Thursday, October 19, 2017

A Visitor Looks At The Divine Worship Mass

A visitor took the trouble to look through the versions of the Anglican Use and Divine Worship masses available on line and comment:
I know you have been searching for the text of the new Divine Worship- The Missal with limited success. I had a link to it when it first came out, years ago, and am kicking myself that I did not save it, but I did read it in its entirety. I had attended Mass at Our Lady of the Atonement so I remember comparing the new, official missal to what they celebrated before and there were not many changes, but what did change was text at the focal point of the Mass. I remember being struck (happily so) with how, now, the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Eucharistic Prayers are pretty much directly from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal. In fact, the Liturgy of the Eucharist (offertory form II) is almost word for word with very little fancification the same as the OF. The Roman Canon used for Divine Worship- The Missal follows exactly Eucharistic Prayer I in the OF English Mass with “you” and “yours” swapped out with “thee” and “thine” and a few other words changed so it will sound like Olde English( ex. 1 be pleased = vouchsafe ex. 2 you sanctify them, fill them with life, bless them = dost sanctify, quicken, bless ) Perhaps the best summarization I have seen about what the new missal is and isn’t is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops newsletter from October of 2015. Here is the link.

I also include a link to OLA’s Anglican Use Mass booklet.

In a brief scan of the St.Thomas More/St. Gregory versions circulating online, I can see a few differences between that and the OLA version that was updated after 2015 to reflect the required changes of the new Divine Worship- The Missal Order of Mass. One of the differences between these two version sets has to do with the “Our Father” prayer. The St. Thomas/St. Gregory version has the traditional Roman Catholic style with doxology between the main body of the prayer and the auxillary “For thine is the kingdom…” the OLA version only has the Our Father as a song with no doxology. The OLA version only has Offertory form II for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and it is the EXACT text of the OF Mass. The St. Thomas More/St. Gregory versions use the OF substance with fancified English. Either way, all of the Ordinariate parishes should be on the same page. Maybe OLA parish is not using this Mass booklet but just hasn’t removed it from their website. I’m not sure what they use but what I do see is… with these versions and the descriptions provided in the USCCB newsletter, as far as I can tell, the Liturgy of the Word uses the Roman Lectionary RSV, the Liturgy of the Eucharist is OF Roman Rite and the Eucharistic Prayer is the Roman Canon ( OF Eucharistic Prayer I ). It’s not exactly in keeping with the 1549 spirit but it can be made to sound like it is.

The USCCB newsletter cited above has the following descriptions:
Proper of Time
The organization of the liturgical seasons in Divine Worship follows that of the earliest Anglican sources, which date from the mid-sixteenth century and which tend to mirror what is found in the older forms of the Roman Missal. For example, instead of Ordinary Time, one finds the “Time after Epiphany,” a pre-Lenten series of Sundays (Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima), and the Sundays after Easter Time numbered sequentially from Trinity Sunday. The liturgies of Holy Week tend to follow the rubrical instructions of the current Roman Missal, while many of the prayer texts come from Anglican sources.

Order of Mass
While Divine Worship permits a number of options, meant to take into account various customs that have developed in Anglican communities in different places, the general structure of the Order of Mass will be familiar to those who are accustomed to the Roman Missal. Included among the options during the Introductory Rites, however, are several traditional Anglican elements: the “Collect for Purity,” the “Summary of the Law,” and the recitation of the Decalogue. One noticeable departure from the Roman Missal is the placement of the Penitential Rite after the Liturgy of the Word. The current Roman Lectionary is used for Scripture readings, but using the translation of the Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition).

It's hard to avoid thinking this is much ado about not much, and when you get down to it, the lack of enthusiasm among Anglicans over Anglicanorum coetibus pretty much reflects what's actually going on, or not, in this liturgy. Making some supererogatory changes to the OF mass -- some thees and thous, and the Cranmerian prayers -- reflects the idea that "continuing" Anglicans will be drawn to the 1928 BCP, although Anglo-Papalists in the UK had dropped the 1662 BCP in favor of the Roman rite decades earlier, and the "continuers" in the US are an aging population that isn't being renewed.

Add to this the much more troubling issue that Anglican priests brought into the ordinariates are at best not well formed as Catholic priests. There have been two high-level scandals rooted in this problem this year alone.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

If There's A Klingon Hamlet,

can a Klingon mass be far behind? Many thanks to a visitor who sent me to YouTube, where I quickly discovered this. The host's understanding of the nerdiness and waste of time involved here is so comprehensive that it's superfluous to single out individual quotes. The problem is how easily many of his observations can be transferred to key figures among the ordinariates.

My only other observation would be that of course, since Shakespeare was actually a Klingon, so probably was Thomas Cranmer, and by far the best option for making a Klingon translation of the mass will be the Divine Worship version. Except that might save too much time. Come to think of it, better to start from scratch.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Notes On The Divine Worship Missal

One problem in having a good discussion of the language in Divine Worship: The Missal is that it is copyrighted material, and as far as I can determine, the only available edition sells for over US$400.

A visitor reports that the Divine Worship order of mass (but not the rest of the missal) is available on scribd. This appears to be a copy of the pew missal used at St Thomas More Toronto. A search also shows a version used at St Gregory the Great available on Wordpress, although again, this is a pew missal with just the order of mass.

Of the text approved in Divine Worship, a visitor says

Are you aware that for a considerable amount of time, until 2015 I think, there were actually two parallel Mass-rites being drafted for what became the Ordinariates? Rome did not give any hint of what it wanted, and seemed to be inclined to let two "drafting groups" go ahead separately.

First, there was an "English option," the drafting committee of which included Msgr. Andrew Burnham, former bishop of Ebbsfleet in the Church of England, Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, and others whose names are unknown to me. From one angle, these guys were realistic: they knew that a lot of English Anglo-Catholics had abandoned the "Cranmerian" or "Prayer Book" tradition pretty completely, and that a simple resort to the English Missal with some "tweakings" would not be the most appealing thing to many English semi-papalist Anglo-Catholics. What they came up with was a hybrid (or "mongrel") rite, drawing its bits from various Prayer Books, English (1549, 1662), Scottish, and the 1954 South Africa BCP, but also the Medieval English Sarum Use, etc. The idea was, that there would be a "contemporary English" version and a "Cranmerese" one, but when word began to reach them that Rome wasn't keen on any "contemporary English" version - if they wanted that, then let them use the Roman Rite, was Rome's view - they decided to do it into "Cranmerese," but as intelligible and straight-forwardly comprehensible a one as possible.

Second, there was the "colonial option," which in practice to a great extent was what TAC and its non-TAC friends and advocates wanted, an English-Missal-like rite, but with as many Anglican BCP prayers as possible. (People kept using the phrase "English Missal" to describe this, but the original "English Missal" [aka the Knott Missal, from its publisher] had no Anglican bits, although a few were added in later editions; it actually sounds more like something called the "Anglican missal," which had lots more Anglican bits in it.)

Then around 2015 Rome let it be known (a) that it wanted one, and one only, Mass rite for the Ordinariates world-wide, (b) in the politest possible way rejected the "English option rite" for being, as a member of its drafting committee put it to me, "too eclectic" and "not Anglican enough," and (c) said it had to be "Cranmerese only;" those who want contemporary English must use the Roman Rite. (I have been promised a copy of this rejected "English" version, but I have not yet rec'd it.) This left standing only the "colonial option" (which its drafting committee had not yet been completed) and when Rome put the members of both drafting committees together to come up with something acceptable, there was a great deal of pushing-and-shoving (e.g., much controversy over whether to have one Eucharistic Prayer only, the Roman Canon, or whether "something shorter" was needed for weekday Masses; the majority of the committee wanted the Roman Canon only, some wanted Eucharistic Prayer III from the 1970 Mass Rite, and it seemed to surprise almost all of them that Rome insisted that they use EP II from the 1970 Mass Rite - and then also whether put back "in these Holy Mysteries" into the Prayer of Humble Access) until they finally came up with the DW Missal.

I've got to say that I can imagine it would be only slightly more feckless a project to translate the mass into Klingon -- and remember, if this were done, there would probably be several dozen earnest little groups of Trekkies meeting in chapels all over the world to hear the Klingon liturgy. Except that there would be equivalent battles over which dialect, and which pronunciation, would be most acceptable. And by all means don't forget the Klingon Mass Society, or perhaps it might be best not to think about it.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Still More On The Debacle In Stockport

It turns out that it was good that I had to be away from my desktop for several days, as I got an e-mail from a Stockport parishioner that I had to reflect over whether to post it here at some length. I'd learned from different sources that, in addition to the public conflict with members of the Stockport parish that I reported here, there was a confidential complaint filed with the diocese. I didn't discuss it earlier because, since it was confidential, I knew nothing specific about it.

However, the parishioner who filed the complaint recently contacted me with greater detail. Based on information available, I'm satisfied that this is the individual who filed the complaint. In addition, while the diocese is bound by confidentiality, the complainant is not. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that this is the complainant's side of the story, and no doubt Fr Kenyon had a different version when approached on the matter by the diocese. However, the upshot is that the matter was investigated, and the disposition is, according to the complainant, that Fr Kenyon was moved to a private house without a parish by the Bishop of Shrewsbury.

Here is the complainant's e-mail to me, marked IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST:

Fr Kenyon installed his 14 year old son as Head Altar boy after dismissing the previous one who had been there for several years.

I was spiritually abused by Fr Lee Kenyon who called me a time waster because I rang him for spiritual support whilst facing a possible diagnosis of bone cancer. I said Oh God and he immediately called me a blasphemer as well.

I felt devastated and humiliated and this priest nearly drove me to a breakdown. I advised the Curial office/Bishop's office of Fr Lee Kenyon off hand cruel manner.

I am relieved he has gone but I am very sorry for others who may have been hurt as well.

I hope Fr Kenyon finds peace and happiness and learns to listen to people.

In deciding whether this e-mail was credible enough to publish, I relied in some measure on remarks Fr Z has made on his blog regarding how best to file complaints with bishops. His advice is to state facts, what happened, what was said, avoid characterizations, and especially avoid excessive use of caps, italics, and exclamation points. It seems to me that this e-mail had an air of credibility that must have impressed the diocese as well.

My understanding is that communications were made from Houston to OCSP clergy at the time the complaint was filed, notifying them but essentially calling the complainant's mental stability into question. Let's look at this complaint from a perspective most sympathetic to Fr Kenyon, perhaps that the individual was not in fact awaiting a diagnosis of bone cancer, but had concocted this as a bid for attention.

This sort of thing is not absolutely unknown in any parish, but especially so early in a priest's tenure, some exercise of pastoral tact might well be called for -- in my observation, there are few parishes in any denomination that do not have at least a few people who require some type of special sympathy, which we don't see here from Fr Kenyon at all. And the e-mail as it came to me is not the mark of an irrational person, and it doesn't appear that the diocese treated the complaint that way.

In even the most favorable light to Fr Kenyon, his reaction seems little short of bizarre, and without any mitigating circumstances that might be present, the account suggests that Fr Kenyon may not have chosen the best career. For the bishop to place him so quickly into a situation where he's not exposed to a parish suggests the diocese may have reached a similar conclusion.

That the complainant should have contacted me with the story suggests even this disposition may not have been completely satisfactory to the individual, and I can't really disagree. I've expressed my reservations here frequently about the formation that OCSP clergy who come in from Protestant denominations receive, and it's very hard for me to see this story as anything but a confirmation of my reservations. I'm a little disturbed to have had this communication yesterday from my regular correspondent:

According to Fr K's FB page he was preaching to the Manchester Ordinariate Group this morning.
So the man turned out to be a disaster within weeks of arriving at a diocesan parish, but that's OK, he's plenty good enough for the OOLW.

Now, I simply don't know what a diocese normally does when a priest flames out so spectacularly, but I do have a sense that there are people in the chancery who have the experience, common sense, and insight to handle things in the best way for all concerned -- though I strongly suspect reevaluation of a career choice would be involved. (A competent diocesan vocations director would probably have caught this far earlier.) I just don't think anyone in Houston is equipped to deal with a situation like this -- somehow, Fr Kenyon made it past the nulla osta, after all, when far more capable men did not.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Kudos And Corrections

A visitor comments,
I’ve been reading you current and past entriies with interest and have found them very informative and often prescient.

Just a couple of corrections/quibbles:

  • You’ve used the word, platen, a few times when I believe you meant paten
  • When Fr. Z he uses the term, fishwrap, aka the National Schismatic Reporter, he is referring to the National Catholic Reporter and not the National Catholic Register. I noticed that you also used the fishwrap term for the National Catholic Register. Perhaps this was intentional, I don’t know. However, the Register is generally considered an accurate, conservative paper; the Reporter is not.
With the help of Blogger search, I've gone back and fixed "paten", a little surprised at how much I did this. The Reporter vs Register I'll have to do later, since it will probably involve searching the original links.

I appreciate the compliment -- my traffic has steadily increased, but I'm particularly grateful for all the recent visits from President Putin and his operatives! Perhaps it's part of his latest plan to undermine the West via President Trump, huh?

One issue that's sparked my interest lately is exactly what's in the Divine Worship mass, where it comes from, and why. I'm starting to wonder whether, instead of being a careful product of liturgical study, there's something slapdash about it -- a little 1549 here, a little 1928 there -- which I'm afraid would not be inconsistent with what I've seen of how Anglicanorum coetibus has been implemented overall.

If anyone has access to Divine Worship: The Missal and can pass on short segments of the mass that might be of interest, I'll welcome any contributions. US copyright law allows "fair use" of short passages (such as the Prayers of Humble Access and Thanksgiving I linked earlier this week) for the purpose of comment.

I'm going to be very busy with personal matters for the next several days and may not be able to post until next week.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

More About BCP Wording

Regarding the issue I raised yesterday of where the wording in Divine Worship comes from (and whether it matters), a visitor notes:
1549: "... to feede us in these holy Misteries, with the spirituall foode of the moste precious body and bloud ..."

1552: "... to fede us, whiche have duely receyved these holye misteries, with the spirituall foode of the most precious body and bloud ..."

1928 (USA): "... to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood ..."

It is curious that [Divine Worship via] St John the Baptist, Bridgeport, reverts to 1549 for the "Prayer of Thanksgiving" (the "which have duly received" does have a slight Protestant/Reformed feel to it, but it is hardly heterodox or objectionable from a Catholic perspective) but not for the "Prayer of Humble Access", which was altered by Cranmer in 1552 (and followed in all subsequent English and American BCPs) to eliminate any necessary or exclusive connection between "eating the bread and wine" and "receiving Christ's Body and Blood;" cf.:

1549: "We do not presume to come to this thy table (o mercifull lord) trusting in our owne righteousnes, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we be not woorthie so much as to gather up the cromes under thy table: but thou art the same lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercie: Graunt us therefore (gracious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christ, and to drynke his bloud in these holy Misteries, that we may continuallye dwell in hym, and he in us, that our synfull bodyes may bee made cleane by his body, and our soules washed through hys most precious bloud. Amen."

1552: " We doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen. "

1928 (USA): "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

The puzzling thing here is that whatever Cranmer's local intent in adding, deleting, or emending particular words in a particular context, his overall task was clearly to develop a Protestant liturgy that would satisfy the Tudor establishment while keeping the lid on Catholics, at least until Mary came to the throne. I'm not sure why Rome would want to take this effort so seriously -- and in his September interview, Bp Lopes ". . . notes that the sources for their missal – 'the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the Sarum Missal – are actually older than the Tridentine reform and the Missal of Pius V [of 1570]. So things that ‘look like’ what we Catholics know as Tridentine often predates [sic] that form.'”

I didn't mention this yesterday -- the Prayer of Thanksgiving was enough for one post -- but the St John the Evangelist Bridgeport bulletin I linked also contains what I assume is the Divine Worship version of the Prayer of Humble Access:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
So, pace Bp Lopes, Divine Worship in this case simply takes the wording of the 1928 TEC BCP verbatim and does not revert to 1549. This strikes me as an Anglican -- but Anglican in sort of a bad and slapdash way -- approach to things. He may feel the criticism of Anglican liturgy as being recent has merit, because in fact DW has clearly adopted post-1549 wording, and apparently in at least some cases, it strictly follows models from 1662 and 1928. So far, without the opportunity to study Divine Worship -- The Missal in more detail, I'm inclined to think his reference to 1549 confuses the issue.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Russian Bots Again!

I've posted before about the occasional bulk "visits" I get from Russia in my stats. As I've said, the subject matter here doesn't seem attractive to a Russian audience, and certainly not to the extent that occasionally shows up.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to notice that the big Russian visits seem to take place around the time of US holidays, which makes me wonder if Google is somehow involved in sending extra visits to prop up its stats when they might otherwise be lower. Google charges ad rates based on stats. Exactly how this jiggering may benefit them isn't completely clear, though.

At left are my stats from yesterday, October 9, US Columbus Day. Google, which owns Blogger, seems to be jiggering quite a lot.