From this weekend's Tablet (if you have been lucky enough to receive it - this is from the website copy):
However, a major item that remains unclear is what exactly constitutes the “distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony” and how much of it these newly “reunited” communities will be allowed to maintain. Will it go beyond hymnody, the King James Bible and distinctive dress?
Hymnody - now there's an interesting question. Distinctive dress - including birettas? In common with the Extraordinary Form?
At the press conference in Rome announcing the new Apostolic Constitution, the CDF Prefect, Cardinal William Levada, said that Anglican priests who are married will be ordained Catholic priests, although married Anglican bishops will not be able to function as Catholic bishops in keeping with the long-standing Catholic and Orthodox tradition of ordaining only unmarried clergyas bishops. Married men now in seminary formation will be ordained and can function as presbyters. But priests must be celibate.
Would someone mind explaining to me how the last two sentences can be reconciled? Are not presbyters ordained priests, albeit of the second rank (behind bishops but ahead of deacons)?
At the press conference in Rome announcing the new Apostolic Constitution, the CDF Prefect, Cardinal William Levada, said that Anglican priests who are married will be ordained Catholic priests, although married Anglican bishops will not be able to function as Catholic bishops in keeping with the long-standing Catholic and Orthodox tradition of ordaining only unmarried clergyas bishops. Married men now in seminary formation will be ordained and can function as presbyters. But priests must be celibate.
Would someone mind explaining to me how the last two sentences can be reconciled? Are not presbyters ordained priests, albeit of the second rank (behind bishops but ahead of deacons)?
Married Anglo-Catholics currently training for the Anglican Priesthood who convert will be ordained (presumably after further study and formation). Unmarried Anglo-Catholic priests who convert and are ordained will not be permitted to marry.
John Ainslie wrote:From this weekend's Tablet (if you have been lucky enough to receive it - this is from the website copy):
However, a major item that remains unclear is what exactly constitutes the “distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony” and how much of it these newly “reunited” communities will be allowed to maintain. Will it go beyond hymnody, the King James Bible and distinctive dress?
Hymnody - now there's an interesting question. Distinctive dress - including birettas? In common with the Extraordinary Form?
I'm surprised by the Tablet's ignorance. Perhaps this is a case of ecclesiastical politics overcoming basic journalistic legwork. We have a long-standing prototype in the ex-Anglican congregations in the USA. It was stated at the press conference that their liturgical arrangements, initiated by Pope John Paul II and approved by the CFD, will likely form the basis of the new Ordinariats' arrangements.
NorthernTenor wrote:... their liturgical arrangements, initiated by Pope John Paul II and approved by the CFD, will likely form the basis of the new Ordinariats' arrangements.
I was about to correct my typo - CFD for CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) - when I realised it might have been a Freudian slip. In my professional life CFDs are contracts for difference.
NorthernTenor wrote:Married Anglo-Catholics currently training for the Anglican Priesthood who convert will be ordained (presumably after further study and formation).
A married Anglo-Catholic convert, who was not in formation for Anglican orders, has already been ordained Catholic priest just a few years ago. JP II granted a dispensation from the discipline of celibacy. So there is a precedent for the extraordinary to take place, should circumstances merit such an action.
It ill behoves those of us whose regular worship is framed by the Novus Ordo in English translation to suggest this (particularly musicians). Better to observe in charity that these are early days.
At least (what you so rightly call) the English translation of (what is more properly referred to as) the Ordinary Form is consistent in its idiom. For my money, "dogs dinner" is a perfectly reasonable description of the following.
If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2
The peace of the Lord be always with you. R. And with thy spirit.
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.
This manages, in 4 sentences, to get from the Authorised Version to ICEL circa 1970 via something which is neither (but might be ICEL 2005). Even Microsoft Word handles its Paste Options more elegantly than that.
Precisely. It's the stylistic and idiomatic inconsistencies that I find so grating. As you say, this is not a charge that can be levelled against the Ordinary Form., whatever else one might say about it.
contrabordun wrote:At least (what you so rightly call) the English translation of (what is more properly referred to as) the Ordinary Form is consistent in its idiom.
musicus wrote:Precisely. It's the stylistic and idiomatic inconsistencies that I find so grating. As you say, this is not a charge that can be levelled against the Ordinary Form., whatever else one might say about it.
Oh yes?
Our Father, who art in heaven ...
And while Marian prayers and anthems aren't part of the text of the Mass, they are frequently said or sung during or after it, invariably in a traditional, sacral language translation.
To be fair, there's a considerable difference of degree. However, we're not comparing apples with apples. Our Church was allowed an experimental period for vernacular translation before the Novus Ordo and its ICEL translation (and the translations of psalms and other scriptural elements) were finalised, and we are about to have a revision of the translation that is the result of much labour and debate. The Anglican Use community seems to be aware that the stylistic inconsistencies of their rite were the imposed product of the ecclesiastical politics of their time, and that further refinement is required. It may be that current events will provide an opportunity for such developments. In that respect, Archbishop DeNoia's reported statement that the Book of Divine Worship will probably form the "ground work" for the new practices may be significant.
Gwyn wrote:I remember as a lad in the 60's being particularly fascinated with the line;
"... that both our hearts may be set to obey Thy commandments...".
I think it's from the second Collect at Evening Prayer in the 1662 bcp. The idea of having two hearts gave rise to some bemusement.
My own favourite from the NO Christmas readings is "Wonder-Counsellor". Whenever I hear it I can't avoid the image of a Cillit Bang® - like advertisement.
