As all men know, there now exists an Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, whose liturgical texts are collected in The Book of Divine Worship (Newman House Press, 2003). This volume contains the Holy Eucharist, Rites One and Two, the second being a modern-English version and the first being in Cramnerian English, more or less. Rite One is noteworthy for having the Roman Canon in what is called an "Old English Translation" (sometimes attributed to Coverdale, but apparently not actually by him).
What is more noteworthy is that it contains several very obvious omissions: it leaves out entirely the "Through the same Christ our Lord" at the end of the Communicantes (while still including this phrase after the Hanc igitur, the Supplices te and the Memento etiam, and the Nobis quoque, where it adds "Jesus"). More annoyingly and most inconsistently, it omits the Amen after each - except after the Supplices te! - but these were only included in the Missal in 1475 anyway.
It also omits any translation of the two opening words Te igitur (Thee, therefore) of the Roman Canon; and renders et beati Joseph ejusdem Virginis sponsi (inserted by Bl John XXIII) as "of Joseph her spouse" (following the old ICEL paraphrase); similarly, it omits tuorum (thy) in relation to the Apostles and Martyrs (although "the" is possibly a misprint for "thy" here); and curiously, perhaps for better effect, slightly reorders the great concluding doxology Per ipsum, putting "in the unity of the Holy Ghost" and "all hono[u]r and glory be unto thee" before "O Father Almighty" - and rendering est as "be" (subjunctive), not the indicative "is".
Because of the more tyrranical hold of the Novus Ordo mindset in the eighties and nineties, when the B.D.W. was prepared, the words of consecration are those of the modern Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, rather than a direct translation from the traditional Canon:
Take this, all of you and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.
(In the Traditional Rite, I mean, the Extraordinary Form, the words before the colon are not part of the formula, and the words after "body" are not present, being inserted - arguably to emphasise the sacrifice of the Mass! - in 1969; similarly, the particle enim ought really be translated "for" and inserted before "this".)
Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of men.
(Here we have the notorious "for all", which makes Traddies have a fit of scruples and doubts - famously, the Vatican has now decreed, some years ago already, that this must be changed to "for many" in all translations, in continuity with all tradtion. Similarly, enim is omitted, mysterium fidei is moved to later, "Take this... drink from it" is included as part of the consecratory words, and the original Hæc quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoria facietis is replaced by the Novus Ordo Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. - a change that was allegedly made, leaving aside conspiracy theories, in order to give a more literal quotation from Scripture, though research has shewn that the older and more venerable a text, the less likely, perversely enough, it is to be literal in quoting Holy Writ.)
"Therefore we proclaim the mystery of faith" (at least adjusting the weak "Let us" of old ICEL) and those annoying Memorial acclamations are next inserted, again because the B.D.W. was put together in times less enlightened than the pontificate of Benedict XVI! Of course, mysterium fidei was moved here, and some made-up responses inserted, by some liturgical do-gooder in the course of the liturgical reform. I can't wait to see it all dumped; and as liturgists have said, these acclamations would - if kept - fit far better after the anamnesis anyway...
I understand that were this Book compiled now, it wouldn't have thus bowed to the Novus Ordo; perhaps we can expect a second revised edition sometime?
Overall, though, it is a good translation, and may be interestingly compared with the new ICEL version of the Roman Canon (and indeed of the whole Mass) soon to be put into place throughout the Anglosphere. For a start, here are the new ICEL words of consecration:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
Note the use of "for" to express enim, and of "many" to translate multis (you wouldn't think it would take forty years to get these two right, would you?).
It's important to state that the BDW is only a US phenomenon. I think when some sort of a universal deal is offered to Anglicans (and the TAC) by the Holy See, we will see a different Rite of Mass being used. You point out some good criticisms Josh, though I would add another: the BDW is too, how should I say it: U.S. Episcopalian, and, well, how should I say this: Anglicanism is best done my Englishmen! There, said it :-) The Rite 1 and 2 thing is a direct take on the 1979 Prayer Book. I'm sure the Fr Hunwicke's of this world would not touch the BDW with a barge pole!
ReplyDeleteRob A
Anglicanism is best done BY Englishmen not MY Englishmen! I always spell incorrectly when being snobbish.
ReplyDeleteRob A
The BDW has been out of print for a while. Maybe a new edition is in preparation. Let's hope the revisers (perhaps Peter Stravinskas who is responsible for most of what Newman House Press publishes) read your blog, or you could copy this post to the Anglican Use yahoo group, where it would I think be taken in the charitable spirit in which it is intended.
ReplyDeleteCG, I don't know that group, but you have my full permission to copy this post and submit it for that group to read, if you think it useful to do so - just give the url to shew where it comes from.
ReplyDeleteOff topic here, Joshua: Br Paul AKA Pete from Bunbury, has just called to say that Fr Mitch Pacwa is interviewing Fr Daniel and Br Simon (superiors of the Carmelite Monastery in Wyoming) on EWTN Live tomorrow at 8am and 7pm WA time. It is also shown live at 8am WA time on the internet at www.ewtn.com
ReplyDeleteI will pray for your Dad.
Mickie from Bunbury
Great to hear!
ReplyDeleteHow is Br Paul?
Sounds great - enjoying his life as a monk, and receiving great graces from being a novice, and from his title, "of the cross".
ReplyDeleteOh yes, and prayers please, for "baby" brother Guy, who is receiving his First Holy Communion on Sunday at the monthly Latin Mass.
I should probably get my thoughts organized on the issue, but to be honest I don't really see the need for the BDW at all since it mostly uses the Roman liturgy for the good part of the Liturgy of the Eucharist anyway .
ReplyDeleteIn the first place it draws heavily from the 1979 BCP which was based on the fruit of modern liturgical studies and so contains a number of hybrid elements form different liturgical families. Secondly, it uses prayers which could well be ditched in favour of of 'more Catholic' ones which they replaced. The few "truly" Anglican elements, which are doctrinally correct, such as the Prayer of Humble Access, as well as fixed forms of the Intercessions could easily have been inserted as optional or mandatory into the structure of the NO.
Don't get me wrong - I love the praxis of the Anglican Use and their ars celebrandi. But I'm still somewhat unsure on the need for something as bulky as the BDW.
Yes, it is certainly a very bulky book - why on earth is needs not one, but TWO complete Psalters (one in more traditional, one in more contemporary language) is beyond me. I suppose it is the Anglican idea of having one book for everything, whereas a Catholic would at the least separate it out into an Office book, a Missal and a Ritual.
ReplyDeleteAlso (like many modern Roman Rite liturgical books, unfortunately) it has a number of misprints, and some bizarre omissions - for instance, it has no Marian common! (There's a Marian preface all right, and some collects for her principal feasts, but no Common of the BVM.)
It also has a particularly unfortunate "Romanization" in it - the insertion, not even in traditional language, of the Novus Ordo Preparation of the Gifts, which sticks out like a sore thumb.
As Rob said above, it is also a very American Episcopalian Anglican sort of book, rather different from the sort of thing the very High elsewhere go for.
These days, frankly, what would be called for would be the English Missal, the Anglo-Catholic translation of the Roman Missal in Cranmerian English that is, with maybe the Prayer of Humble Access and a few other tidbits from the BCP.
In any case, while quibbles may be raised, overall there is much to be said for licensing such liturgical exotica (duly vetted for orthodoxy) if they help save souls by reuniting them to the Church. After all, the Novus Ordo itself is a kind of precedent for this (accepting for the moment that the claims of its composers - that it would reconcile Protestants and increase the standard of actual participation of the faithful - have been proven correct!).