Unity with Liturgical Diversity

[Southern Comfort]

The issue would be that existing Catholics would not join the Ordinariate as such, but might well prefer to attend services there, since such services would presumably be valid expressions of Catholic liturgy, in the same way that Catholics who wish to can attend liturgies in the Extraordinary Form.

The Extraordinary Form is a very very poor analogy here as it is part of the Roman Rite. A better example would be an Eastern Church in communion with Rome. A Roman can attend such liturgies, but remains Roman.

Yes, it was a bad analogy. I was in a hurry this morning. Sorry! However, it does not detract from one of my basic points which is that we already have a situation where people can go to services of a Church that they do not technically belong to (as in your example of some of the Eastern Churches) or which they do not feel that they belong to (I certainly don't feel that I belong to the same Church that the Extraordinary Form users seem to espouse ─ but that's another thread, probably). The new dispensation will simply extend the choice available.

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.

Contrary to other posters who appear to interpret this to mean that all current texts are valid. I interpret it to mean that communities within the Ordinariate will be restricted to those liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition which have been approved by the Holy See. I take this interpretation largely because it is exactly the text of the document. One presumes that Rome will be approving such texts in the near future, and ahead of the formation of the ordinariate in practical terms.

I have to disagree. The crucial phrase is the opening one,

Without excluding celebrations according to the Roman Rite

This clearly means that the Ordinariate also has the faculty to celebrate....according to the Roman Rite. It says nothing whatsoever about which form of the Roman Rite, nor does it imply which texts of that Rite are being referred to.

I continue in my opinion that this phrase has been put in precisely (a) as an acknowledgement that a proportion of Anglo-Catholics are very comfortable with the Roman Mass, etc, and (b) as a provision which ensures that their comfort is not disturbed by having to change to something else ─ including a different form of words. This is exactly the same pastoral concern as if they were using the Book of Common Prayer.

At present, they use the current translation of the Roman Missal, and so will presumably be able to continue to do that too.

One would imagine that Anglicans using the current translation do so because it is the text used in the Roman Church currently. For that very reason, one would imagine those Anglicans would wish to use the new Roman texts in common with the Roman Church. We do not yet know which texts will "have been approved by the Holy See", the current ICEL texts may not be on the list.

No, we don't (think BCP [in its various incarnations], BDW, Series 3, ASB, CW......!). And you may well be right about what some of them will prefer to use. But for me the main thrust is still the pastoral one. It's going to be much easier for Rome simply to say "Whatever you're using now is OK, as long as it has been approved by an episcopal conference, whether Anglican or Catholic". Can you imagine what will happen if they have to start checking through all the varieties of Anglican texts with the same laboriousness that they currently employ on ours? Heaven preserve us! It'll take for ever.

The fact that we are debating what the documents might actually mean simply proves my other point, which is that this whole thing has not been thought through properly. If we can't agree on what they mean, how on earth can we expect anyone else to? The Anglicans are looking for concrete and unambiguous answers to their questions, and they will not find them in these documents as yet.

[alan29]

Surely once baptised/received as a catholic, you are a member of the church, not of a particular section/rite/diocese? Parts of this stuff reads as though these parishes will be like quasi religious orders with signed up members, and a controlled list. What is to prevent an old style catholic worshipping in one of these new-fangled parishes and availing themselves of the entire liturgical recipe book that would seem to be on offer. It is all very well the Vatican dictating this, that and the other, but as ever that doesn't always correspond to what actually happens out there in the Church.

[festivaltrumpet]

Without excluding celebrations according to the Roman Rite

This clearly means that the Ordinariate also has the faculty to celebrate....according to the Roman Rite. It says nothing whatsoever about which form of the Roman Rite, nor does it imply which texts of that Rite are being referred to.

Why should the Norms specify which form or texts of the Roman Rite may be celebrated by the Ordinariate anymore than this is specified for existing Catholics? We can celebrate Mass using either the 1962 Missal or the 1975 Missal, once the translation is through, the 1975 missal will be substituted by the 2002 edition, and becomes the text of the Roman Rite.

[presbyter]

§3. When necessary, priests, with the permission of the Ordinary, may engage in a secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry (cf. CIC, can. 286).

The specific reference to Canon 286 is somewhat telling - you are very welcome but, even though we have been asked to be generous towards you, we do not, in fact, have the money - so please get a job too.

[presbyter]

We can celebrate Mass using either the 1962 Missal or the 1975 Missal, once the translation is through, the 1975 missal will be substituted by the 2002 edition, and becomes the text of the Roman Rite.

Once we have new ICEL up and running, I think use of the present translation will be abrogated - for the Ordinariate and for us. Don't you think?

[Southern Comfort]

once the translation is through, the 1975 missal will be substituted by the 2002 edition, and becomes the text of the Roman Rite.

(a) It will only be the 2002 edition in Latin ─ in English it will be whatever date the copyright-controlling body (and it's by no means clear who that will be, since Rome has already tinkered with the ICEL text) chooses to put on it;

(b) It will only become the text of the Roman Rite in those territories that have applied for and received recognitio. All others (e.g. Ordinariates) will still be free to do whatever they deem best. I can't see them applying for a recognitio somehow.

[Southern Comfort]

Once we have new ICEL up and running, I think use of the present translation will be abrogated - for the Ordinariate and for us. Don't you think?

I don't think they'd dare to do that. They'd have a full-scale rebellion on their hands. A lot of folk are already planning resistence to the new texts, and any move which exacerbated that would lead to breakaway groups (which are already actively in formation, just in case) who would continue to use the Missal we have now.

[docmattc]

I'm inclined to agree with Presbyter. I hope that any 'breakaway groups' are actively shown the door by their bishops.

I really don't see why the new translation is such a scary thing to so many (perhaps they of a 'certain age' and too old too cope with change?) But the new translation is not the subject of this thread, so please lets not discuss it here except in the context of the Ordinariate.

[Southern Comfort]

I really don't see why the new translation is such a scary thing to so many

Because it's bl**dy awful. Most people have only seen the Order of Mass, which is comparatively tame ─ wait until you see the rest of the Missal..... This is why an ordinariate could offer a haven, if some of its churches continue to use the translation we have now, which, while by no means perfect, is at least English as opposed to the Babelfish of the new version. What we should all be campaigning for is the ICEL 1997/8 Missal which is still languishing unread in Rome (but some of us, however, have a copy of it ).

[presbyter]

May I ask what readers think the documents are saying about the formation of clergy already ordained in the Anglican Communion? It seems somewhat opaque to me (and I think I'm indulging in understatement there!)

[Southern Comfort]

Once we have new ICEL up and running

I meant to come back to this point but omitted to do so. What did you mean by this? New ICEL has been up and running for a number of years. There's a new Secretary who has just started, but that's the only recent change. Is there something else we need to know?

[presbyter]

Once we have new ICEL up and running

What did you mean by this?

Sorry - I'm being opaque too. (It was early!) I just mean the revised translation.

[festivaltrumpet]

§3. When necessary, priests, with the permission of the Ordinary, may engage in a secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry (cf. CIC, can. 286).

The specific reference to Canon 286 is somewhat telling - you are very welcome but, even though we have been asked to be generous towards you, we do not, in fact, have the money - so please get a job too.

Perhaps this reference is nothing more sinister than allowing non-stipendiary ministers to continue in that capacity.

[John Ainslie]

I was in the St Paul's bookshop next to Westminster Cathedral yesterday, and found a section opposite(!) the Liturgy shelves headed 'EXTRAORDINARY FORM / ANGLICAN'. On the Anglican shelf pride of place was given to 'The Book of Common Prayer as proposed in 1928'! There were also various editions of 'Common Worship' and a thick volume entitled 'New Patterns of Worship' - an official compendium of resources for worship. (Now there's an idea...)

I don't think the penny has dropped in Rome that the Anglican Communion consists of '44 regional or national churches' (so says its website), each with its own ritual books, unless it uses someone else's. There's a huge amount of work implied in the phrase "according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See".

[presbyter]

There's a huge amount of work implied in the phrase "according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See".

....... and if you want to follow that up with the C of E Liturgical Commission's thoughts, read this: http://www.transformingworship.org.uk/TransformingWorship/
Imho - the Bishop of Wakefield's understanding of liturgical theology is ....... errrrr........ sparse (from a Roman point of view).