Catholics who were based in the Diocese of London, it was often slightly difficult to know what to make of Richard Chartres, the Anglican Bishop of London.  On the one hand, he was more happy than one would have thought to go along with what some would see (although I certainly never did) as the "excesses" of Bourne St liturgy and ceremonial : in the first photo below, you see him giving his blessing in a Martin Travers chasuble and wearing a maniple; in the second the "Nero-esque" (not my name for it) Bourne St episcopal throne canopy, under which he has sat; indeed he even failed to flinch when a gremiale was thrust over his knees during a confirmation.  So for these smaller things, he would play ball.

For the bigger picture, it was often rather hard to tell to what extent there was sympathy with an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint.  One read some rather direct criticism of him and his alleged lack of tolerance for Catholicism (and indeed Anglo-Catholicism) on certain blogs and in certain newspapers.  One heard much gossip from what the Bishop of London was said to have called the "Anglo-Catholic Travelling Circus" about various things he might have said or done.  His views at the start of appointment processes as to who might be suitable candidates for the incumbency were often reported to be felt by those in the know to be, let us say, sometimes rather interesting.  All this, though, was nothing particularly unusual in the context of the history of relationships between Anglo-Catholic parishes and their diocesan bishops: in fact, it was really rather mild.  One might even say that the relationship was collaborative. 

Broadly, he let life at Bourne St continue pretty much untouched.  In no way did he give the appearance of following the example of his c19th century predecessor Charles Blomfield, pictured below, who insisted upon the departure of the then incumbent of St Barnabas Pimlico (the neighbouring parish to St Mary's Bourne St) following Protestant riots against ritualist practices in St Barnabas.  Nor did he in any way remind anyone of Blomfield's successor (second picture below) as Bishop of London, Archibald Campbell Tait, who went on to become Archbishop of Canterbury, and who once in that role was one of driving forces behind the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which led to the imprisonment of some of those in the Church of England who used what were seen as "Romish" or "Popish" practices.

Therefore, it is hard to know if he realised quite how much fuss his All Saints' Day Ad Clerum letter would cause.  In our time as Anglicans, he didn't make such public pronouncements on this sort of thing.  There was the odd comment here and there, made as an aside to a group, in a speech to Diocesan Synod or in a reported conversation, but in general these were not of massive significance.  This Ad Clerum letter is different.

Whether one agrees with its thesis or not, the letter does rather seem to be rather good for what it intends to be: it is a very clear statement of where Richard Chartres sees the Anglican Diocese of London being, and of where he sees it as going.  Ignoring some very good things he says that few could object to (in general terms) about the eucharist, the bishop and the local church, and also some remarks he makes on the importance of the sacraments; and ignoring some rather exciting glossing over of things (eg disagreement with Catholic teaching, eg transubstantiation being dismissed as a sort of temporarily useful attempt at explaining something), it strikes us that the letter is saying precisely the sort of thing that an Anglican bishop is perfectly entitled to be saying.  That the Anglican Bishop of London, in 2011, doesn't agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church shouldn't really shock anyone.  Nobody ever thought that Richard Chartres was an Anglo-Catholic in the way that his predecessor Monsignor Graham Leonard was, and to be fair, he has never marketed himself as such.
 

What is the specific issue at stake?  The little challenge that Richard Chartres has thrown out is that he has made it very plain that the new translation of the Mass should not be used in the Diocese of London.  Anglo-Catholics already knew that the mere existence of this new translation provided them with a real challenge.  Neither ignoring the new translation, nor adopting it, would prove easy.  Those who used the 1970 translation, having prided themselves on being in line with Rome, would find themselves using a liturgy authorised for use neither in the Church of England nor in the Catholic Church.  Those who wished to take up the new translation would have to be inventive in their justification for doing so.

The always interesting Fr Trevor Jones, Vicar of St Peter's London Docks (where the famous Fr Charles Lowder was once Vicar (having earlier been a curate at St Barnabas, Pimlico)), summed it up like this in a paragraph from his much-to-be recommended Peterite blog

My local SSC chapter both used and talked about the changes a few weeks ago, I know younger priests who plan to make the move in September and November but there has been little wider discussion ( of which I am aware). I am aware of priests who have chosen each of the three options, 1: Change to the new translation at once, 2: change to an amended CW in order to retain the old agreed texts. 3: Stick with the present ( and unauthorized from any source) translation. The first has the virtue of clarity, Western Rite (as we once called it) is Western Rite and thus an Anglo-Catholic default, the second has the virtue of indicating a loyalty to norms that derive from historic Anglican forms and re-engages a previous Anglo-Catholic default position ("use what you can from official Anglican sources, add what is missing"), the third position is one within which I can see no virtue, but I am sure that at some forthcoming meeting someone will offer a plausible argument to me; Anglo-Catholicism, the home of the plausible argument!  POSTED AUGUST 7th 2011

There seems much jumping of the gun in the use of the new Missal, in the pre-fab form which is authorised from this Sunday. One cleric told me that the Ordinariate were already allowed to use it and he thought of himself as the Church of England wing of the Ordinariate and thus permitted. It's hard to think what to say to that.  POSTED AUGUST 31st 2011

The difficulty is not so much that the Bishop of London is strongly critical of any of his clergy adopting the new translation.  Rather, it is his argument for taking this approach.  In short, he says that Anglicanorum Coetibus has called bluffs : those who wanted to use texts issued by Rome that express communion with the Pope have headed off to the Ordinariate, those who remain should not be following instructions issued by the Pope to those in that other communion.  His conclusion is that if people in the Diocese of London use the new translation, they are rejecting the instructions of both the Catholic Church and those of the Diocese of London.

Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith has written a very good post on this topic in his blog for The Catholic Herald. 

Fr Ed Tomlinson, in his typically forthright style, picks up on the fact that Anglicans using the Roman Rite used to argue for this approach on the basis of promoting moves towards unity, but wonders how those who are not attracted by the Ordinariate (or by otherwise joining the Catholic Church) can still say that their reason for choosing the Roman Rite would be connected with the promotion of unity with the Catholic Church.  His question is :

... how can any sane person turn to Rome for spiritual authority having just chosen to stand with Canterbury on matters of ecclesiological authority?

He might not have put it quite as bluntly as Fr Ed did (even if his message was pretty direct), but the Bishop of London's underlying point is exactly the same as Fr Ed's.

Finally, Fr Ray Blake in his blog says that the Bishop of London's words might be a little harsh on those affected in the CofE, and cites an amusing anecdote about the late, great Archbishop Amigo of Southwark.

We have to say that we struggle to disagree with the Bishop of London on this.  Now, of course you could very reasonably respond "You would say that, wouldn't you."  Given the decisions we have made and the path we have taken, it would be utterly bizarre if we didn't: but that, of itself, doesn't make the conclusion incorrect.

To calm everyone down after that, to mark today being the Feast of the Presentation of the Virgin, here is a very fine piece of Josquin, thanks due to Eoghain Murphy for his advocacy of this excellent setting (just wait for 1.52).



Our Lady, pray for us and for the Unity of Christians.