The Ordinariate Mass – Why Eucharistic Prayer II?

Having downloaded from the Church of England website The Order for the Celebration of Holy Communion also called The Eucharist and The Lord's Supper, according to its latest "Common Worship" formulæ, I now see where many of the elements of the new Ordinariate Mass come from.

For instance, the suggestion to use the 1662 version of the Veni Creator Spiritus as a preparatory prayer in the sacristy might have seemed a rather self-conscious throwback to the Sarum Rite – were it not that the same hymn in the same version is offered as the first text to be prayed in A Form of Preparation for private or public use before, or as part of, the Communion service.

Leaving aside the prayers at the foot of the altar – which (sans Confiteor) appeared in the 1928 Proposed BCP, and (including modified Confiteor) in the 1970 Scottish Episcopalian Liturgy – much of the Ordinariate Mass order of service, down to the prayers of intercession after the Creed, corresponds to the modern Church of England "Order One in Traditional Language" combined with "Order Two" (which is in traditional language also): Anglicans still allow the use of such hieratic diction without carping criticism thereof.

For example, I was interested to find that, as an alternative intercession, the 1662 Prayer for All Conditions of Men, slightly modified, was suggested for use in the Ordinariate Mass – but I am far less surprised to find it there, now I know that the same prayer, with the same modifications, is found in these "Common Worship" provisions.

What of provision for the use of the modern Roman Rite offertory prayers, as "Form II" in the Ordinariate Mass? Well, the two berakoth prescribed for use at the presentation of the hosts and mixed chalice are present, in a version minimally variant from the old ICEL paraphrase, in the "Common Worship" compendium; just as they were in the 1970 Scottish Episcopalian Liturgy.

But most notably – and to many, most strangely – the Ordinariate Mass does not take up a Catholicised Anglican Eucharistic Prayer; instead, alongside the Roman Canon, which may always be used, and must be used on Sundays and feasts (would that the like rule in the modern Roman Missal recommending either it or E.P. III for Sundays and feasts were obligatory, not merely a suggestion), one finds, in "traditional language", Eucharistic Prayer II.

The reason for this I have discovered: amongst the many Eucharistic Prayers appointed in the Church of England's "Common Worship", Prayer B is transparently a reediting of Eucharistic Prayer II, excluding its intercessions for the Church and the faithful departed. Hence, as Eucharistic Prayer II is both the most commonly used Eucharistic Prayer of the modern Roman Rite, and the one prayer present in recognizable form in both the Roman Missal and "Common Worship", it was adopted for use in the Ordinariate Mass as an option on weekdays, simply being put into traditional language so that it matched the style of the rest of it. 

Many of the monuments of Anglican devotion, such as the Prayer of Humble Access (before Communion) and the Prayer of Thanksgiving (after Holy Communion), are of course present in these "Common Worship" Orders; and have passed into Catholic use. Similarly, the Anglican forms include a modified form of Ecce Agnus Dei and Domine, non sum dignus.  That curious phrase appointed in the Ordinariate Mass for use at the fraction, "Alleluia. Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. – Therefore let us keep the feast. Alleluia." is found (as an alternative invitation to Holy Communion) in these Anglican forms.

The Ordinariate Mass is most distinguished from "Common Worship", and from the modern Roman Rite, by its inclusion of features specific to the traditional Roman Rite, as taken over into Anglo-Catholic use in the Anglican Missal tradition: the Tridentine prayers at the foot of the altar and Tridentine offertory prayers, the immemorial form of the embolism after the Lord's Prayer (a valuable text, including as it does explicit mention of the intercession of Our Lady and the Saints, even if the Eucharistic Prayer used does not), and the Last Gospel.

Features common to both forms of the one Roman Rite, such as the Orate fratres, the Secret or Prayer over the oblata, and above all the venerable Roman Canon, the Eucharistic Prayer of the Western Church for at least 1600 years, complete the Ordinariate Mass.

The Ritual Reason Why

Why does the new Ordinariate Mass consist of a combination of BCP, traditional Roman Rite, and modern Roman Rite elements? I commented on Debra Gyapong's blog on all this, but the comment became as lengthy as a posting, so here is my essay...

At random (well, not really), I plucked from my bookshelf a 1952 copy of The Priest's Book of Private Devotion, a classic Anglo-Catholic manual first issued in the late 19th C., and turned to "Directions and Devotions for the Celebrant" (at the Holy Communion). This provides the following items:

1. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, incl. the Confiteor - all this (except for the final collect Aufer a nobis) is now part of the Ordinariate Mass;

2. The 1662 BCP Communion service, from the start to the Gospel - the Ordinariate Mass omits the prefatory Lord's Prayer, gives the Decalogue and the Summary of the Law (a happy innovation of the Nonjurors) as options, inserts here the Kyrie and Gloria in excelsis (as the 1549 BCP appointed), puts the Dominus vobiscum before the Collect (omitting the 1662 Collect for the Queen), and uses the readings appointed in the modern Roman Lectionary according to the Revised Standard Version;

3. Short prayers before and after reading the Gospel - I have no information on this, but I imagine the Ordinariate Mass appoints such;

3. The 1662, from the Creed to the Offertory sentence;

4. The Tridentine offertory prayers (none for the censing, since this is all for Low Mass), excluding only the Orate fratres, Suscipe sancta Trinitas and Secret - the new Ordinariate Mass has all of these as "Form I" of its offertory;

5. The 1662 Prayer for the Church Militant - the Ordinariate Mass puts this, the intercessions, before the offertory, and has various forms for this, including (I believe) a suitably supplemented form of this prayer, including prayer for the departed and commemoration of the saints;

6. The 1662 'Penitential Act' ("Ye who do truly" to the Comfortable Words) - the Ordinariate Mass has all of this, with some slight modifications to the text (omitting "and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort" and putting the 'absolution' in the first person plural), but again putting it all before the offertory;

7. The 1662 Sursum corda, Preface, Sanctus and Benedictus (the last not being 1662) - again, this is all taken into the Ordinariate Mass;

8. The 1662 Prayer of Humble Access - put immediately before the reception of Holy Communion in the Ordinariate Mass;

9. The 1662 Prayer of Consecration, supplemented with the 1549 Anamnesis and the 1549/1662 Prayer of Oblation - all this is replaced in the Ordinariate Mass with the Roman Canon (which in The Priest's Book of Private Devotion is given in full, in Latin, including also all the prayers from the Lord's Prayer to the Communion prayers, directly after these "Directions and Devotions" - suggesting that some at least simply turned to it and used all those prayers instead);

10. While in the 1662 the Communion followed directly after the Consecration, these "Directions and Devotions" instead give, in English, all the prayers in the Roman Mass after the Canon, that is, "Let us pray. As our Saviour... Our Father... Deliver us, O Lord... The peace of the Lord... This commingling... O Lamb of God...", the three prayers before Communion, all the formulæ and psalm-verses of the priest's communion, and the two prayers at the ablutions - the Ordinariate Mass seems to have most of these (the Lord's Prayer, the Libera nos in its immemorial form, the prayer Domine Jesu Christe, qui dixisti and the Pax, the Agnus Dei, Ecce Agnus Dei and Domine non sum dignus, threefold) but also, transferred from above, the Prayer of Humble Access, and a special versicle at the Fraction, quoting the Apostle, but whose usage here is derived ultimately from 1549;

11. The 1662 resumes with the Lord's Prayer after Communion (a repetition wisely omitted in the Ordinariate Mass), the Prayer of Thanksgiving (included in the Ordinariate Mass, with some minor corrections to avoid the appearance of receptionism), the Gloria in excelsis (moved back to its Roman Rite position in the Ordinariate Mass) and the blessing (included in the Ordinariate Mass).

12. Then comes the Last Gospel - also included in the Ordinariate Mass.

So, as evidently various Anglo-Catholics in 1952 took up the 1662 BCP, and prefaced it with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, interlarded it with the Tridentine Offertory and Communion prayers, and tacked on the Last Gospel at the end, the ritual reason why the Ordinariate Mass now contains most of these features is easily understood.

******

I have seen, also, various Anglican Missals – none of them "official" publications, but used in Anglo-Catholic parishes all over the world; most were old, but I've seen modern reprints on sale at the Anglican bookshop next to St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne – which similarly consist of greater or lesser combinations of the BCP and Missale Romanum. My former parish priest, himself once an Anglican minister (and now a Catholic bishop; "I've been ordained five times!" he joked) once showed me his old English Missal, which had three Eucharistic Prayers: the BCP Prayer of Consecration and Prayer of Oblation back to back (the "interim rite"), the Roman Canon in English, and the Roman Canon in Latin.

Now that I think of it, I have a copy of The English Missal for the Laity (Knott, 1933), which the average Catholic would probably mistake for a hand-missal to bring along to Latin Mass; it certainly contains enough parallel Latin-English!  Looking to the texts provided for Advent Sunday, a Catholic would be puzzled as to why the Collect, Epistle and Gospel wouldn't match those at Mass (if they noticed), and perhaps suspicious as to why the third collect is for the "chief bishop", not Pope. (That said, among the Votive Masses are those for the Election of the Pope, and on the Day of his Election and Coronation.) As well, the Sundays after Pentecost are numbered after Trinity instead...

Looking to the Knott Missal's Ordinary of the Mass, all would seem alright, but why does the Lord's Prayer, in its Protestant wording,  and a Collect for the grace of the Holy Spirit, separated out by heavy lines, appear a little before the Introit? Could it be meant as a private devotion while the priest and ministers pray their prayers? And why likewise does a long prayer "for the... Church militant", and the Anglican penitential prayers (with rubric to the effect that the Confession shall be said in the name of all by one of the Ministers "either here, or after the Priest's communion"), appear likewise inserted after the Secret? Is the lay worshipper to pray at least the intercessory prayer – nice, but strangely omitting explicit reference to the Pope and the Saints – while the priest performs the offertory?

Why, too, are there two versions of several Prefaces? why again does "We do not presume" (the devout Prayer of Humble Access) and the 1662 Anglican Prayers of Consecration and Oblation (definitely heretical, as regards the defective epiclesis) appear before the Canon of the Mass? but otherwise, all is as in the Roman Missal – and from Te igitur to the end of Mass, all is given in parallel Latin and English, even the rubrics (and this in a missal for the use of the laity!): strangely, while the Latin says Papa, the English coyly says "Chief Bishop". Before the prayers for when Holy Communion is distributed at Mass, and then the Leonine Prayers, there are two further Anglican inserts (for the rubrics refer back to the main text): the Prayer of Thanksgiving is provided as one of the Postcommunions, and "The peace of God, which passeth all understanding..." is given as an alternative form of blessing.

To summarize, I think I could take along The English Missal for the Laity to an Extraordinary Form Mass quite happily, and if I gave it to a friend he might not even notice that it wasn't Catholic, but Anglo-Papalist. (Another now-Catholic friend in Hobart was brought up very High Church Anglican, and went to All Saints, Wickham Terrace, in Brisbane, where the services were so High they even used Latin, and worshippers were advised, should they be unable to come to All Saints, to go to R.C. Mass rather than slum it in any other Anglican parish. As she said, when she became a Catholic "All I had to change was the name of the bishop".)

In comparison to The English Missal for the Laity, that is, the Knott Missal (and others like it), the new Ordinariate Mass, with its larger retention of Anglican forms, and use of readings and prayers from the modern Roman Rite, is actually quite moderate!

Fit for Purpose? - II

Over at Deborah Gyapong's blog, Foolishness to the World, there has been some discussion (this being the latest) in posts arising out of my posting Fit for Purpose? (which concerned what parts of the classical Anglican Eucharistic service constitute an acceptable and orthodox Anglican Patrimony suitable to bring into the Catholic Church) which I wrote almost a month ago.  Here is my latest reply to the issues raised by a Canadian interlocutor there, whose name I know not, but whose scholarship I respect.

******

Let us now establish what is at issue here.  Having opened the classical BCP – never mind that few now use it, whether here in Australia, or in the UK; and of course Canada has its own BCP (not that there it is used much either), and likewise for other corners of the Anglican Communion – I looked to see what of its Patrimony, as regards the Eucharist, was “fit for purpose” or, rather, doctrinally orthodox, and thus assimilable for use in the full communion of the Catholic Church in union with Peter.  I left aside High Church ceremonial, and all such considerations; I left aside all old attempts at fitting together the Holy Communion from the BCP with the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass; I looked at the BCP Communion Office, and (to my satisfaction at least) showed how virtually all of it could be suitably adapted for use as part of a variant of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass – which is confirmed by finding precisely that done in the already-existing Book of Divine Worship for use in the USA by Catholic parishes following the Anglican Use. But I did note that some parts of the BCP’s Eucharistic rite would not pass the test of orthodoxy: above all, the Prayer of Consecration; also, some phrases in other parts needing rewording or deleting (such as the second half of the words of administration of the Sacrament, which date from the notoriously Protestant 1552 BCP).

As I think I may have mentioned, if any Anglican liturgy were found acceptable in toto for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, it would be that found in the Scottish BCP of 1929; or again, that of the Nonjurors, as drawn up in 1718.  But to be frank, the latter was never used but by a tiny remnant for a generation three centuries ago; and the former is not so much used even among the tiny Scottish Episcopalian denomination any more (having been replaced in the main by odder more modern liturgies).

However, as the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 BCP consists of a thankful remembrance of the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, followed by a prayer that those receiving the bread and wine would be partakers of His Body and Blood, and then a recital of the Institution Narrative, it is clearly insufficient to express Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist – instead, it well inculcates receptionism (Hooker’s new heresy) and the Protestant tenet that Christ’s Sacrifice is not made present here and now in the Eucharist, but was offered up once for all.  Whatever may be claimed, rather tongue-in-cheek it may seem, in Sæpius officio (wherein its Anglican authors had the bare-faced cheek to claim their mutilated remnant of a Eucharistic Prayer, being as it is derived from the Roman Canon, is somehow clearer in its exposition of Catholic doctrine than the hallowed and most ancient Canon itself – a rude claim, be it noted, that falls under a Tridentine anathema against any who would impugn the Canon of the Mass), the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 BCP is manifestly heretical: indeed, how could it be otherwise, since it was specially designed to teach novel doctrines.  If a priest in valid orders pronounced it, it would of course serve to consecrate the Sacrament validly – but just as plainly it would be grievously sinful to use such a prayer.

The learned Canadian who has replied so courteously to my initial foray has, I think, mistaken me in a way: for he surely realizes that, while offering oneself up in union with Christ is excellent and holy, and to adore with all worship Christ as one receives the Sacrament is but our bounden duty, and to consider reading the Ten Commandments as a restatement of the Covenant (though that be pious), is still not to acknowledge that the 1662 BCP’s Prayer of Consecration is hardly a suitable Eucharistic Prayer: Taylor and Cosin and many other Anglican divines privately hoped for a better, as their drafts at the time of its imposition demonstrate: they and such worthies as Johnson, Vicar of Cranbrook, while defending the validity of the 1662 service and what they saw as its orthodoxy (an attempt I charitably seek to sympathize with, yet unquestionably reject), felt that the 1549 was arranged in the proper order, and had been mucked with in deference to Continental Protestants, and had not been returned to in 1662 only because of the hopes of reconciling Protestants to the newly-restored Church of England, hopes that proved abortive.  Their liturgical heirs, the English Nonjurors (who died out) and the Scottish Episcopalians (who survived persecution and still survive in small numbers), therefore restored the rightful order as they saw it to the Eucharistic Liturgy.

Quite frankly, to say that all the Anglican attempts to restore the older and more Catholic order of the Liturgy, by producing a fuller Eucharistic Prayer, are somehow lesser than Cranmer’s project, more ambiguous even, is to be manifestly contrarian and to oppose all serious liturgical scholarship.  Protestant Anglicans may be pleased by the 1662 BCP’s Eucharistic rite: Catholics will never be, and it is hardly ecumenical to put forward something that most Christians – the Catholics, the Orthodox, and members of other ancient Eastern churches – would see as not a true and proper Eucharist at all.

Even if the 1549 BCP’s arrangement of the Prayer for the Church, the Prayer of Consecration (including a rather more acceptable epiclesis, praying that the elements may “be unto us” Christ’s Body and Blood, which is capable of bearing the interpretation that the bread and wine not merely subjectively but objectively cease to be bread and wine, and truly and wholly become His Body and Blood) and then the Prayer of Memorial (i.e. Anamnesis) and Oblation were used, it would still constitute a Eucharistic Prayer that is mala sonans – suspect and disturbing, because it was Cranmer’s first chopping about of the immemorial Canon of the Mass.  The later Scottish tradition, drawing on the abortive 1637 BCP for Scotland, and refined throughout the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century, reaching its classic form in 1764 before being brought to final form in the 1929 Scottish BCP for the small Episcopalian body in that country, better orders and phrases the Eucharistic Prayer, by setting the Prayer of Consecration first (containing the Institution Narrative), then the Prayer of Memorial, Oblation and Invocation (putting a proper Epiclesis after the Words of the Lord, as done throughout the Christian East), and then the Prayer of Intercession, pleading the merits of the Lord’s Sacrifice for all the quick and the dead.  But even this most Catholic arrangement still may be taken as dangerously ambiguous, I am constrained to note; though a Catholic would of course read it in conformity with sound doctrine.  For the avoidance of all doubt, the only Anglican Eucharistic Prayer that evades Cranmer’s seductive phraseology (and thus repudiates his sophistry) is that of the Nonjurors, drawn up in 1718: for it replaces Cranmer’s Prayer of Consecration and Prayer of Oblation with extracts from the Liturgy of St James and that of the Apostolic Constitutions – needless to say, such is hardly Anglican Patrimony however, and it would be mad archæologism to ever propose its revival.

So, as to being “strictly BCP” in worship, of course the laudable Offices of Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer are to be retained; but as to the Eucharist, the best that can be done is to combine all acceptable parts of the BCP’s Order for the Holy Communion with “the Secret and the Canon and the Dominus vobiscum” as a humorous poem puts it.  Such a combination, whether, like the various Anglican Missals of old, adding the best BCP bits into the matrix of the Traditional Mass, or doing the same with the modern Mass, as the first edition of the Book of Divine Worship has demonstrated can be done, is manifestly dignified, well-phrased and pleasing (we pray) to God and man, insofar as any imperfect human service may be said to be.

Fit for Purpose?

Anglicans now coming into full communion bring with them a rich Patrimony, one worthy to share with the wider Church, as the very Vicar of Christ has written in his invitation to them.  One aspect of this – and perhaps the most problematic – is their liturgical Patrimony; and in particular, the form of their Eucharistic liturgies.

I refer now, not to the style of these celebrations – though their solemn chanting, their fine vestments, their beautiful sacred music, their reverent posture and gestures, their eastward celebrations, their kneeling communions and so forth are all excellent and much to be imitated, just as once they developed those practices in holy imitation of Catholic worship in better days – but to the particular texts and prayers used therein.

Now, High Church Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, have often pinched all manner of prayers, rites and rituals from Catholic sources (there are tales of nineteenth and early twentieth century vicars taking holidays in Belgium, scouting out the practices of the churches therein, and promptly putting them into practice back in their parishes, to the amazement of their parishioners); but I will not be commenting on that particular practice, especially as the NLM and the Anglo-Catholic have been discussing the pros and cons of adopting for official Catholic use what is essentially the old Latin Mass put into Cranmerian English – and which was never officially approved for Anglican use in any case, since Anglo-Catholics just did it without authorization.

Instead, I will rehash what I have discussed before, looking at the 1662 English BCP and its descendent, the 1978 (weirdly named) An Australian Prayer Book, to see what if any of their prayers for use at Holy Communion are fit for purpose, if transposed for use as part of a Catholic Mass.  It must be borne in mind that, unlike in Canada or the U.S. or Scotland, the Australian Anglican milieu was more Low Church overall, with the baleful influence of Sydney Evangelicalism outweighing whatever the High Church country dioceses may have wanted (and I have seen, at Wangaratta's Anglican Cathedral, a side altar complete with altar cards in English that were evidently put there for a celebration according to the English Missal, that is, the Latin Mass in English; just as a former Anglican priest, now a Catholic, once showed me his English Missal, which he used in Queensland many years ago).

Let us then turn to the Book of Common Prayer.

The 1662 BCP Holy Communion Service began with the Lord’s Prayer.  Then followed the Collect for Purity (Cranmer’s beautiful Englishing of the ancient Latin prayer Deus cui omne, used in the Sarum Rite and also found amongst the collects in the Preparation for Mass in the Roman Missal).  The Ten Commandments were recited next, with a response after each.  Then came the Collect for the Queen, before the Collect of the Day – it seems awfully Erastian to put her before such topics as the salvation of the world, but the reason that for the Sovereign precedes the prayer of the day is one of mere convenience, to avoid too many turnings to and fro in the service book.

What of any of this is Anglican Patrimony worthy of preservation?

More recent Anglican practice has been to drop the prefatory Our Father, but at all costs to retain the Collect for Purity – I was once in attendance at a Low Church Anglican service which began with that Collect, and then passed at once to the readings!  Reading the Commandments has become unpopular also (particularly given recent Anglican avoidance of the harder of them), except among the staunchest Low Churchmen.  Even in the nineteenth century it was observed that the number of times the Queen was prayed for at Anglican services was rather excessive, so few now read the Collect for her any more.  That leaves the Collect of the Day – Cranmer’s versions of the traditional Latin orations are generally excellent, though they would need correcting in places, and translations of collects left out by him or introduced after his day would need to be added.

As to the readings, maintaining the traditional Epistles and Gospels ought be an option; however, many if not all Australian Anglicans have moved to use some form of the modern three-year Lectionary in any case (including those Continuing Anglicans in the T.A.C., from what I have observed here in Tasmania).

After the Epistle and Gospel comes the Creed (its wording is acceptable if “Holy”, strangely omitted, be replaced as one of the adjectives describing the Church).  Then follow any relevant notices and the sermon or homily. 

The Offertory begins with the reading of one or more Sentences of Scripture, generally relating to the duty of almsgiving and the like.  I suspect those High enough to consider full communion with the Catholic Church omit that as rather too Protestant, not to say Pelagian, turning the Offertory into the oblation of the sons of men rather than the preparation of the Oblation of the Son of Man (as Dix trenchantly put it; Dearmer, too, remarked on the odious idolatry of elevating the alms-dish).  Obviously, if any Sentences ought be read, the old Offertory antiphons would be preferable; also better would be selected passages relating to the offering up of sacrifice.

Next comes the Prayer for the Church Militant.  The words “militant here in earth” would need to be deleted at the outset.  Likewise the antique cast of the petitions for “Christian Kings, Princes and Governors; and specially thy Servant ELIZABETH” would need editing, and – to avoid Erastianism – the petition for “all Bishops and Curates” would need to be placed first after that for the Universal Church, with the Pope included at the head of those clergy prayed for.  At the end, the thanksgiving for the faithful departed would need to be enlarged and changed into a prayer for the dead and a commemoration of the saints.  But all this has been done in various more recent Anglican adaptions of this prayer in any case, together with dividing it up into parts to each of which the people may give some such reply as “We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord” (as the Litany puts it).

The rarely-read Exhortations come next: if used at all, they would need to be reworded to make them fully Catholic in sentiment.

The Invitation, general Confession and Absolution follow.  Some light editing and rewording of these, and in particular the Absolution, changing it from the second to the first person plural (to avoid it sounding like sacramental absolution), would be required.  After these the Comfortable Words ensue: these are perfectly acceptable, though the Book of Divine Worship (containing the currently existing Catholic form of the Mass according to the Anglican Use) wisely extends the last “word” or quotation of I John 2:1 to broaden the context, reminding all that Christ is “the propitiation for our sins” – immediately adding, “and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.”

The BDW transposes the preparation of the bread and wine for use at the altar from before the Prayer for the Church to this point, where (somewhat awkwardly) it inserts the Novus Ordo offertory prayers, for some supplementation of the Anglican service is needed here.  Leaving aside the issue of whether or not to use the two modern prayers at the offering up the bread and wine (for all but that pair are in fact to be found also in the Extraordinary Form, more or less), at the very least the Orate fratres and the Secret ought be added – as High Church Anglicans often have in any case.

Next come the Sursum corda, Preface and Sanctus.  As has often been done by Anglicans, to this “The Lord be with you” should be prefaced, and the Sanctus extended with the Benedictus, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord…”.

Here the Anglican service’s greatest, grossest deficiencies manifest themselves: the Prayer of Humble Access – though devout and godly – is bizarrely placed before the Prayer of Consecration, rather than directly before Communion (since Cramner’s Zwinglian view of the Eucharist made him strive to sever any apparent connexion between eating and drinking Christ’s Body and Blood on the one hand, and the mere bread and wine on the other!).

Similarly, the Prayer of Consecration is gravely deficient from a Catholic viewpoint, being unfit for purpose as a proper Eucharistic Prayer.  Anglicans of a Catholic sensibility have historically adopted several methods of remedying the felt lacuna: to use the Roman Canon instead; to read all of the Roman Canon silently, but to omit the central part and substitute the Anglican form of the words of Consecration (the ugly “sandwich rite”); or to fiddle with the Prayer of Consecration by reverting to earlier forms thereof, combining it with the 1549 Anamnesis and Prayer of Oblation (found, truncated, after Communion in the 1662), as the American Episcopalians have long done, and even – as amongst the Scottish Episcopalians – with the Prayer for the Church at the end.  

I have previously argued that if any Anglican Eucharistic Prayer would be allowable, the Scottish version is the only one that comes close; but it is far more likely that none will be allowed, and at this point the Roman Canon (or, optionally, one of the other modern Roman Rite Eucharistic Prayers) will be prescribed instead.

Again most bizarrely, the 1662 BCP at once proceeds to the distribution of Communion, placing the Lord’s Prayer (with doxology) afterward!  This piece of Zwinglian excess committed by Cranmer (as also his addition of “Take and eat / drink this in remembrance…” to the words of administration, which is heretical and ought be deleted) must be reversed.

The BCP Holy Communion service offers either a truncated Prayer of Oblation, or a Prayer of Thanksgiving, to be said after (the Lord’s Prayer and) Communion.  The Prayer of Thanksgiving is usable with light editing.  To round out the service with praise, the 1552 BCP first moved the Gloria in excelsis from the first to the last part of the liturgy, and this the 1662 maintained.  However, I understand that most Anglicans long ago reversed this peculiar (though innocent and arguably fitting) usage.  The service then concludes with the blessing, “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding…” and this beautiful prayer – which in all essentials is already found as an option in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Mass these days – is indeed wholesome and worthy of retention.

So much for the 1662 BCP – now, to the awkwardly-named An Australian Prayer Book of 1978.  Its “First Order” for Holy Communion is a conservative revision of the 1662, with minor improvements: 

• allowing a psalm, hymn or anthem to be sung at the start of the service (as was commonly done anyway), or a Sentence of Scripture;
• starting with “The Lord be with you”, and using this at the Gospel also;
• providing the Summary of the Law as an alternative to the Ten Commandments (or the Kyrie, on weekdays);
• permitting a psalm, hymn or canticle to be sung between the readings, of which there may be three (as is the modern custom);
• allowing the sermon to be preached before the Creed (now including “holy”);
• including a few more fitting Offertory Sentences, plus permitting an offertory hymn;
• allowing different forms of the words of administration of the Holy Communion, including more Catholic phrases, and again allowing for hymn-singing and the reading of a relevant Sentence of Scripture (i.e. a Communion Antiphon).

As to the 1978 Second Order, it allows for the Kyrie and Gloria in excelsis to be sung at the start of the service, together with a general Confession and Absolution; it also provides other forms of intercession in place of the Prayer for the Church (though these new forms are hardly Patrimony, being closer and closer approximations to contemporary Roman intercessions ad lib.); likewise, a place for “The peace of the Lord be always with you” is provided, before the Eucharistic Prayer, and even a prayer for the presentation of “the gifts of the people”, transparently copied from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, is provided.  Other changes are simply moves in the direction of the format of the modern Roman Mass, while remaining quite Protestant in character; none of its suggested “Thanksgivings” (Eucharistic Prayers) would be suitable for Catholic use, nor are they even specimens of traditional Anglican piety.

I pass over the still more recent revision of Australian Anglican liturgical worship, with its multitude of options, and its limited approximation to some Roman forms (including use of the Benedictus at last, the Agnus Dei and of a form of the Domine non sum dignus) – primarily because liturgy amongst Anglicans here has become more and more variable, disintegrating into a liberal Protestant mishmash; as mentioned, I once was constrained to be present at a very Low Church service, which seemed degenerate and incoherent even in comparison to the official Anglican forms I have just critiqued.

So, of all this, what remains as fit for purpose?

The Collect for Purity and the Prayer of Humble Access, above all.

For those who retained a greater amount of love and affection for Anglican forms, as opposed to an adoption more or less enthusiastically of either traditional or modern Roman ones, further items can be rescued and recycled:

• the Commandments or Summary of the Law, with response;
• the Anglican wording of the Kyrie and Gloria in excelsis;
• the Collects in traditional language;
• the traditional system of readings (for such as still use them);
• the Anglican wording of the Creed;
• the Prayer for the Church, amended;
• the Penitential Act, comprising a lightly edited Invitation, Confession and Absolution (non-sacramental, of course);
• the Anglican wording of the Sursum corda, Preface, Sanctus and Benedictus;
• the Catholic first half of the words of administration of the Sacrament (though this is all but identical to that found in the traditional Roman Mass);
• the long Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion;
• the final blessing, “The Peace”.

Unsurprisingly, all this, barring the traditional one-year cycle of readings for such as want it, can already be found in the current Book of Divine Worship for the Anglican Use, albeit in the particular wording found in the U.S. Episcopalian tradition, drawing on the U.S. 1928 and 1979 B.C.P.’s.

The BDW incorporates all these elements into the general structure of the modern Roman Mass, with some more traditional features, such as "The Lord be with you" immediately before the Collect, not at the start of the Mass as in the Ordinary Form.

It is reported that the forthcoming new edition of the BDW will be updated to conform to the new translation of the Prayer over the Gifts (now called the Prayer over the Offerings) for each Mass, the Offertory prayers, the Memorial Acclamations, and above all the new phrasing of the words of consecration; this should take away that most unpleasant feature of the BDW, the clunky fashion in which the language used slips from sacral to banal and back again.

Finally, what portions of the BCP's Communion service, though theoretically desirable if thoroughly Catholicised, are unlikely to ever be permitted?  The problematic Prayer of Consecration and Prayer of Oblation, which are found conjoined in the Scottish and American Episcopalian traditions, but which have not been found worthy.

The Royal Wedding - II

As noted in my last post, it transpires that the wedding of Prince William and Catherine, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, was conducted according to the rites allowed in the Church of England as an alternative to the Book of Common Prayer service in Series One (1966), and that this in turn (but for an inserted blessing of the ring, ultimately from the Latin) was the service for marriage in the Proposed B.C.P. of 1928.

I also expressed surprise at the notable omissions and alterations in the prayers for holy wedlock, changes made when revising the 1662 order of service back in the nineteen twenties.  I do not refer to minor changes (such as changing "ordinance" to "law"), but to the deletion of references to God's creation of man in the state of original justice, to His uniting Adam and Eve as man and wife, and to Old Testament persons who are models of godly living: both the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and two holy couples – Isaac and Rebecca, Abraham and Sarah.  Here, I give the changes made to which I refer:

in the time of man’s innocency > himself

as Isaac and Rebecca lived faithfully together, so these persons > living faithfully together, they

Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob > our fathers

Look, O Lord, mercifully upon them from heaven, and bless them. And as thou didst send thy blessing upon Abraham and Sarah, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send thy blessing upon these thy servants; that they > that so, … they

who by thy mighty power hast made all things of nothing; who also (after other things set in order) didst appoint, that out of man (created after thine own image and similitude) woman should take her beginning; and, knitting them together, didst teach > who hast taught us

who at the beginning did create our first parents, Adam and Eve, and did sanctify and join them together in marriage > the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

It amazes me that these abbreviations remove every one of the Old Testament references!  If I were the Chief Rabbi (who was in attendance at the wedding), and had this brought to my attention, I suppose I would be both rather annoyed at this suppression of tradition, if unsurprised at Gentiles doing this: the Anglican liturgical revisers of the twenties appear almost Marcionist in their determination to delete Jewish references.

Elizabethan Prayers I and II

From the time of Elizabeth I comes "The Order Of Prayer upon Wednesdays and Fridays, to avert and turn God's wrath from us threatened by the late terrible earthquake, to be used in all Parish Churches" (Liturgical Services of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, 562-566) – a service appointed in consequence of the great earthquake that shook England and sundry lands around on the 6th of April 1580.  

I spare readers the immensely lengthy and rather over-enthusiastic prayer, but I do like the choice for the First Lesson of either Joel i or ii (or Isaias lviii), and in particular find the choice of proper psalms very apt: Psalms 30 (Vulg. 29), 46 (45), and 91 (90), which I append in the Prayerbook version (which is approved for Catholic use):

Psalm 30. Exaltabo te, Domine

I WILL magnify thee, O Lord, for thou hast set me up : and not made my foes to triumph over me.

2. O Lord my God, I cried unto thee : and thou hast healed me.

3. Thou, Lord, hast brought my soul out of hell : thou hast kept my life from them that go down to the pit.

4. Sing praises unto the Lord, O ye saints of his : and give thanks unto him for a remembrance of his holiness.

5. For his wrath endureth but the twinkling of an eye, and in his pleasure is life : heaviness may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

6. And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be removed : thou, Lord, of thy goodness hast made my hill so strong.

7. Thou didst turn thy face from me : and I was troubled.

8. Then cried I unto thee, O Lord : and gat me to my Lord right humbly.

9. What profit is there in my blood : when I go down to the pit?

10. Shall the dust give thanks unto thee : or shall it declare thy truth?

11. Hear, O Lord, and have mercy upon me : Lord, be thou my helper.

12. Thou hast turned my heaviness into joy : thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness.

13. Therefore shall every good man sing of thy praise without ceasing : O my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever.

Psalm 46. Deus noster refugium

GOD is our hope and strength : a very present help in trouble.

2. Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved : and though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea;

3. Though the waters thereof rage and swell : and though the mountains shake at the tempest of the same.

4. The rivers of the flood thereof shall make glad the city of God : the holy place of the tabernacle of the most Highest.

5. God is in the midst of her, therefore shall she not be removed : God shall help her, and that right early.

6. The heathen make much ado, and the kingdoms are moved : but God hath shewed his voice, and the earth shall melt away.

7. The Lord of hosts is with us : the God of Jacob is our refuge.

8. O come hither, and behold the works of the Lord : what destruction he hath brought upon the earth.

9. He maketh wars to cease in all the world : he breaketh the bow, and knappeth the spear in sunder, and burneth the chariots in the fire.

10. Be still then, and know that I am God : I will be exalted among the heathen, and I will be exalted in the earth.

11. The Lord of hosts is with us : the God of Jacob is our refuge.

Psalm 91. Qui habitat

WHOSO dwelleth under the defence of the most High : shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

2. I will say unto the Lord, Thou art my hope, and my strong hold : my God, in him will I trust.

3. For he shall deliver thee from the snare of the hunter : and from the noisome pestilence.

4. He shall defend thee under his wings, and thou shalt be safe under his feathers : his faithfulness and truth shall be thy shield and buckler.

5. Thou shalt not be afraid for any terror by night : nor for the arrow that flieth by day;

6. For the pestilence that walketh in darkness : nor for the sickness that destroyeth in the noon-day.

7. A thousand shall fall beside thee, and ten thousand at thy right hand : but it shall not come nigh thee.

8. Yea, with thine eyes shalt thou behold : and see the reward of the ungodly.

9. For thou, Lord, art my hope : thou hast set thine house of defence very high.

10. There shall no evil happen unto thee : neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.

11. For he shall give his angels charge over thee : to keep thee in all thy ways.

12. They shall bear thee in their hands : that thou hurt not thy foot against a stone.

13. Thou shalt go upon the lion and adder : the young lion and the dragon shalt thou tread under thy feet.

14. Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him : I will set him up, because he hath known my Name.

15. He shall call upon me, and I will hear him : yea, I am with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and bring him to honour.

16. With long life will I satisfy him : and shew him my salvation.

From the reign of Elizabeth II, albeit from Italian sources, comes the following Collect in the modern Roman Missal, evidently a conflation of the old Collect and Secret for use in time of earthquake, with some additions made that supply the last two phrases:

Deus, qui fundásti terram super stabilitátem suam, parce metuéntibus, propitiáre supplícibus, ut, treméntis terrae perículis pénitus amótis, cleméntiam tuam iúgiter sentiámus, et, tua protectióne secúri, tibi serviámus gratánter. Per...

My unofficial translation:

O God, “Who didst establish the earth on firm foundations” (Ps 103:5a), spare those who are afraid, show Thy mercy to those who implore Thee, that, by wholly removing the perils of earthquake, we may evermore enjoy Thy mercy, and, kept safe by Thy protection, may we serve Thee with joy.  Through...

Unfortunately any mention of God's wrath was judged unacceptable to "modern man" (whoever he is) by the relevant cœtus, so they snipped and pasted the bits they liked to compile this pastiche prayer. At least it is vastly shorter than the Elizabethan prayer alluded to above.

Book Recommendation

Pressure of work has decreased my blogging of late; but I have at least done some reading in the evenings and so forth.

Until I considered the matter yester-day and to-day when reading the newspapers, I hadn't realized how often I buy books online, and have them posted to me from far-flung corners of the globe...  The headlines I allude to refer to the bankruptcy of a large chain of bookshops, on the grounds that they are undercut by such sales.  Now, personally I buy online because the local bookshops are unlikely to stock remaindered copies of Dowden's The Scottish Communion Office of 1764 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), or even such a recent bestseller as Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI in Castel Gandolfo (how remiss of them, I know), but it appears that my fellow Australians are doing the same when purchasing their own favourite reads; for the last remnants of protectionism here in free-trade Australia have maintained barriers to the commercial importation of cheap books, while not forbidding people buying in these cost-cutting items privately.  Adam Smith is proven right again.

May I recommend an example of such an overseas import?  Readers of this blog will perhaps enjoy Andrew Burnham's Heaven and Earth in Little Space: The Re-enchantment of Liturgy (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2010).  This excellent summary of much restorationist liturgical thinking was completed in late 2009 and only published last year, and in the meanwhile its author, then still an Anglican bishop, has come into full communion with the Holy See and been ordained a Catholic priest in record time: long may he serve the new Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham!

It is well-known that he is engaged on implementing the "re-enchantment" of which he wrote, by greatly assisting in the preparation of the forthcoming liturgical books for use by the incoming Anglicans of the nascent Ordinariates.  God willing, I may soon enough join my local T.A.C. friends at Mass, united in one communion at one altar, employing such a rite, once the Australian Ordinariate is established.

A Most Unpleasant Surprise

My friend Robert – who’s visiting from W.A. – and I decided to go along to visit the T.A.C.'s local congregation here in Launceston for their service this morning, in the hope of chatting with Bp Robarts afterward.  (Rob knows Bp Entwistle over in Perth.)

Unbeknownst to us, Robarts is away this Sunday, presiding at the patronal feast of the T.A.C. parish of St Mary’s in Sydney.  Instead, therefore, a Fr Gordon Tyson celebrated…

He apologized to start with for what would be a rough and ready service – as he revealed in his homily, he had unfortunately looked up the wrong readings by mistake.  Only a small congregation was present – we increased attendance by 25%.

The altar was set as usual against the wall, with six candles lit, a crucifix in the centre, a missal (the English Missal) on its stand and a veiled chalice already set up.  In came the celebrant in chasuble…

Most unexpectedly, instead of launching into Psalm 42 (43) and the rest, instead the minister stood at the Gospel side, facing the congregation, and first asked us to place ourselves in God’s presence, then invited us to join him in reciting the Collect for Purity, a three-fold (not nine-fold) Kyrie, and the Gloria in excelsis (all in English, except for the Kyrie of course in Greek).  This was much plainer and less Roman than the manner in which Bp Robarts celebrates.

There was no Dominus vobiscum, just “You might want to sit for this” (we all did!) and “Let us pray” followed by the Collect, which was that for the 12th Sunday after Trinity in the Book of Common Prayer.  (Why on earth do these Anglicans sit for the Collect?  It is really bizarre.)

A reader came to the lectern (on the Gospel side) and read the first two lessons, employing the RSV: Jeremiah 38:4-6,8-10 and Hebrews 12:1-4; and saying after each “Here endeth the (first / second) Lesson”.  (These, and the Gospel pericope to follow, were the same readings as those appointed in the modern Roman Lectionary for the 20th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C.)

The celebrant rather meaninglessly moved the Missal to the Gospel side, but then went to the lectern and himself read the Responsorial Psalm – Psalm 39 (40) – and directly after that the Gospel of the day: St Luke 12:49-53; there was no Alleluia at all.  For the first time, the words “The Lord be with you” were used, but the responses to the title of the Gospel, and at its end, were confused – apparently Fr Tyson is used to a different liturgy than this B.C.P.-type service.  I can only suppose he is a retired Anglican clergyman gone over to the T.A.C. who perhaps celebrates using one of the modern Australian Anglican liturgies...

The sermon was about the teaching of Hebrews chapter 11 as to what living faith is – not mere adhesion to a list of doctrines, but active trust in God issuing in action, even at great personal risk.  The preacher adduced the examples of Barak and Gideon, who had to trust in God that what they were asked to do would succeed, against all human expectation.  He alluded to our need to trust and act likewise; perhaps he was referring to the need to make a “leap in the dark” over the unfinished business of Anglicanorum cœtibus?

We all recited the Creed after that, and then Bruce got up to read the Biddings – that quaint Anglican custom whereby a list of people to pray for are listed without responses!  We prayed for the T.A.C. Diocese of Queenstown in some farflung part of Africa, and for the T.A.C. parish in Sydney now keeping its patronal feast, for the sick and for the dead – at this point only we replied, as we prayed “Eternal rest grant unto them” as a versicle and response.

Next, at the direction of the celebrant, the collection was taken up.  Meanwhile, without saying anything, the celebrant at last went and stood before the midst of the altar, and mixed the chalice (one of the men in the congregation got up, went to the credence and himself poured the wine and water into the proffered chalice!), readied the paten, and washed his fingers (the gentleman server pro tempore ministering the water and towel).  

After this, that favourite piece of Anglican idolatry that frankly horrifies me: the handing to the celebrant the alms-dish, and its solemn elevation, followed by it being placed on the altar table behind the missal!  As Percy Dearmer acidly observed long years ago:

In some churches, however, the alms are ceremonially presented at the altar; and the ceremonies are often of a rather idolatrous nature, the dish being solemnly elevated…

One… even sees the clergy make wave offerings of the alms… as if they were in a conspiracy to rob the Mass of its meaning.

The rubric covers the usual and convenient method of collecting the alms, viz. that the churchwardens, or their substitutes, pass bags or small plates among the people, and then bring the alms thus collected to the chancel step, where a ‘fit person’, i.e. the [subdeacon or] clerk, is ready to ‘receive’ them ‘in a decent bason to be provided by the Parish for that purpose’.  The fit person shall then ‘reverently bring it to the Priest’.  The priest is then to present the bason and place it upon the holy Table: this he is to do, not ostentatiously, but ‘humbly’, slightly raising it: there is no authority for the solemn elevation of the alms-bason…

(Dearmer, The Parson’s Handbook, pages 280 and 374-375)

Without any apparent offertory prayers, the minister then began the Prayer for the Church, which was the version from the 1928 Proposed B.C.P., including prayer for the dead.  His prayer therein for acceptance of the alms and oblations was the only offertory prayer.

Next, the Invitation – the words “meekly kneeling upon your knees” rather shamefacedly omitted, as (apart from at the Gospel and Creed) we all simply sat throughout, right down to the end of the whole service, without any kneeling at all.  Perhaps this was because of the age of the parishioners, or the absence of hassocks…

The General Confession and Absolution followed – the celebrant turned to the people for the latter, and made over them the sign of the Cross.  The Comfortable Words were omitted, and all said together the Prayer of Humble Access, as a sort of Secret I suppose.

The usual preface dialogue and Preface followed, but the minister seemed thoroughly discombobulated by the absence from the Missal of a Sunday Preface, and read the Christmas Preface instead!

The Canon was that of the Interim Rite: Prayer of Consecration plus Prayer of Oblation, including the 1549 Memorial or Anamnesis.  The Cranmerian pseudo-epiclesis, “that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine… may be partakers of [Christ’s] most blessed Body and Blood” was the one certainly and definitely unacceptable and uncatholic part of the liturgy, absolutely demanding removal forthwith: Rome would never accept it, since it teaches false doctrine (Zwinglianism, receptionism or the like).  The celebrant didn’t even elevate the bread and wine high enough to see – such his churchmanship.

The Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei followed; there was no “The peace of the Lord be with you…” at all.  The “Behold the Lamb of God” came immediately after this, but most oddly the celebrant remained facing the altar, and instead held up and to either side the chalice and paten, thus displaying them to the people in wondrous wise!  God indeed moveth in mysterious ways.  It really seemed as if he were making up the rubricks as he went along.

The Anglicans then went forward and stood for communion: the formula was “The Body / Blood of Christ keep you in everlasting life”, I think.

After the fellow who assisted the celebrant helped him purify the vessels by pouring water into them, and the chalice was re-dressed, the Prayer of Thanksgiving came next, prefaced with “The Lord be with you” and “Let us pray”.  After that, again “The Lord be with you” plus “Let us depart in peace”, before “The peace of God” and the minister thereby giving his blessing to his flock.  That was it.  A most plain and unadorned B.C.P. Holy Communion service, just slightly catholicized with a longer than usual Eucharistic Prayer.

No hymns were sung; the service took but 45 minutes.

Rob and I said a brief hello afterward to Bruce (whom I know) and to the celebrant (a new acquaintance), as we helped pack things up.

After leaving, we both agreed that it was quite a shock to have gone along expecting some Anglo-Catholic sacred ceremonial, and finding a quite conservative but very plain B.C.P., frankly Protestant service instead.  

It confirms many fears about the big changes the T.A.C. will have to adopt if it is to come into full communion.

Confiteor, Misereatur and Indulgentiam

"I confess to Almighty God..." – comforting words indeed, because He Who hears them, having Himself turned the speaker's heart to true penitence, is merciful and gracious.

Since I attend the Traditional Mass when I can, as well as the modern Mass when I must, and moreover use the Day Hours according to the Dominican Breviary as my private devotion, I know and use three different forms of the Confiteor.  This has occasioned strange mix-ups when I've been serving Mass!

I wish to focus here, in the spirit of Anglicanorum cœtibus, on some Anglican versions of the Confiteor and its appended prayers the Misereatur and Indulgentiam (or as the Dominican version begins, the Absolutionem).

The most telling difference between the Roman and the Anglican versions of the Confiteor is that the latter, for the usual reasons, shy away from direct invocation of the saints.  That said, the earliest versions of the Confiteor, while all beginning with the one praying confessing before or rather to Almighty God and to (or, one may say, in "the sight of" or rather "before") His saints that he has sinned, do not go on invoke those saints: the Dominican Confiteor only does so when recited by one alone –

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, et beatæ Mariæ semper Virgini, et beato Dominico Patri nostro, et omnibus Sanctis: quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, locutione, opere et omissione, mea culpa: precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, et beatum Dominicum Patrem nostrum, et omnes Sanctos orare pro me.

(I confess to God almighty, and to blessed Mary ever Virgin, and to blessed Dominic our Father, and to all the Saints: for I have sinned exceedingly by thought, speech, deed and omission, through my fault: I pray blessed Mary ever Virgin, and blessed Dominic our Father, and all the Saints to pray for me.)

In order to rather subtly put this, some Anglican versions of the Confiteor say "I confess to Almighty God, before the whole company of heaven..." – just as St Paul adjured Timothy: "I charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels..." (I, v, 21).  As the Apostle reminded us, the saints shall judge the world (as Our Lord Himself told us – St Matthew xix, 28), and indeed it were better we be judged before the saints (I Cor. vi, 1-2): those already living and reigning with God are witnesses of His mighty acts, most particularly His loving grant of forgiveness to the repentant.

There are mediæval versions of the Confiteor that instead have a Trinitarian cast: Confiteor tibi, Domine, Pater cœli et terræ, tibique benignissime Jesu una cum Spiritu Sancto, coram sanctis angelis... and Confiteor Deo omnipotenti Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto et omnibus angelis... – by a parallel or like develpment, some other Anglican versions of the Confiteor preferred to address the confession direct to the Three Persons.

What to do about the second half of the Confiteor, praying saints to intercede for us?  This being a later development, not found in full in earlier versions such as the Dominican or the Sarum, it were easy to regress and omit it: instead, the Misereatur could be made, not a response, but a continuation of the prayer.  The Indulgentiam would then be for the priest presiding to pronounce as a fitting conclusion – not a sacramental absolution, of course, but a fervent prayer for mercy made by one of Christ's own ministers.

I am very familiar with the longer Dominican form of the Misereatur, which one reads in the first person singular when praying Prime and Compline alone:

Misereatur mei omnipotens Deus, et dimittat mihi omnia peccata mea: liberet me ab omni malo, salvet et confirmet in omni opere bono, et perducat me ad vitam æternam.  Amen.

(May Almighty God have mercy upon me, and remit unto me all my sins: may he deliver me from all evil, save and confirm me in every good work, and lead me unto life eternal.  Amen.)

The Roman Misereatur is shorter than this, in almost inverse proportion to its longer Confiteor.  There is likewise evidence that the Indulgentiam in some mediæval forms is longer, and indeed contains much of what is now present in the conclusion of the set prayer that is the Formula of Intention before Mass, in the words:

Gaudium cum pace, emendationem vitæ, spatium veræ pænitentiæ, gratiam et consolationem Sancti Spiritus, perseverantiam in bonis operibus, tribuat nobis omnipotens et misericors Dominus.  Amen.

(May the almighty and merciful Lord God grant unto us all joy and peace, amendment of our lives, time for true penance, the grace and the comfort of the Holy Ghost, and perseverance in every good work. Amen.)

So, what are these Anglican forms of these three prayers, the Confiteor, Misereatur and Indulgentiam?  Here they are, as found in the forms of Compline appointed in the 1928 Proposed B.C.P., the 1929 Scottish B.C.P., the 1962 Canadian B.C.P., and a representative work of Anglo-Catholic piety, The Priest's Book of Private Devotion:

WE confess to God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, that we have sinned in thought, word, and deed, through our own grievous fault. Wherefore we pray God to have mercy upon us.

ALMIGHTY God, have mercy upon us, forgive us all our sins and deliver us from all {Scot. omits} evil, confirm and strengthen us in all goodness, and bring us to life everlasting {PBPD & Canad. add: through Jesus Christ our Lord}. Amen.

MAY {PBPD omits} the almighty and merciful Lord grant unto {PBPD omits} you pardon and remission of all your sins, time for {PBPD & Scot. add: true repentance,} {PBPD adds: and} amendment of life, and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

It is at once apparent that these prayers have been put into the plural throughout; the congregation are together to recite the first two prayers, and a priest, if present, should then pray the last prayer.

To back-translate this into Latin is quite straightforward, and yields the following results:

Confitemur Deo omnipotenti, Patri, (et) Filio, et Spiritui Sancto: quia peccavimus cogitatione, verbo, et opere, nostra maxima culpa.  Ideo precor Deum omnipotentem misereri nostri.

Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus, dimittat nobis omnia peccata nostra, et liberet nos a (ab omni) malo, confirmet et roboret nos in omni bono, et perducat nos ad vitam æternam (per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum).  Amen.

Absolutionem et remissionem omnium peccatorum vestrorum, spatium (veræ pænitentiæ, et) emendationis vitæ, gratiam et consolationem Sancti Spiritus, tribuat vobis omnipotens et misericors Dominus.  Amen.

Here is a second form, in the singular, again from The Priest's Book of Private Devotion:

I confess to God Almighty, before all the company of heaven, and thee, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed, of my own grievous fault; wherefore I pray God to have mercy upon me.

ALMIGHTY God, have mercy upon you, and forgive you all your sins, deliver you from all evil, confirm and strengthen you in all goodness, and bring you to everlasting life. Amen.

THE almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon and remission of all your sins, time for true repentance and amendment of life, and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

This is even closer to the older, simpler, mediæval Catholic versions.

Already, in the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship, we have such prayers as the following – the longer Anglican version of the Indulgentiam – in regular use:

May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant us absolution and remission of all our sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit. Amen. 

Why focus on all this?  Because these are good prayers, containing much of substance deserving careful consideration and attention.

For instance, the longer, "Dominican" Misereatur well sums up the succession of stages of the spiritual life that we and all Christians need Divine grace to attain:

1. We beg Almighty God to have mercy upon us;
2. May He remit all our sins;
3. May He deliver us from all evil;
4. May He save and confirm us in every good work;
5. And may He bring us to life everlasting.

God grant it: Amen.

Back to the T.A.C.

Having assisted at Mass last night, Sunday was free (Dominica vacat), and so, having promised Bp Robarts of the T.A.C. to pay him a visit, I betook myself to the temporary temple of the Parish of the Annunciation...

After divine service, we had a good chat: I had perforce to detail poor Dad's ongoing illness, and to add to that my Mum and sister are both laid up in bed with gastroenteritis (there has been an outbreak at the hospital, and they caught it while visiting Dad), so I'm the only one standing.

His Lordship celebrated in a green Roman chasuble over a plain alb; no maniple, but purple zucchetto, Episcopal cross and ring.  The temporary altar had a green frontal and white altar cloth, with six candles lit (up from two on my last visit!), the missal on its stand, plus a hymnbook and various papers with sundry prayers upon them placed on the mensa (though no altar cards).  The altar cross bore a sculpted image of Christ the Priest in vestments; above the altar, upon the cloth that served as a reredos, hung an icon of Virgin and Child.  The chalice and paten were veiled, and a burse was used.

I have previously described, in extreme detail! what liturgy I observed offered, so I note only any differences seen to-day.  I will offer one correction: after the Prayer of Humble Access, then he read the Secret, and then turned to say the Orate fratres, straightway leading into the Dominus vobiscum and Sursum corda.  This time round, moreover, he read the traditional Embolism after the Lord's Prayer, complete with performing the fraction during its doxology, more Romano.  Strangely, he didn't move the missal back to the Epistle side after communion.

Of notable Anglican prayers, the only ones missing were the Summary of the Law and the Comfortable Words; of Catholic, the Canon (since an Anglican version was used instead) and the Last Gospel.

The three attractive, doctrinal and very loudly sung out hymns were:

• “Be thou my vision, O Lord of my heart” (NEH 339; E. Hull; Irish, 8th C.)
• “Lord enthroned in heavenly splendour” (NEH 296; G.H. Bourne; to the tune "St Helen")
• “Ye watchers and ye holy ones” (NEH 478; A. Riley)

It is obvious that a high doctrine of the Real Presence and Sacrifice, as of the Saints, is held.

As never happens when with Catholics, mine was not the loudest voice!

As last time, it proved difficult to ascertain which Sunday was being celebrated: the three readings were taken from the modern Roman Lectionary (Zacharias xii, 10-11 & xiii, 1; Galatians iii, 26-29; St Luke ix, 18-24) for the 12th Sunday per annum, Year C.  In consonance with this, the Introit was pretty obviously Dominus fortitudo plebis suæ – which is that for this Sunday in the modern Roman Rite (while in the Traditional, it is the Introit for the 6th Sunday after Pentecost).  However, the Gradual and Alleluia I cannot now with certainty identify; and the Offertory and Communion seemed to quote from the Gospel pericope.

Furthermore, and in agreement with the Collect – which was that for the 3rd Sunday after Trinity (which equates to the 4th after Pentecost) in the B.C.P., and in turn is not the same as the Roman, but comes from the Sarum Proper for the 3rd after Trinity – the Secret definitely and the Postcommunion probably (I recall it speaking of the "holy gifts", as below) were non-Roman but came instead from that Sarum Proper.  They are quite interesting and worth attention:

O Lord, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  (BCP)

O Lord, we beseech thee, mercifully to hear our supplications; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy aid be defended.  Through... (Warren's translation of the Sarum Missal)

Deprecationem nostram, quæsumus, Domine, benignus exaudi; et quibus supplicandi præstas affectum, tribue defensionis auxilium.  Per...  (Sarum Missal)

I particularly like the phrase "an hearty desire to pray" – how comforting to think that the Lord has thus disposed our hearts.

The Secret and Postcommunion, in Warren's version (and, thanks to a commenter on Fr Hunwicke's blog, in the original mediæval Latin):

We beseech thee, O Lord, to sanctify the gifts now offered unto thee, that they may become the body and blood of thy Only-begotten One, for our healing.  Who liveth...

Munera tibi quesumus domine oblata sanctificata: ut tui nobis unigeniti corpus et sanguis fiant ad medelam, qui tecum. 

Having received the holy gifts, we beseech thee, O Lord, that by their virtue thou wouldest purify us from all vices, and fill us abundantly with the gifts of thy grace.  Through...

Sacris domine muneribus perceptis: quesumus, ut nos eorum virtute et a vitiis omnibus expies, et donis gratie tue jugiter repleas, per. 

Note that this Secret is a directly epicletic prayer!  It is precise and Catholic, and more than makes up for the Cranmerian anti-epiclesis that still disfigures the "Interim Rite", the version of the Consecratory Prayer used, which Rome would surely correct (this deficiency in the Prayer of Consecration is, upon reflection, really the only doctrinally objectionable part of the entire service I attended).

For those interested in such things as the manner in which the Lord is served in the T.A.C., Bp Robarts explained to me afterward that matters liturgical are still being worked out with reference to Rome; and that when the time comes he will of course do as will be determined.  In the meanwhile, he explained that he celebrated in a Catholic manner (using his English Missal), while retaining the various Anglican prayers beloved of his people.

I must say, I found it a decent and reverent service; as I reiterated, once all differences are composed, I look forward to worshipping with him more regularly, and to share in the one communion from the one altar.  Eastward facing worship!  Dignified prayers!  Very nice; just what the Pope desires: "O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness".

He also explained what is only reasonable: that, for the good of the greater number of souls, and to help ease the painful transition, he and his Catholic opposite number wish to make haste slowly with setting up the Australian Ordinariate - it appears that some want it running by Advent this year, others by Advent next year, and that a suitable via media would be Pentecost 2011 (as would be most fitting when one considers it).  

Many T.A.C. laymen remain quite understandably troubled by the stumbling-block of being confirmed "again", after being taught all their lives by their High Church clergy that confirmation was both a sacrament and unrepeatable; it must gently be explained to all so concerned that, as with T.A.C. clergy and their Orders, Rome requires certainty, and rather than go through everything case-by-case, it will be understood that conditionality is an unspoken presupposition for those worried about this.

Robarts left me with some sterling if wry advice: Keep trying to keep the Faith, without being trying!