FSSP vs. Kwasniewski on Liturgy "Purism, Elitism..."
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    Interesting discussion (at long distance) between a priest of the FSSP and Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.

    A couple of highlights follow.

    ...I see an unexpected danger for the traditional movement somewhere else in the Church, that is to say, in a hyperliturgization [Hyperliturgisierung]. Despite all the theological narrowness of which one might accuse Archbishop Lefebvre, he had the zeal of a true shepherd who is concerned with the salvation of souls. To him, the preservation of the liturgy was not an aesthetic end-in-itself. Far more, he saw the liturgical crisis as part of the crisis of faith that was endangering the salvation of many souls. His intention was highly pastoral, in the full Catholic sense of the word. He was not concerned with rubrics, that is, with the letter of liturgical rules, but with their spirit. He was not altogether against reforms, but only against reforms that cloud over the spirit of the liturgy.

    In my first year as a priest in the Society of St. Pius X, on Sundays I served at a chapel where they sang, on alternating weeks, Gregorian chant and Schubert Masses [i.e., Mass paraphrases in German]. No one had thought anything of that. The phenomenon of a liturgical purism that despises German songs in the liturgy, rejects the direct reading of Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular [i.e., without reading/chanting them in Latin], and cultivates an excessive rubricism to the point of a missionary self-gagging, crossed my way much later, especially in lay circles....
    That from Fr. P. Engelbert Recktenwald, FSSP.

    Counter-punch from Dr. K:

    ...Yves Chiron’s masterful biography of Bugnini details just how willing were the liturgical “experts” of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s to experiment with the liturgy, as if it was their personal possession. No established rubrics held them back, in spite of nearly constant warnings and reproofs from the popes, from the Congregation for Rites, or from other curial officials. The attitude seemed to be: “If we have a good enough reason to break the rubrics to try something new that we think is a pastoral improvement, then we have sufficient justification.” This attitude, in short, was the very acid that dissolved any notion of a received, inherited rite to which we are humbly subject, by which we allow ourselves to be shaped and guided.

    Once this erroneous attitude had established itself, it was relatively easy to discard the entire rite in favor of a fabricated one. Why not? It’s all about what we want to do. The Novus Ordo was simply the crown placed on decades of liturgical experimentation rooted in rationalism, voluntarism, and pastoralism. In some ways, it was the archetypal expression of a council that claimed to be not dogmatic but pastoral, a council that was content with rambling texts that tack to and fro like a sailboat trying to catch the wind, just as the so-called Tridentine rite in its majestic solidity and stability is the perfect expression of the genuine pastoral concern and luminous dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, valid for all time, all places, all cultures.

    In their myopia, partisans of the later phase of the Liturgical Movement thought that they, and not the providentially unfolded tradition of the Church, knew best what Modern Man™ needed. ....


    Personally, I think Dr. K. has the best of the discussion, particularly when he mentions 'country-by-country' variations of the Mass (EF). It's not a stretch to say that each D.M. also has his/her own idea of what music to use, how much music to use, etc.--but not all of those ideas comport with the mind of the Church.

    One could also ask (Dr. K. doesn't, out of kindness, I think) "Why did the Church go to all the trouble of writing Instructions about each and every move during the Mass? Was the Church "not pastoral"?

    See: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/07/the-ill-placed-charges-of-purism.html
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,871
    As a good friend of Dr. K., I can back up what you and he are elucidating... the liturgy went 'off the rails' with the NO. There is no getting a train back on the rails once it is wrecked. You either bring in an entirely new train altogether, or you bring in the train that does not run off the rails, as proven by time tested practice.

    It is NOT about the particular formula of the liturgy, or the longstanding tradition exempt from the proof of what is authentic... but moreso our humble willingness to embrace what has been handed down to us as it IS the essence of the Church LINKED inseparably from embracing and practicing the faith in full.

    The subject on another thread bears this out, as devotees of the TLM do not (in itself) prove a Catholic adherent.

    The bottom line is this...

    "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15

    ...NOT, 'if you sing Gregorian chant and attend a TLM you will inherit the kingdom of God'.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    NOT, 'if you sing Gregorian chant and attend a TLM you will inherit the kingdom of God'.


    Some of the singers of Chant at TLM .....well, .......inheriting ANY kingdom would not be fitting.

    But the ones at the OF Masses who have not one clue about Latin syntax, words, meanings of same.......Abbott and Costello would have a field day.
  • Carol
    Posts: 309
    If they haven't been taught about Latin syntax, etc. you can't really hold it against THEM. But yes, I hear people say AGNES Dei like she's a lady and it makes me cringe!
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    Carol, I'll re-phrase that more accurately: M.D.'s who attempt Chant and have not made a cursory attempt at learning about Latin are frauds.

    Singers can be excused, of course--but their M.D.'s should be teaching them what they need to know.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 77
    Carol, you must not have met her sister, Ahgheenoos Dayee.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 3,819
    What about that guy Kyrie Eleison (Keye-ree Ellison)?
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • Keye-ree Ellison, maybe a little known brother of Harlan Ellison? hmm.
  • If Keye-ree Ellison is Harlan's brother, than surely Agnes Day(ee) is Doris' sister.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    Um, Harlan Ellison being whom?
  • A fairly well-known Sci-Fi writer.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Ellison was given 8 Hugo awards, four Nebula awards, and a host of others.
    personally I never liked him :-) ... I prefer his brother, Kiri A. Ellison
    Thanked by 3CharlesW CHGiffen Carol
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 77
    When I was four or five I recall being dressed as an angel for a school Christmas show and being carefully taught a song about eggshells (in eggshellsy day-o).
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Carol
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,181
    Ah, agnus: I've had debates in my choir about the pronunciation of almost the entire text. Some are adamant that we are Roman and therefore should use the Italian pronunciation; others adamant that this is a Polish parish and should be using the received Germano-Polish pronunciation. Ag-noos Dei kvee tollis peccata mundi dona nobis patsem. Fond, fond memories!
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 631
    And then there are those of us who took Latin in college and pronounce it differently than the Church.
    Thanked by 2Liam Carol
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,417
    Don't forget the upcoming sweet feast of Our Lady of Mount Caramel.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Carol
  • Ag Noose Deh eee.
    Qwee tollis pekkahta mond'y
    Me sehr ray ray no beece



    Is that what you mean, Bhcordova?
  • I see an unexpected danger for the traditional movement somewhere else in the Church, that is to say, in a hyperliturgization [Hyperliturgisierung]. Despite all the theological narrowness of which one might accuse Archbishop Lefebvre, he had the zeal of a true shepherd who is concerned with the salvation of souls. To him, the preservation of the liturgy was not an aesthetic end-in-itself. Far more, he saw the liturgical crisis as part of the crisis of faith that was endangering the salvation of many souls. His intention was highly pastoral, in the full Catholic sense of the word. He was not concerned with rubrics, that is, with the letter of liturgical rules, but with their spirit. He was not altogether against reforms, but only against reforms that cloud over the spirit of the liturgy.

    In my first year as a priest in the Society of St. Pius X, on Sundays I served at a chapel where they sang, on alternating weeks, Gregorian chant and Schubert Masses [i.e., Mass paraphrases in German]. No one had thought anything of that. The phenomenon of a liturgical purism that despises German songs in the liturgy, rejects the direct reading of Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular [i.e., without reading/chanting them in Latin], and cultivates an excessive rubricism to the point of a missionary self-gagging, crossed my way much later, especially in lay circles....



    I would agree wholeheartedly with Fr. Engelbert's statement quoted above. And having read Dr. Kwasniewski's article, I get the distinct impression that Fr. Engelbert's legitimate and reasonable concern expressed in the above quote was not answered satisfactorily.

    The idea that everything must be done in Latin and that any deviation from this model is some kind of modernist corruption of the liturgy is absolutely ridiculous. Why are Catholics forced to choose between a difficult to understand Latin liturgy on the one hand, and an easily understood vernacular clown show on the other hand? Why is this the only choice? It is a terrible choice, especially when it is so obvious that there are better alternatives. Having had numerous conversations with TLM folks over the last few years, it just never ceases to baffle me how this false dichotomy is not only perpetuated, but even legislated through official Roman channels. It makes no sense.

    What strikes me as particularly strange and unconvincing about all the arguments against the use of vernacular at otherwise Latin liturgies, is the fact that such a segregationist view of language is not generally adhered to amongst the Eastern Rites, where a wide degree of linguistic liberty is afforded to local churches so that they can adapt their worship to their places and circumstances. And yet, nobody could seriously level a claim of "modernism" against them and their liturgies (which all follow the same ancient forms, regardless of language), especially in comparison to the wide range of craziness one can find in the use of the Novus Ordo.

    So, why not both languages in the same liturgy? Why not simply have the exact same traditional liturgy offered in whatever languages (or combination of languages) is best suited to each individual congregation? Why is that considered taboo, or some kind of a modernist attack on the liturgy?

    It all seems so very unreasonable to me, especially when there is already a better way that has been shown to work quite well.





    Thanked by 3Liam MarkB bdh
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 690
    PlanctusAnglorum's argument seems to assume that the EF and OF are basically the same liturgy only in different languages. Since the OF is celebrated in the vernacular, why not (at least parts of) the EF?

    But, as Dr. K. never ceases to remind us, the two forms of the liturgy are actually quite different in their underlying theology and anthropology. They are not not meant to be experienced in the same way Put another way, if you approach the EF the same way as the OF, you won't understand or appreciate the EF.

    I see this all the time when people first go to a EF mass and complain that they are "lost."
    They try to "follow" what's going on at every moment, attempting to translate and comprehend every word that is spoken or sung, as if this is how the EF was intended to be prayed. I pity this person as I do the one at an opera or performance of Bach's B Minor Mass buried in his program, trying to follow what's going on word for word. Neither classic opera nor the EF were ever meant to be experienced in this way. It's the whole experience of gesture, movement, music, ritual and (to a small extent) language that conveys what is going on, not the literal meaning of each sentence as was hear it. (This makes more sense if we remember that most of the faithful were illiterate for most of the Church's history and still "got" what was going on - more, I would guess, than most of us do today.)

    With the OF, on the other hand, the language is the primary vehicle of the meaning of what is going on, which is why an OF mass in Latin doesn't work all that well - unless it has something of the EF sensibility - beautiful vestments, incense, singing, etc. Then the language recedes into the background somewhat and the faithful can "latch on" to these things instead of concentrating on the meaning of the words.

    With the change in question - the language of the readings - Dr. K. has argued elsewhere that the purpose of the readings at mass are different in the EF and OF. In the former they are a form of worship, in the latter, a form of instruction. Just as Pope Benedict XVI has urged that the two forms of the rite not be confused in terms of their rubrics, at a deeper level their respective theologies should be respected as well: no part of one from should not be repurposed to that of the other.

    At any rate, I've also heard from traditionalists that ist isn't so much that they're opposed to any change in the mass in principle, but that liturgical deviation and change at a time of so much confusion in the Church is a bad idea - doubly so when the change in question is an attempt to mo. Changing this or that in the old rite when the EF is still struggling to find a stable home in the Church is, in my opinion, singularly unwise.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Forever trying to find the middle ground, I find myself back in very familiar territory:

    Given:

    1) That the use of the vernacular is forbidden in the texts of the Mass.
    2) That the Propers, the variable parts, are similarly to be in Latin.
    3) Germany is a model of many things, but past and present not the model of orthodoxy.

    What place, legitimately in line with sound tradition can (not must) be made for the vernacular?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,279
    The use of the vernacular in Germany came up on the Forum a few years ago, in 2013. At the time, Fr. Anthony Ruff, who has studied the history of that topic back to its beginnings in the Middle Ages, mentioned that in 1943 the Holy See stated that the use of vernacular hymns in place of the Latin propers would be graciously tolerated.

    That implies that whatever status the practice had had previously as a custom, even though outside the law, then became explicitly acknowledged. So it would seem to be mistaken to think that a celebration of Mass in Germany, in the older form, with the singing of "Deutsches Hochamt" hymns were illicit.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    The Church in Germany has been avant garde in many ways, and none of them particularly worthy of praise.

    Maybe it was accidental that you used the word "tolerated" vis-a-vis the hymnody--but I think it is accurate. We tolerate what is bad, not what is good.
  • PlanctusAnglorum's argument seems to assume that the EF and OF are basically the same liturgy only in different languages


    I absolutely did not make any such assumption at any time, or in any way.

    The Novus Ordo is, in its essence, the bitter fruit of modernism and secularism. Harsh, but true. It is a different liturgy that represents a different sort of religion: humanistic self-will.

    My point was that the question of liturgical language has no bearing on the essential nature of a Rite. The Eastern Rites all have multifarious vernacular translations taken from the Greek and Slavonic sources for their liturgies, and yet that is all that they ever are: translations.

    They are not different liturgies.

    For example, if you go to any given Russian Orthodox parish in North America, you may hear Church Slavonic, Russian, English, Greek, Eskimo-Aleut, Spanish, French, etc. You may hear one or more of these languages, and you may even hear a combination of one or more of these languages in the very same celebration of the same liturgy. And I guarantee you that those present in that church will not bat an eye at such a phenomenon.

    What you will not hear or see, however, is a different liturgy. You will hear the same prayerful words, listen to the same chants and hymns, see the same liturgical actions, with the same bread and chalice, all following the same rubrics found in the same Typikon (or Ordo in Latin), with the same types of vestments, in the same type of architectural environment, with the same types of iconography and other ecclesiastical arts, probably with the same combination of Russian chant and polyphony, and following the same basic discipline for Confession and Communion. So literally, with everything else being exactly or almost exactly the same, the only difference between any of the various liturgies, is the language in which they are celebrated.

    That was my point, that there is no such thing as a liturgy ever being lessened or substantially altered simply because it is celebrated in a different language. If you believe otherwise, then I would ask that you please read the story of Sts. Cyrill and Methodius, and their mission to the Slavs, because their lives and their struggles bear poignant witness to this very fact. Those men translated both Greek and Latin texts into a Slavic vernacular, and were ultimately given the highest praise and blessing by not one, but two Popes of Rome: Nicholas I and Adrian II.

    Yet, in spite of this (or perhaps because of this), they were viciously slandered and persecuted by German and French clergy, who were the elite educated Latinists of their day, and who abhorred the very notion of divine worship ever being done in any "vulgar" tongue. After all, the Slavs were barbarians, so their native tongues could not possibly express the same profound truths as the venerable Latin or Greek, right? This was their argument, and Rome rightly censured them for it.

    So it seems to me that much of the controversy surrounding the Latin Mass today is still very much based upon the same fallacies as those used against Sts Cyrill and Methodius in their day. Those arguments were all wrong then, and they have not gotten any better since.

  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    Amen, and amen!
    And add to that the Old Church English of the Ordinariates.
  • Yes, "Old Church English" is indeed living proof that accurate and eloquent vernacular translations are not only possible, but already a reality in the Church.
  • And for me, the phrase "Old Church English" is definitely going to be standard terminology from now on, haha! I love it!
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    Many thanks, Planctus!
    The term just came to me (with obvious parallels to 'Old Church Slavonic') several years ago. What to call the language of the Anglican use Ordinariates. 'Elizabethan' or 'Tudor' seemed far too limiting for a ritual language that transcends time and cultural context. Old Church English is not merely Elizabethan or Tudor, or Shakespearean, or even Cranmerian. With its having become hallowed, anyone throughout the world who has heard it (and, perhaps, used it) knows that it is a sacred tongue; just as, I'm sure, any Slav, when hearing Old Church Slavonic, doesn't have a knee jerk and exclaim 'we don't tawk lak thayit inny mower'. He knows that it is hallowed by time and has a singular ritual usage, that it is a holy tongue. It is timeless, beyond timeliness.

    I have stated on this forum many times that the Tridentine rite should simply have been put into English. I think that if it had a lot of nonsense would have been obviously just that: nonsense. The problem: what English. For sure, Old Church English may not have been a welcome development amongst most Latins. It is known that when seeking an English version of the Novus Ordo Tolkein was approached. One can only swoon at the masterpiece with which we might have been blessed. Alas! Tolkein refused because he didn't like the very idea. So, we were cursed with what everyone now knows was a linguistic debacle.

    Surely something with a Cranmerian cachet could have been produced without the historicisms of Old Church English, but with its sublime ritual and theological essence and cadence. Surely we have living poets capable of such a high calling. Modern English is NOT inapt or ill-suited for such usage, and it is high time that we, all of us, stopped acting as though it were. English is a wondrously beautiful and literary tongue.

    It is interesting to contemplate what would happen within the American Church if the Tridentine rite were put into a sublime English. The Novus Ordo would suddenly be cast into its well-deserved shade. (I say that as one who is not as put-off at the NO as are many. I just don't see the 'man-centred' ethos that is so much grumbled about. Very often, people tend to see what they intend to see, and what they intend to see can be 'wide of the mark'. I see and know Catholics who worship by it whose devotion to our Lady, the Saints, our Lord, the Blessed Sacrament, Catholic doctrine, etc, are as fervent as anyone else's.)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,198
    @MJO The Tridentine Missal has been put into English in 1912, It is called the English Missal or some times the Knott Missal, http://www.theenglishmissalsociety.co.uk/home.html
    I note some of the links lead back to the CMAA parent site and it's resources!

    One of our Ordinariate Priests is using it and we have sung at a celebration using this Missal (We sang from the Roman Graduale 1924, for the Ordinary and Propers, and the English Hymnal for the Hymns).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,283
    I think a problem with the NO is not in the rite itself, properly celebrated. If you end up with one of the shortest possible Eucharistic prayers, it may be because father ran his mouth too long in the wretched homily. Our priests seem under the misconception that talking at length is a substitute for speaking precisely and effectively. When you have another mass beginning soon, that timing matters. As for the music, spend some money and get good musicians who appreciate sacred music. If you get the three-chord-wonder or the saloon musician who is doing mass as another gig, you will get what you are paying for.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 690
    I agree with you that "the question of liturgical language has no bearing on the essential nature of a Rite" - on its essential nature. But that's not really the issue here - or rather it's the wrong way of putting it. Preserving a rite isn't simply a matter of not changing those things which bear on its essential nature. The question shouldn't be what can be changed and still have the same rite? - but what do the various elements add to the rite? So in the Latin rite, could we omit all genuflections and signs of the cross; or make certain ancient feasts optional? You could say that any single one of these elements has "no bearing on the essential nature of a Rite." Yet it doesn't follow that something would not be lost in the change. I would say that the same is true of the Latin language.

    So the question isn't one of which language, but the role of language in the rite. I agree that a mass is no less a mass for being in English, or Slavonic, or Latin, or Swahili (my argument is not that of the Latinists of old, that Latin is somehow superior to other languages.) So I take exception when you say that "that there is no such thing as a liturgy ever being lessened or substantially altered simply because it is celebrated in a different language." It can be altered, and arguably, lessened - perhaps not substantially, but then that's not only issue at play here. The rites aren't simply a matter of "substance" or "essence" (which can be devilishly hard to define anyway); it is precisely those things which are not in themselves essential which can have the greatest bearing on the heart of the rite itself.

    [As an aside, this discussion reminds me of the debates about the requirement of celibacy in the Latin church. All agree than celibacy is not of the essence of the priesthood - and of course the Eastern churches do not require it for priests - yet it cannot be dismissed simply for that reason. For example, it is telling that the Eastern tradition does not allow for married bishops. Yet the Latin church has long seen it as eminently fitting, a "brilliant jewel," to use the words of Paul VI. I would say the same of the Latin language in (of all things) the Latin rite.]

    If, as you say, the EF and OF are "different liturgies," it would make sense that the way in which the readings are done in each would point to a different purpose for each. I suggested that the difference is that the readings in the EF are primarily a matter of worship of God, whereas in the OF they are done for the instruction of the people. The EF shows this difference by the fact that the readings are chanted with incense in a solemn mass, and in a direction not facing the people - and by the fact that they are not done in the vernacular. I would argue that this is part of whole package which serves the purpose of worship as opposed to instruction. None of this (except perhaps the incense) is required at a solemn mass in the OF, and the reading is done facing the people, suggesting that the purpose of this part of the rite is indeed different.

    This doesn't necessarily mean that a vernacular reading can never ever be done as a matter of strict principle, only that this difference should be recognized (and at the very least doing it now, with the rampant confusion about liturgy, is not a particularly good idea). For instance, one could argue that the liturgy has developed so that instruction should in fact be primary, which would argue for readings in the vernacular. But this should be recognized for what it is - a change - perhaps legitimate, perhaps not.

    But I would say that doing the readings in the vernacular in the EF gives "mixed signals," as most of the other aspects of the rite point toward one purpose, some towards others. I think it's really the source of the incoherence many of us experience particularly (and oddly enough) in solemn celebrations of the OF - some elements of the old rite are there, some are not, so the signals are mixed, on account of the underlying difference in purpose for the various elements in the two rites. I would say that a similar incoherence applies to doing (only) vernacular readings in the EF.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • If the language of the rite doesn't matter, it seems there's no difference between

    And also with you
    And with your spirit
    Et Cum Spiritu Tuo
    Right back at ya'
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 925
    I don't think anybody said the meaning does not matter, or that the 'tone' of the language does not matter. MJO's 'Old Church English' is an 'elevated' or 'sacral' language, definitely not demotic/vulgar.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    The Novus Ordo was simply the crown placed on decades of liturgical experimentation rooted in rationalism, voluntarism, and pastoralism.
    --Kwasniewski

    I don't see anything there related to the language. It is unfortunate that the good Dr. K. forgot to add "pragmatism," for the NO has plenty of that at the expense of 'mysterium.'

    But on the question of language: sure, an 'old Church English' would be a good choice for the NO. That can be a 'sacred language' to accompany 'sacred music,' 'sacred time,' and 'sacred space,' just as is Latin or Old Slavonic, Hebrew, Koine, or Aramaic.
    Thanked by 1bdh
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    Many thanks, tomjaw, for the reminder of and the link to the Knott Missal. It was, indeed, highly favoured by Anglo-Catholics in the last century. Similar to it was The Anglican Missal in the American Edition, of which I have a copy printed in 1962. It includes copious notes about the whats and whys of the unfolding rite, and rubrics as to the many places where bowing of the head and profound bows are to be done. I have yet to see any Catholics enact so many bodily signs of worship as was and remains common amongst Anglo-Catholics and their heirs. Most don't even bow their heads at the Name of Jesus, at mention of the Most Holy Trinity, or even bow (let alone genuflect) at the creed's et incarnatus! That includes bishops, priests, and deacons, and even religious!

    In the 'early days' before the Ordinariate became the Ordinariate, whilst the liturgy was not yet settled upon, there were those who wanted to use The English Missal. - not to mention those, amongst whom was I, who wanted the Sarum use. Needless to say, these 'wishes' were not acceptable to Rome - which is probably all for the better. The Ordinariate Use reflects a wide spectrum of Sarum and BCP uses representative of our historical ritual journey as Anglican Use Ordinariate Catholics.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen tomjaw bdh
  • Gamba
    Posts: 78
    Tomjaw - is the use of the English Missal licit in Ordinariate masses? (From afar, without a dog in the fight) I particularly resent the introduction of the Mystery of Faith dialogue into the Canon in DW:TM, and the other places where it departs from the EM, which served many generations well.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    The English Missal cannot licitly be used for Catholic masses of any rite or use, only DW:TM may be used in Ordinariate liturgy - though some of our priests use the Novus Ordo from time to time. This, I have heard, is the thoroughly perplexing norm in England. I do, though, share your disdain for the Mysterium fidei's intrusion into our liturgy. I also look askance at its having been inserted into the Novus Ordo. It is a maudlin intrusion into, more than that, an irritating disruption of, the dynamic flow of thought and prayer of the canon.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,198
    @Gamba I also believe that the English Missal cannot be used for Catholic Masses... But this priest is convinced he can.... He was one of the few high church Anglicans that continued to use the English Missal, when he joined us with most of his congregation he continued with their traditions.

    @MJO
    This, I have heard, is the thoroughly perplexing norm in England.


    I think this is due to historical reasons... From the time of the Oxford Movement a steady stream of Anglicans have converted, Newman, Faber, Robert Hugh Benson (son of an archbishop of Canterbury), Ronald Knox, Henry Edward Manning, Augustus Pugin... and more recently Graham Douglas Leonard. It seems that before swimming the Tiber their copies of the BCP sitting on their shelves have gained a quantity of dust. My convert friends happily joke about the oath many had to take, "I promise to use the book of common prayer, and none other..." the 'N' of none is silent! the 'one' other book is the Missale Romanum.

    While the Anglo Catholics have had quite a mixture of books in use the trend has been to ever closely follow Roman practise. For many the BCP, the English Missal, and various Sarum books have been given up to use the Missale Romanum long before they convert. Many also followed the post conciliar changes and gave up their copies of the Traditional Missale Romanum to use the modern vernacular version. Previous waves of Anglican converts are happily using the O.F. books and many have not joined the Ordinariate... The goal for many seems to be fidelity to Rome.

    N.B. For those that may be in doubt this site, http://lowchurchmanguide.tumblr.com is satirical!
  • In the 'early days' before the Ordinariate became the Ordinariate, whilst the liturgy was not yet settled upon, there were those who wanted to use The English Missal. - not to mention those, amongst whom was I, who wanted the Sarum use.


    That would be absolutely incredible.

    The Sarum Use is almost verbatim the Traditional Latin Mass—and yes, it's entirely in Latin—with a few local variations from cathedrals in England (before they broke away from the Catholic Church).

    That would mean the Ordinariate priests would be praying IN LATIN a liturgy almost identical (but not exactly the same) as the Extraordinary Form.

    Oh, how I hope Rome will allow this!

    I am struggling to think of anything more cool than if the Ordinariate would switch over to this.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,074
    The Sarum use put into English was the desideratum.
    There will be no switching over.
    _________________________________________________________

    tomjaw -
    Your expose' of Anglo-Catholic practice in England is certainly accurate. One can only wonder that if these honourable people put such stock in aping Rome, what was the point in remaining Anglican for those who remained Anglican. It makes no sense - one wonders if the sole rationale was that they could have wives, a not very sophisticated motivation.

    As for the English Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, I understand that our English cousins are not as devoted to their BCP heritage as are we in the US. Still, if there is an Anglican ordinariate and an Anglican use, what is the point in having it if its very identity is blurred by using the NO or even the EF? It, it seems to me, is pointless. We over here use nothing but the Ordinariate use, except when our priests go out and say mass at a Roman rite parish or school. We would no more use the NO or the EF in our churches than would Eastern rite folk. We are, to be sure, a 'use' of the Roman rite, but just the same we are a use with an ethos and patrimony all our own, which we should guard and cherish the same as Eastern rite people do theirs. There is far more to the Ordinariate than liturgy. There is a distinctive Anglican, or English, spirituality, culture, and literature, a particular approach to worship, and a compelling understanding of the otherness and sanctity of God that preceded Henry the Bad's attempt at a Caesaro-papist church, and that continued within it, to wit the Middle English mystics and their mirror in the XVIIth century Caroline divines, giving rise to the Oxford movement and 'Anglo-Catholicism'. Newman did not happen in a vacuum. It was the best of the English spiritual ethos that produced Newman and all the others whom you name. Our English cousins ought to know and cherish this providential heritage, this peculiar patrimoony, even better than we over here in the erstwhile colonies.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CharlesW
  • M. Jackson Osborn wrote:
    If there is an Anglican ordinariate and an Anglican use, what is the point in having it if its very identity is blurred by using the NO or even the EF?


    I had a professor who would often say: "Don't ask questions you don't want answers to!"

    Certainly there are people who feel that the Ordinariate—by adopting a Rite which emanated from heresy—turned away from everything that was most Wholesome, most Holy, most Glorious, most Traditional, and most Splendid about Catholic England. I find such an assertion difficult to argue against.

    After all, if they had only gone back a few more years, they could have adopted the Sarum Use, which is 100% Catholic.

    The Sarum Use (totally in Latin) is practically identical to what is currently called the "Extraordinary Form." It is not exactly the same, but it is almost the same as the 1962 Missal.

    [ The Sarum Use was the form of Mass used at a major Cathedral in England shortly before Henry VIII broke away and brought England with him. ]


  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    Well...the ICK and/or FSSP would just fiddle with the rubrics on the Sarum Rite, as they do with the 1962, claiming that they have "teh pipples" in mind and after all, they know better than the Church does, anyway.

    That's what Professor K mentioned in the cited article at the beginning of this thread.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • drforjc
    Posts: 10
    I think it's relevant, though, that adopting Sarum would be adopting a use that is no longer in living memory. The situation is very different from the Roman EF which has millions of people who celebrated in that form still living. That would be an unusual develeopment.
  • I must say, I have never found any of the "desuetude" arguments to be compelling, especially when speaking of liturgical uses that were coercively suppressed. The rationale just seems so very convenient for the more powerful parties involved.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • Well...the ICK and/or FSSP would just fiddle with the rubrics on the Sarum Rite, as they do with the 1962, claiming that they have "teh pipples" in mind and after all, they know better than the Church does, anyway. That's what Professor K mentioned in the cited article at the beginning of this thread.


    They "know better than the Church" ?

    Oops! This practice has long been approved by the Ecclesia Dei commission.

    (I realize this doesn't fit the narrative of the article you refer to.)
  • Well...the ICK and/or FSSP would just fiddle with the rubrics on the Sarum Rite, as they do with the 1962, claiming that they have "teh pipples" in mind and after all, they know better than the Church does, anyway.


    Dad,

    I gather you're not a fan of the Institute or the Fraternity. Do you disapprove of the Extraordinary Form in general and the Institute and Fraternity in particular, or is there some cause else to urge you to spew such venom?

    I have nothing but respect (unless admiration and appreciation can be included) for Dr. K. I think you'll find that he doesn't treat the Institute or the Fraternity with the dismissiveness you do.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    "Spew venom"?

    Be serious. I do not accept your terminology.
  • Dad29,


    This....
    claiming that they have "teh pipples" in mind and after all, they know better than the Church does, anyway.



    strikes me as an attempt to mock the strong French contingent in the Institute (this isn't an argument that they're wrong, merely an ad hominem distraction), and the claim that they think they know better than the Church does is unfounded.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    So now I'm a racist, too?

    Cannot accept your scurrilous charges, sorry.

    Prof. K. made the case very well; if you don't like it, refute the case.
  • Dad29,

    I accept wholeheartedly the case which Dr. K makes.

    He isn't opposed to the praxis of the Fraternity or the Institute, and to read him as being so opposed is to misread what he wrote.

    He disagreed with the argument of one Fraternity priest who seemed to think the Chartres pilgrimage adaptations were right and good. What little I know of the Chartres pilgrimage Mass this year would find me completely in Dr. K's camp.


    Now.... to what I critiqued in your comments.

    When you say "teh pipples", I take this as an attempt to reproduce a common French pronuntiation. Since the lingua franca of the Institute is French, this was a reasonable assumption (your inverted commas bolsters my case). If I have mistaken your purpose, I will be pleased to be wrong.

    I have worked with (I think) 10 Canons of the Institute in one capacity or another, and I have never found the high-handed attitude you describe, allegedly knowing so much better than the Church and everyone else.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,198
    I am sure I have met Fr. P. Engelbert Recktenwald, FSSP. while I agree with Dr. K, I feel that it is easy for us in the U.K. or U.S. to find fault... but not understand the problems that are being faced in Europe.

    Here in the U.K. I can go to a Latin Mass following the pre-1955 rite in an anglican church said by an Anglican. I can go to other anglican churches and hear the glories of latin polyphony given to the world by the Catholic Church sung as part of a BCP service.
    If I like traditional English hymns I can go to plenty of churches some even Catholic.

    This is not the case in German speaking Switzerland, they do not have such choice. In Switzerland I can name one chapel that has the E.F. and it is mainly full of old women, they like their German hymns and the Schubert Mess, and will happily sing chant badly. In England they would attend a local Catholic O.F. Mass that is reasonably traditional, but their are no reasonably traditional O.F. Masses in Switzerland.

    Because so many people attend the E.F. in Switzerland that are not traditionalist we have the problem that the priests feel they need to make the Mass more open by having German Hymns and the Readings in the vernacular (One priest (FSSP) I know sings them in German! another place has a layman read the Epistle!).

    But there is a problem to this approach, does it inspire the youth? In France it seems to be working but in German speaking Switzerland it is noted the lack of vocations all these FSSP mass centres have brought... 0! Meanwhile in England the FSSP has enjoyed one ordination per year for over 10 years.

    It is all very well focusing on the pastoral side, but if your Liturgy is not glorious we can have a problem... Anyway in two weeks I will be at an FSSP summer camp in Switzerland and my children and I will continue to encourage improvement to the Liturgy. We have followed this path in the U.K. and we can encourage others to follow.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,537
    Dr. K. is opposed to priests making changes to the liturgy. He addresses one FSSP priest who does so; I have witnessed an ICK priest doing so, too.

    THAT is a problem, as you understand.

    As to "teh pipples," that's 'net/slang, just like 'innerleckshuls' or PIP's. Don't be over-reading texts.