First Anglican Use pew missal published

Today on All Saints’ Day, the imminent publication of the very first pew missal for the Anglican Use liturgy has been announced. To be published by Catholic Truth Society (CTS) in the UK, and entitled “The CTS Divine Worship Sunday Missal (People’s Edition)”, this latest version of the Divine Worship missal is meant to be used by laymen in the pews. Until now, no such missal meant specifically for lay use has been published in the almost four-decade history of the Anglican tradition in the Catholic Church.

rm30divineworshipsundaymissalThis pew edition will be distinct from “Divine Worship: The Missal” (in either its Altar or Study Editions) in that it will only contain the texts for Sundays and major Holy Days, omitting those for other weekdays. It will include the texts of the major propers from the RSV-2CE lectionary that otherwise are found in two separate volumes for use in the sanctuary. I suspect it will also omit the GIRM, which was included in the previous editions of the Divine Worship missal. You might even say this new book is for the prayers of us common folk in the pew. Might we consider it our new book of common prayer?

In fact, in each of these respects, this new lay missal hews more closely to the model of the Book of Common Prayer. But it is not only akin to the BCP in its inclusion of Sundays and feast days, collects and readings, and so much more of our Anglican patrimony. It’s very nature is meant to bear the Catholic substance of the BCP, as the various books of Divine Worship have been compiled to encapsulate the Anglican tradition principally found in the BCP, and also in the Anglican and English Missals, and even material from our ancient Sarum rite.

Let’s take today’s collect for the feast of All Hallows, known nowadays as All Saints’ Day. What follows is the Collect from the Book of Common Prayer (specifically the 1962 Canadian edition). In the Divine Worship missal, nothing of the BCP collect has been removed, and the few parts distinguished below (like ‘through their intercession’) are all that has been added for Anglican use in the Catholic Church:

“O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that through their intercession we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.”

As is immediately obvious, our Anglican tradition has not only been preserved in its essence and in its integrity, but it has been completed, made whole, and rendered not only even more Catholic but also fully authoritative. In a sense, our Anglican tradition has been perfected and made fully Catholic. While there is yet more to be done, the books of Divine Worship have been an incredible gift to Anglican Catholics.

In the Catholic Church and in the Anglican ordinariates, the Anglican tradition finds its fulfillment and its full Catholic expression. Anyone interested in more details about this new edition of our missal or how to acquire a copy, please see the CTS website.

As the Introit for today puts it, “Rejoice we all, and praise the Lord, celebrating a holy-day in honour of all the Saints: in whose solemnity the Angels are joyful, and glorify the Son of God. Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous: for it becometh well the just to be thankful. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

9 thoughts on “First Anglican Use pew missal published

  1. “Might we consider it our new book of common prayer?” No. We mightn’t. No Office, no BCP.

    Also, how did the 3-year OF lectionary, the 1970 Kalendar, the “Alternative Eucharistic Prayer” (the faux-Cranmerized Bouyer-Botte dewfall anaphora that some people still falsely attribute to St Hippolytus, not being current on liturgical scholarship), etc., “perfect” the Anglican tradition? All of these severed its links with both the older Sarum, the Anglican BCP, and the traditional Roman use.

    What’s the “essence” and “integrity” of Anglican tradition that has been preserved? Is it really exhausted in some unique collects and structural quirks (e.g. place of penitential rite in the Mass) borrowed from the BCP, while discarding the rest of the structure? The things kept and grafted into the hybrid are incidentals, not the “essence” of the rite, and even if you considered the collects essential, they are severed from their original Kalendar and lectionary context. That’s “preserving and perfecting integrity” as much as the “increase” of Minitrue employee and Outer Party Member Winston Smith’s choco rations from 30g to 25g is an “increase.”

    Like

    1. And look, I’m as happy as you are about the publication of this pew missal, don’t get me wrong. But let’s stay in the realm of facts, and acknowledge those things in which the Anglican (and older Sarum and Roman) tradition and its integrity suffered loss, and stop whitewashing it into some grand “New Anglican-Use Springtime” narrative.

      Like

      1. Fair points, Tom. That’s why I said there is yet more to be done. The books of Divine Worship are a work in progress. There are still a number of aspects in which the Anglican patrimony needs to be further incorporated, but the latest books in the Divine Worship series are a definite incremental improvement on the original BDW. When I’m speaking of the perfection or completion of the Anglican tradition, I’m not referring to the intrusions of alien post-conciliar innovations but to those significant elements of our Anglican tradition that have so-far been successfully received and incorporated into the Anglican Use. You’re right, it’s a work in progress, but it is still a source of immense gratitude for us members of the ordinariates.

        Like

      2. And don’t forget the BCP is currently used by many priests and laymen in the Anglican ordinariates for the office as is, a further AU/DW publication for the office will occur eventually, and one day we’ll be able to publish an actual Book of Common Prayer: Catholic Edition (BCP:CE)!

        Like

    2. Tom,

      … the “Alternative Eucharistic Prayer” (the faux-Cranmerized Bouyer-Botte dewfall anaphora that some people still falsely attribute to St Hippolytus, not being current on liturgical scholarship)…

      You seem to have a real axe to grind here for some reason that I don’t comprehend. However, if you actually go through the exercise of comparing the text of the anaphora known as “Eucharistic Prayer II” in the current Roman Missal with the anaphora that Hippolytus of Rome actually recorded in his diatribe called The Apostolic Tradition, you’ll find that the heritage is very clear. The papal commission for the reform of the liturgy did make a few changes to the text to adapt it to the contemporary Catholic sensibilities of the 1960’s when the post-conciliar revision of the missal occurred. The only real structural change was the split of the epiclesis — the original text has one epiclesis over both the gifts and the assembly, right before the institution narrative, but the modified text has two epicleses — the first, over the gifts, right before the institution narrative (in the same place as the original), and the second, over the people, after the institution narrative among the intercessions. There were also some changes to wording, the most notable being the words of institution and the concluding doxology to bring conformity with those of the other anaphoras. Nevertheless, most of the text of the original — including the proper prefacio — is intact.

      I have no idea where you are getting your supposed “later liturgical scholarship” but the only papers of which I am aware with a claim similar to yours came from members of the Society of St. Pius X, which remains in a state of schism and heresy. The supposed scholars of that organization simply do not have access to the extensive array of resources available to the Vatican’s theological experts. Thus, their claims are highly questionable at best.

      Norm.

      Like

      1. Norm, I recommend you read the works of Prof. Paul Bradshaw (especially his “The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship”), the Bradshaw/Johnson/Philips commentary on The Apostolic Tradition, and the works (especially the Memoirs) of Bouyer, who coauthored EP2 with Dom Botte. Have you read his firsthand account of the composition, and its context? If not, instead of lionizing amorphous, nameless “Vatican theological experts,” why not go straight to the actual source?

        Like

      2. I should clarify that the question is not about the extent of textual similarity between EP2 and the Apostolic Tradition, but the authorship of the AT, as well as the grand-narrative claim that the Consilium “just wanted to go back to the sources.” That’s why reading the firsthand account of the reforms is critical. Bouyer and Botte “reached back into the sources” and put together EP2 at the last minute for (literal) next-day papal approval because others on the Consilium were threatening to do even more damage, e.g. by composing brand-new anaphoras with no “Sanctus” (too hieratic for “contemporary sensibilities,” you see) or much else by way of traditional elements. By the ’80s Bouyer disclaimed any relationship between the AT and either Hippolytus or the Roman Church in general. Bradshaw and contemporary scholarly consensus hold it was likely of a later and Eastern, not Roman provenance.

        Like

      3. Norm,

        There are two sets of problems at play here. First, there have been increasing doubts since the 1970s about the identity of the “Hippolytus” who has been taken for the author of The Apostolic Tradition and whether he or his “sample” eucharistic prayer had any connection with the Church of Rome. The items to which Tom B refers in his two comments, and especially this commentary

        https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=johnson+apostolic+tradition+hermeneia

        raise such doubts about its integrity and provenance that one can hardly assume that whatever it is, it represents “Roman tradition” in any way. Secondly, whatever its origin and provenance, the fact that it survived on a palimpsest in one only exemplar, in a hand that enables its writing to be dated with some likelihood to the first two decades of the Fifth Century, really should make one doubt that it reveals anything very certain about the form and content of a eucharistic prayer supposedly composed two centuries earlier. Nobody at that time would have wasted time and effort copying such an obscure item for antiquarian purposes. This means that it was in use by some group of other which found it theologically congenial (some have suggested a surviving Arian group in the Milan region, where Arianism had been strong some decades earlier) and, if so, likely to have been altered, perhaps repeatedly, over the two centuries since its purported composition.

        More generally, the Vatican’s “theological experts” of the 1960s may, just perhaps, have done their due diligence, in vetting the proposed prayer for “orthodoxy,” but I am afraid that it is difficult to come to the same conclusions about its “liturgical experts” when one considers their bizarre enthusiasm for “Hippolytus.” Louis Bouyer’s memoirs, to which Tom refers, show what a confused mess the actual process of liturgical revision was in practice, and is very clear on what Boyer sees as Abp. Bugnini’s role in his position of effective “go between” between Paul VI and the reforming commission as manipulating both of them by purveying what Bouyer does not hesitate to term falsehoods; and he gives a detailed account of how he and Dom Bernard Botte composed what became EP II on the terrace of a restaurant in Trastevere. More generally, I find it hard to respect some of the members of the commission. Knowledge of the sources per se is not very helpful, and may actually be harmful, if it is not joined to good judgment and common sense. One of the most influential of the “reformers” who labored on the production of the 1960 Novus Ordo Missae was Dom Cipriano Vagaggini (1909-1999), and every few years I pull down from my shelves and peruse his The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform (1966; Eng. trans., 1967) and marvel at the way this learned man was able to take so many notions that were little more than liturgico-historical “theories” (i.e., speculations) for established truths,and to go on from this to act as judge of the deficiencies of the Roman Canon and arbiter of the necessary corrections. In cases of this sort, one has to conclude that if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, a lot of knowledge is more dangerous still, in the absence, as I wrote, of good judgment and common sense – and, I might add, of scholarly modesty as well.

        If instead of mining and refining gold, these liturgical experts were producing the equivalent of iron pyrite, or “fools gold,” due to their shaky acquaintance with Chemistry (i.e., historical common sense) all of their technical education in extractive technique and productive efficiency proves but vain labor, at best as a dissuasive from the pursuit of future similar scholarly enthusiasms, and their subsequent foisting on the faithful. To seem to take (as one English Anglican liturgical scholar once wrote about the practical outcome of the Latin Church’s “liturgical reforms” of the 1960s) omne ignotum pro magnifico is not an approach that reflects credit upon those charged with such a weighty task as “liturgical reform.”

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s