UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:from NLM.
Music, drawn entirely from the English tradition, included Herbert Howells’ Collegium Regale. The hymns were “Firmly I believe and truly”, “Lead kindly light” and Praise to the Holiest”, all with words by Blessed John Henry Newman.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:I wondered how many F. Bauerschmidts could be about the U.S. Catholic interwebs!
Originally posted by FCB:
I wrote the review linked in the original post ...
quote:That's just it; in the US (and, to a lesser degree, Canada), unlike the UK, the majority would be extremely familiar with such language. Only in the Midwest would one find any sizable numbers who have more experience with the (now-outmoded) Roman vernacular. It is a somewhat different landscape here, in that regard.
Originally posted by Angloid:
How many Ordinariate laypeople and clergy will be familiar with 'Tudorised' language in liturgy? Most of them, in the UK at least, will have been accustomed to the (previous version of) the Roman Rite or a Romanised version of Common Worship.
quote:I am sure that it is, but I think that Paul meant that the embolism "For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever" is included after the modern Libera nos that follows the Our Father. This is, of course, from the Novus Ordo, and not the Tridentine rite, so I am not sure what you are saying here. I do agree that there are some cut-and-paste elements. I think that the feeling is that if at least some elements of the Novus Ordo are not included, it will be seen as a traditionalist-type commentary that the Novus Ordo is deficient, at least stylistically. (And many do indeed feel that way.)
Originally posted by FCB:
I wrote the review linked in the original post, and it had not occurred to me, until PaulTH* pointed it out, that the Order of Mass combines the Tridentine embolism of the Lord's Prayer with the Novus Ordo practice of reciting it aloud. This confirms my sense of it as a cut-and-paste job.
quote:Yes, it does so in both the Extraordinary Form, used in many traditional communities today, and the Ordinary Form, which is obviously the norm in most of the RC world. However, the modern version is a bit different from its predecessor:.
Originally posted by leo:
In the Tridentine rite, the Libero nos FOLLOWED the Pater noster.
quote:I generally agree with you but surely the aim here is neither familiarity nor lingustic integrity, but instead trying to create something that will look distincttive to the Ordinariate.
Originally posted by Angloid:
How many Ordinariate laypeople and clergy will be familiar with 'Tudorised' language in liturgy? Most of them, in the UK at least, will have been accustomed to the (previous version of) the Roman Rite or a Romanised version of Common Worship.
I can go along with the artistic integrity argument that if you are using a liturgy (eg 1662) or individual prayers (such as the Prayer of Humble Access) from the Tudor age you should use the original language. But I can see no argument at all for 'back-translating' modern prayers, or newly translating Latin ones, into Tudorese. It's like putting plastic timbering on the front of your house or wearing doublet and hose to go to the office.
quote:For all its faults, it's a marked improvement on the excessively loose translation that went before. If Anglicans were to emulate it, most of the demand for cod Tudor services would go away.
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I am convinced that it is the same principle at play with the language used in the new Roman translation which purports to be a more accurate translation of the Latin and ends up using words that very few understand, which just results in just a poor translation.
quote:The embolism I was referring to is the Libera nos prayer itself. The actual text is the Tridentine one, including the mention of the saints and lacking the eschatological reference in the Novus Ordo version of the prayer. The eschatological ending in the NO version gives a natural lead-in to the concluding doxology. Like I said, kind of cut and paste.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I am not sure what you are saying here.
quote:I don't think that's right - 'For thine..' is the end of the Lord's prayer, the 'embolism' is the inserted collect.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
After this the embolism is said by all:
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.
quote:
The embolism in Christian Liturgy (from Greek ἐμβολισμός, an interpolation) is a short prayer said or sung after the Lord's Prayer. It functions "like a marginal gloss" upon the final petition of the Lord's Prayer (". . . deliver us from evil"), amplifying and elaborating on "the many implications" of that prayer.[1] In the Roman Rite of Mass, the embolism is followed by the doxology or, in the Tridentine Mass (which does not have that doxology), by the Fraction.
quote:It was produced and vetted by a group of individuals who were all native English speakers. Only one of them was a British-English native.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Its faults would be fewer if it had been produced or at least vetted by people whose first language was English and first priority was clarity and elegance. What I have seen of it suggests it was written by politically-motivated Daleks.
quote:I.e. far more stylishly designed (even if it won't go up stairs) than the politically-motivated Zygons' rite that should have disappeared from your screens over 35 years ago, but which politically-motivated Weeping Angels still seek to breathe life into.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Its faults would be fewer if it had been produced or at least vetted by people whose first language was English and first priority was clarity and elegance. What I have seen of it suggests it was written by politically-motivated Daleks.
quote:I think this would be a mistake which the Ordinary needs to be firm about. Nobody is suggesting that the Ordinariate Use needs to be used at every Ordinariate Mass, but it needs too be used. This may prove easier in the US than in the UK, where the Normative Rite has been normative since the liturgical reforms of the 60's-70's. From the 1920's to the 1960's AC parishes used various combinations of the Prayer Book and the English Missal, and that's more or less what we've got here. Many Ordinarite grops are concerned that some of their members have "gone native" ie blended in with the diocesan Catholics. I've "gone Latin" myself, with my membership of the Latin Mass Society and the Association for Latin Liturgy.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-Flop:
I understand that not all Ordinariate congregations will be necessarily using the Ordinariate Rite. I know of one such congregation, used to the Normative Rite when they were still Anglicans, who are carrying on that way as before, apparently .
quote:I couldn't disagree more! The new translation is, IMO, far superior to the Noddy language used before, and with the ELLC, reproduced in Common Worship. I'm glad to have joined the Catholic Church just at the time when the old translation was about to be consigned to the dustbin, and we can worship in a dignified way in English as well as Latin!
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I am convinced that it is the same principle at play with the language used in the new Roman translation which purports to be a more accurate translation of the Latin and ends up using words that very few understand, which just results in just a poor translation.
quote:I was really talking about the motivation for the change but dignity is not a term that the Catholics I kno w who have had experience of both translations tend to use about the new translation. It seems to vary from resigned acceptance at best to a frustration that it has impeded participation in the mass at worst. Perhaps it feels more palatable to the small minority of English-speaking Catholics who also worship in Latin with some frequency. Putting all that aside I am pleased that it is clearly working for you.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I couldn't disagree more! The new translation is, IMO, far superior to the Noddy language used before, and with the ELLC, reproduced in Common Worship. I'm glad to have joined the Catholic Church just at the time when the old translation was about to be consigned to the dustbin, and we can worship in a dignified way in English as well as Latin!
Originally posted by Liturgylover:
I am convinced that it is the same principle at play with the language used in the new Roman translation which purports to be a more accurate translation of the Latin and ends up using words that very few understand, which just results in just a poor translation.
quote:According to a leaflet I have read about the Ordinariate, it is stated that Mass may be celebrated in the Ordinary Form and/or in the Extraordinary Form. I am not sure if there was some ambiguity in my use of the term 'Normative'. I made my point on good authority, because I had been speaking to a member of the Ordinariate congregation I refer to and they had taken with them what they were used to when they were still Anglicans.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The version in the Ordinariate Use is definately EF, translated as:
Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come; and at the intercession of the blessed and glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and all the Saints, favourably grant peace in our days, that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from distress.
The embolism is pure BCP;
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen
quote:I think this would be a mistake which the Ordinary needs to be firm about. Nobody is suggesting that the Ordinariate Use needs to be used at every Ordinariate Mass, but it needs too be used. This may prove easier in the US than in the UK, where the Normative Rite has been normative since the liturgical reforms of the 60's-70's. From the 1920's to the 1960's AC parishes used various combinations of the Prayer Book and the English Missal, and that's more or less what we've got here. Many Ordinarite grops are concerned that some of their members have "gone native" ie blended in with the diocesan Catholics. I've "gone Latin" myself, with my membership of the Latin Mass Society and the Association for Latin Liturgy.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-Flop:
I understand that not all Ordinariate congregations will be necessarily using the Ordinariate Rite. I know of one such congregation, used to the Normative Rite when they were still Anglicans, who are carrying on that way as before, apparently .
If the Ordinariate is to continue as a recogniseable body within the greater Catholic Church, it needs a liturgical identity which it doesn't get from permanent use of the OF. It's just Mass with extra hymns. This is why the Ordinary must make sure that all his priests familiarise themselves with the Ordinariate Use, and celebrate Mass according to that use at regular intervals. The alternative is for the English Ordinariate to simply fade into the Church. That may not be a tragedy, but it goes against Pope Bendict's vision in creating Ordinariates.
quote:Anyone heard anything about when or where there will be an online text? Lots of announcements about the first Mass, but those participating in it seem to be the only ones who have had the privilege of seeing the text.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Has no one posted about this yet? I haven't been on the ship for a while. No online text yet, but here's a review of it:
quote:The PRAYER is the embolism, not the final part of the Lord's Prayer.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The embolism is pure BCP;
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen
quote:I've never heard of any Ordinariate priest celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form, except Oxford scholar Fr John Hunwicke shortly after his (Catholic) ordination. In fact in America, I believe that the Ordinary, Mgr Steenson banned his churches from using the EF, because it forms no part of Anglican patrimonmy. Quite so, but any priest has the right to use it enshrined in Summorum Pontificum . so your description of the OF as normative is quite justified.
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
According to a leaflet I have read about the Ordinariate, it is stated that Mass may be celebrated in the Ordinary Form and/or in the Extraordinary Form.
quote:A booklet was produced for the "Votive Mass of Blessed John Henry Newman Celebrated according the the Ordinariate Use ." It contains the hymns, readings and the text of the Mass, and I will treasure it as a keepsake of that milestone celebration. I'm sure someone will post it online sometime soon.
Originally posted by Oblatus:
but those participating in it seem to be the only ones who have had the privilege of seeing the text.
quote:Slightly disingenuous when they've apparently (and understandably) gone mining in the English/Anglican Missal family for this product ...
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In fact in America, I believe that the Ordinary, Mgr Steenson banned his churches from using the EF, because it forms no part of Anglican patrimony.
quote:Photos of Fr Lloyd of the Oxford Ordinariate celebrating in the Extraordinary Form.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I've never heard of any Ordinariate priest celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form, except Oxford scholar Fr John Hunwicke shortly after his (Catholic) ordination.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity from an outsider, is the Ordinariate resolutely utraquist . And if so, is this irrespective of which form it is using? As a cradle member of the CofE, I'd regard it as questionable whether one can claim to be being faithful to one's Anglican patrimony without being.
quote:
"Holy Communion under both kinds is part of the patrimony and remains normal practice in the Personal Ordinariate" - Art.38, Guidelines for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
quote:Fr Bradley has celebrated in the Vetus Ordo for Juventutem UK; and Fr Heans has deaconed and subdeaconed for Fr Tim Finigan down in Blackfen.
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:Photos of Fr Lloyd of the Oxford Ordinariate celebrating in the Extraordinary Form.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I've never heard of any Ordinariate priest celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form, except Oxford scholar Fr John Hunwicke shortly after his (Catholic) ordination.
Aware of a priest of the Coventry Ordinariate also doing so.
Would be very surprised if Msgr Burnham hadn't.
Thurible
quote:I don't think so! I didn't suggest that Mgr Steenson has any objection to the Old Rite. It is, after all, more than a thousand years old, and the best known representative of the Western Rite or Gregorian Canon. He just doesn't think Ordinariates should do it in Latin, as Anglican patrimony sought to escape from that.
Originally posted by CL:
Slightly disingenuous
quote:At last weeks Ordinariate Use Mass, things were as they used to be in traditional Anglican services. We knelt at the altar rail while the celebrant came by with the Host, saying: "The Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life." Then the server passed the chalice with the words, "The Blood of Our Lord jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto eternal life." We can expect this to be the way all such Masses are celebrated.
Originally posted by Enoch:
As a matter of curiosity from an outsider, is the Ordinariate resolutely utraquist
quote:Goodness, that would be such a terrible shame.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I too found it strange to read that the Ordinariate rite is all traditional language. Is this pointing to an ethos found in the Ordinariate as a whole? And if not is there not a danger such defining liturgy will form the Ordianariate in a specific direction - traditional and rather backwards looking.
quote:Interesting that that the Special Pastoral Provision Anglican Use for North America BDW had contemporary forms adapted from the TEC 1979 BCP Rite II. I would think that the adoption of a single Use for all the Ordinariates reflects a preference for traditional BCP language and forms in the USA and Commonwealth, and at the same time either the failure of the contemporary language rites in the BDW in a decade of actual usage, or else a determination to abandon something that was so specific to the most recent American BCP.
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I too found it strange to read that the Ordinariate rite is all traditional language. Is this pointing to an ethos found in the Ordinariate as a whole? And if not is there not a danger such defining liturgy will form the Ordianariate in a specific direction - traditional and rather backwards looking.
............................................
See Anglo Catholic congress books etc for sale on eBay at present. Do bid!
quote:I am not familiar with those details. I do know that the parish continues as an Anglican Use parish of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and is not part of the Ordinariate. I am not privy to the reasons for that status.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I thought Our Lady of the Atonement San Antonio normally used the Book of Divine Worship. There is a former TEC parish in Arlington, TX that uses the OF Roman Rite, and in Houston there is Our Lady of Walsingham that I think was a BDW Anglican Use parish but which has gone into the Ordinariate and will thus use the new Ordinariate liturgy. I was told that OLA San Antonio had acquired so many Latin Rite Catholics who were never Anglicans that the parish would now have problems entering the Ordinariate as an entity, and hence will continue under the Special Pastoral Provision of JPII, which has not been revoked.
Are these understandings accurate or not?
quote:I believe you are correct with regards to why OLA has not entered the Ordinariate at this time - the canonical can of worms was/is simply too big at the moment, though Fr Phillips has intimated that he hopes the parish will be able to join sometime in the future. As for liturgy at OLA, it was primarily BDW and with OF in Latin available; however it is my understanding that OLA and any other Pastoral Provision parishes that have remained outside the Ordinariate will also be adopting the Ordinariate Use as it now supersedes the BDW.
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I thought Our Lady of the Atonement San Antonio normally used the Book of Divine Worship. There is a former TEC parish in Arlington, TX that uses the OF Roman Rite, and in Houston there is Our Lady of Walsingham that I think was a BDW Anglican Use parish but which has gone into the Ordinariate and will thus use the new Ordinariate liturgy. I was told that OLA San Antonio had acquired so many Latin Rite Catholics who were never Anglicans that the parish would now have problems entering the Ordinariate as an entity, and hence will continue under the Special Pastoral Provision of JPII, which has not been revoked.
Are these understandings accurate or not?
quote:I have celebrated in the EF, although not at an Ordinariate Mass but rather helping out the wider Catholic community.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I've never heard of any Ordinariate priest celebrating Mass in the Extraordinary Form, except Oxford scholar Fr John Hunwicke shortly after his (Catholic) ordination...
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
According to a leaflet I have read about the Ordinariate, it is stated that Mass may be celebrated in the Ordinary Form and/or in the Extraordinary Form.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Very interesting indeed! I will make a thorough review in about an hour or so.
quote:Not sure what you mean. This is indeed what Anglo-Catholic priests have always done. Perhaps you are suggesting that the people should be kneeling here? There is a High/Low Mass disparity here, as traditionally there were separate rubrics for each.
Originally posted by Thurible:
Interesting that the rubric is to bow at the Sanctus and cross oneself at the Benedictus. Patrimony.
Thurible
quote:I find this among those who are newer to the EF, but among those who are old hacks at it, such gestures are quite common.
Originally posted by LQ:
The cross at "Benedictus" comes of course from preconciliar Roman usage, but IME is less common in its original context than among Anglo-Catholics. RCs who frequent the extraordinary form tend, I find, to be less regimented in their gestures than the Anglicans who look to them as a model.
quote:It's quite common in this TEC diocese, done by the majority of the people in all of the churches I've visited. Far less common is crossing oneself at the end of the Gloria or the Creed.
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
To cross onself at the Benedictus,is still done by Old-Catholics in the Netherlands,although the rite is the revised liturgy.
I have seen it too with US Episcopalians,and not only in A.C. shrines,but also with worshippers in St.Thomas,5th Avenue,Washington Cathedral and St.,John the Divine in New-York.Both cathedrals use Rite 2 at their Choral Eucharists,
quote:I've regularly seen it done in MOTR Episcopal churches in NC.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:It's quite common in this TEC diocese, done by the majority of the people in all of the churches I've visited.
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
To cross onself at the Benedictus,is still done by Old-Catholics in the Netherlands,although the rite is the revised liturgy.
I have seen it too with US Episcopalians,and not only in A.C. shrines,but also with worshippers in St.Thomas,5th Avenue,Washington Cathedral and St.,John the Divine in New-York.Both cathedrals use Rite 2 at their Choral Eucharists,
quote:It's common at my MOTR parish in Atlanta.
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:It's quite common in this TEC diocese, done by the majority of the people in all of the churches I've visited. Far less common is crossing oneself at the end of the Gloria or the Creed.
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
To cross onself at the Benedictus,is still done by Old-Catholics in the Netherlands,although the rite is the revised liturgy.
I have seen it too with US Episcopalians,and not only in A.C. shrines,but also with worshippers in St.Thomas,5th Avenue,Washington Cathedral and St.,John the Divine in New-York.Both cathedrals use Rite 2 at their Choral Eucharists,
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Paul, I would be interested in visiting at some stage. Can you tell us whether the 10.30 mass includes hymns or are the propers sung chorally. If yes to hymns, which hymn book is used? Thanks.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This isn't a plug, but from Advent Sunday, the Church of the Assumption and St Gregory, Warwick St london, the main Ordinariate church, the Ordinariate Use will be celebrated every Sunday at 1030 Mass. I would highly recommend people to come along and experience it!
quote:It is the 1662 Collect for Advent II, now generally moved to the Sunday before Christ the King as 'Bible Sunday'. Why does 'the Lord be with you' precede this?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Where did they get the Collect from?
quote:It is traditional for the dominical salutation to precede the collect of the day. I am sad that the current Roman Missal does not do this. In the Tridentine Missal, there are nine salutations during the course of the Mass. Each one occurs at an important juncture, where the Mass "turns a corner," if you will. The Anglican Missal in the American edition includes these, too, and labels them accordingly.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:It is the 1662 Collect for Advent II, now generally moved to the Sunday before Christ the King as 'Bible Sunday'. Why does 'the Lord be with you' precede this?
Originally posted by stonespring:
Where did they get the Collect from?
quote:Are you sure they are said silently? There's no indication in the linked script that there is any silent material. The notion that there should be parts of the service that the congregation can't hear, isn't really consistent with the claim to represent an Anglican patrimony.
Originally posted by stonespring:
... Why can't the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the priest's Offertory Prayers (from the Tridentine Rite) be prayed aloud so the people can hear them? I have always wanted to do them dialogue Mass-style. Even with the Offertory Prayers, couldn't the people respond with Amen and, if needed, I's be changed to We's so that the Amen would make sense?
quote:It is in the Province of the West Indies. It's absence was conspicuous when I moved back to the UK.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks, Ceremoniar, I had imagined it was something like that. Just seems a little odd, as it is neither a feature of the any Anglican rite (of which I am aware) nor of the Ordinary Form.
quote:As stated in the comments and links even earlier in this thread, the Tridentine Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Priest's Offertory Prayers, translated into English as in the English/Anglican/American Missals, are an option for the new Ordinariate Use but if done must be done in a low voice (ie, inaudible to the congregation) by the celebrant and assisting ministers.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Are you sure they are said silently? There's no indication in the linked script that there is any silent material. The notion that there should be parts of the service that the congregation can't hear, isn't really consistent with the claim to represent an Anglican patrimony.
Originally posted by stonespring:
... Why can't the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the priest's Offertory Prayers (from the Tridentine Rite) be prayed aloud so the people can hear them? I have always wanted to do them dialogue Mass-style. Even with the Offertory Prayers, couldn't the people respond with Amen and, if needed, I's be changed to We's so that the Amen would make sense?
quote:The explanation I have been given is that the new liturgies (i.e. in Canada, the BAS) begin with an opening greeting* (viz, the Grace), whereas a BCP Mass will begin with the Introit, (Lord's Prayer,) Collect for Purity, and Summary of the Law/Kyrie, so the celebrant actually makes it to the Collect (and thence the Epistle) without any salutation at all. There is no rubric directing it in the Communion Office itself, but those at the end of the Litany note that when it immediately precedes the Eucharist, the latter begins straightway with the mutual salutation and Collect. (I don't have a 1662 to hand, so it's possible this was a new [re-] insertion in 1959).
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:It is in the Province of the West Indies. It's absence was conspicuous when I moved back to the UK.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks, Ceremoniar, I had imagined it was something like that. Just seems a little odd, as it is neither a feature of the any Anglican rite (of which I am aware) nor of the Ordinary Form.
quote:The American 1979 BCP retains it before the collect.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks, Ceremoniar, I had imagined it was something like that. Just seems a little odd, as it is neither a feature of the any Anglican rite (of which I am aware) nor of the Ordinary Form.
quote:Those four are the same four that the current Roman Missal retains. The nine in the extraordinary form are:
Originally posted by venbede:
The greeting came directly before the collect in Series 2, if I recall correctly.
I'm used to the greeting in Common Worship coming at four pivotal points, the opening, before the gospel, at the start of the eucharistic prayer and before the blessing, although not in the main text of Common Worship.
Today I was at a low mass (Common Worship olde worlde language) when we had a greeting both at the opening (trinitarian) and before the collect.
That's five greetings. What were the other occasions?
quote:Thanks everyone for the other replies - clearly this is the reason for it, and represents part of N. American Anglican patrimony (sorry for not being aware of it!).
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:The American 1979 BCP retains it before the collect.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thanks, Ceremoniar, I had imagined it was something like that. Just seems a little odd, as it is neither a feature of the any Anglican rite (of which I am aware) nor of the Ordinary Form.