The Anglican Mass and the Novus Ordo
I know technically the Anglicans have an "Ordinariate" and not a rite, but it I can't help but reflect on a couple of things after sadly seeing the less than hoped for response from the overall Anglican community after Benedict's Anglicanorum Coetibus .

Wasn't the whole point of the Novus Ordo to gain Protestants, including the Anglicans? Did not Anglican clergy comment's of the Novus Ordo after it's creation indicate favor for it?

It strikes me as very odd that a form of the Mass is being made available in the Roman rite of the Catholic Church that was directly a result of Cranmer's rebellion against Rome.

They should have been told to resume the Mass they were using when they broke from Rome centuries ago, that is still a valid mass in the church today hence the beauty of Catholicism. What they got was a Novus Ordo stylized anglican mass. By the way them even using the name anglican gives legitimacy to the break in a sense.
Salus, I sort of feel the same way. I'm still a bit confused as to their whole being. The AU mass I have attended is much more reverent than the most reverent NO but there are a few things that cause "scandal"; such as their entire existence. In a sense, I understand that they just cannot be forced to return to a Sarum Use type mass in the same way you cannot force entire NO congregations to go back to the Tridentine form; however, I feel like all the Cranmer stuff should be completely wiped book of common prayer. If it is simply them yearning for things more English then shouldn't they just eat BANGERS AND MASH after mass?
As a member of the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, I would respond that the Anglican Liturgy which was devised/revised by Cranmer had a pedigree in the Sarum Rite, which was a fully Catholic form of the Liturgy. Cranmer's revisions were somewhat conservative (as opposed to what Luther, Calvin, et al. did), and were formulated in such a way as to be acceptable to both the more Catholic-leaning prelates and the more protestant-leaning prelates. I am not in favour of this liturgical philosophy, but Cranmer's equivocations look far more crystal-clear now than they did then. There is very much in that liturgy which can be brought straight back into the Latin Church, while there is quite a bit that needs to be re-revised (which is going on at this moment). In general, I would say of the Anglican liturgy (as I would for any other Protestant liturgy) that what good is there is what was received originally from the Catholic Church. I am of the opinion that Cranmer and his successors preserved far more, and in a clearer way, than any of the other Protestants did.

I believe that just going straight to a reconstructed Sarum Use for all Ordinariate parishes would be a non-starter, for various reasons, although I would love to see it occasionally used in our parishes, when we could pull it off (it requires more vested clergy and ministers than what we have available).

The current Anglican Use (used in the Pastoral Provision parishes and most Ordinariate parishes) is basically a re-Catholicised version of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. In some places it is very good, in others not so much. The revisions currently being undertaken aim to bring the Anglican Use liturgy more fully in line with Catholic tradition, especially Catholic tradition of England before the Protestant Revolution.

In the United States, non-Episcopal Continuing Anglicans of an Anglo-Catholic bent (and some within the Episcopal community) tended to either use the 1928 BCP and celebrate it in its highest form, or use the Anglican/English Missal, which is basically the Tridentine Mass in English. Many in the Ordinariate (including the priest in my parish) are very sympathetic to the Anglican/English Missal, and the Tridentine Mass in Latin as well, and from what I've heard the committee revising the Anglican Use is taking that into account.
In England, however, the Anglo-Catholic faction of the 'Church' of England has tended to use the Novus Ordo Missal after Vatican II, as their way of expressing their Roman sympathies. As for Continuing Anglicans over there, I am ignorant.
In Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, I am to understand that their preferences are closer to that of the Continuing Anglicans in the U.S.

I am (obviously) in favour of having a revised and Catholicised Anglican Use liturgy being a permanent feature of the Roman Rite. I am also attached to the TLM (I'm in the process of forming a group to petition for a regular TLM in my location). I have no attachment to the NO, and neither does anyone in my parish, as far as I know. In the U.S. (and Canada) Ordinariate, I am led to believe that this is the normal situation.
What I have found out is that it is very much like the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, which itself has been influenced by the changes in the Catholic Church. It is very much the way they were worshipping in their Anglican/Episcopal churches. It is influenced by the Novus Ordo, but it definitely can't be mistaken for it, even a supped up one. The English register is quite different, much more archaic, and there are significant ritual differences. Interestingly the altar had twelve candles lit on it. I liked that. Very pretty. What we see is influence from the Sarum Use, the classic Roman Rite it is related to, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and the New Mass. And by the way, the Hymnal was a 1940 Episcopal one. This is what reconciling the reformation churches means these days really. And they were promoting the Rosary when we came in. They want to be Catholic!

See also:

Full book:
The Book of Divine Worship has a Rite I and Rite II, like the 1979 BCP. Rite II in the 1979 BCP is in modern language (yuck), and is controversial for significant rubrical and theological changes. The Rite II in the BDW is modeled after the Rite II in the BCP.

Now, in the Ordinariate, the Rite II has been abrogated, and is no longer permitted for use in the Ordinariates (neither is the modern language Psalter). For parishes wanting a modern language liturgy, the Novus Ordo is allowed. From what I know, the N.O. celebrated in U.S., Canada, U.K., and Australian Ordinariate parishes is far more reverent and solemn than in your average Latin Catholic parish.
The BDW Rite I is still in use, in a slightly revised format. Only the Roman Canon (in sacral English) is used.

I do not know if the BDW Rite II is still permitted in the Pastoral Provision Anglican Use parishes. I know that Our Lady of Atonement (the flagship A.U. parish) does not use the BDW Rite II, and celebrates either BDW Rite I or the Novus Ordo in Latin.
(06-24-2013, 10:32 AM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: It strikes me as very odd that a form of the Mass is being made available in the Roman rite of the Catholic Church that was directly a result of Cranmer's rebellion against Rome.

The Catholic Church teaches that "every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind" (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris 31) and that any good Christian elements in the separated communities properly belongs by right to the Catholic Church (cf. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintegratio 3).  It's not surprising then that the Church would take what is useful and/or rightfully hers, while leaving anything contrary to the faith out.
The Liturgy for Weddings and Funerals is available on the Ordinariate website, although the normal Mass is not out as of yet.

The Liturgical Guidelines for the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham:
It's a shame that more care has been taken by Rome with preserving the Anglican's liturgy than our own TLM.......

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)