Traditional Anglican Liturgical English
July 7, 2012 4 Comments
Is Contemporary English a fit language for the worship of God? asks Vincent Uher.
English as spoken today is the language of politicians, newsreaders, radio hosts, newspapers, advertisers … it is a language of lies for the telling of lies. Is it possible to write liturgical prayers in contemporary English or some form mid-way between contemporary and Tudor? Yes. But it requires both the greatest care and a clear understanding that it is a missionary concern and not a matter of formation of the standard sacred liturgical rite…
Read on here.
Sacred English. It just sounds much more respectful.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Mr Uher’s post begins with this assertion: “Is Contemporary English a fit language for the worship of God? English as spoken today is the language of politicians, newsreaders, radio hosts, newspapers, advertisers … it is a language of lies for the telling of lies.”
With all respect to Mr Uher, language per se is neutral. It can be used to communicate truth, or misused to lie. The same was true of the English used in Tudor England. We should never forget that the language of that time was misused by heretics to introduce heresy into the liturgy of the Church of England.
Over on Father Ed Tomlnson’s blog we have been looking at the new Ordinariate rites for Marriage and Funerals and the discussion, as so often, developed into a discussion of the difficulties in developing an Ordinariate Rite for Holy Mass. One of the contributors, Marcus, who is an Anglican clergyman, wrote:-
“Of course the shape of the liturgy changed between 1549 and 1552. In 1549, shape the prayer of humble access was where Michael suggests it should be. I have never really understood why the change, to its position was made in 1552. The 1552 shape does make sense when one realises where the table was (we don’t have altars in the Church of England), and how it was used. On more than a few occasions I have taken the 1552 service and followed the rubrics. The ‘Draw near with faith and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort’ at the invitation to confession, is a rubric or sorts, it invites the people together at the Lord’s Table. The receiving of communion is received at the end of the consecration but before the oblation. I found this odd until I moved the table to the chancel, lengthways, east west, and gathered the people and past the communion around the table. After which is prayed the prayer of oblation.”
Of course! The Mass as a sacrifice on an altar is replaced by a distribution of bread and wine on a table as a commemoration.
Likewise, Mr Uher quotes from the 1662 Morning Prayer including the preamble to the General Confession: “And although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul.”
Yes, the language of the General Confession is majestic, but the preamble is in reality written against the sacrament of confession.
I share Mr Uher’s view that there is much of the language of our forebears which ought to be preserved. But we must also be wary not to preserve that which was introduced to propound heresy. After a first reading of the rituals for Marriages and Funerals, I am convinced that a suitable Ordinariate Rite for Holy Mass can and should be developed.
But language (of any period) can always be misused to introduce error and, given that Master Cramner and his collaborators were heretics, their use of language needs to be carefully scruitinised no matter how beautiful it sounds.
I’m reminded that even Latin can be abused. Satanic masses were held in Latin by people of ill will with the express intention of mocking the Holy Mass.
I’m also reminded of my own parish’s mass- I don’t doubt the goodness of the people there, they are people of good will- but the Novus Ordo Mass of my parish, I feel, has blurred the line that was supposed to delineate Sacred Time and Sacred Space with the vernacular language used in the Mass. (This has been somewhat alleviated by the new translation of the Roman Missal)
Language is a tool, a means to an end. It can be beautiful, and well-intentioned, or banal and ill-intentioned, or beautiful and ill-intentioned, or banal and well-intentioned.
If language is used beautifully and with good intentions towards an end, let’s get more precise. We have to see if the language is saying the right thing in accordance to orthodox beliefs and practices as much as how it is being said, which can depend more on who says it rather than what is being said.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.
As an Irish Brit, and somewhat an Anglo-Irish also, it is the BCP for me, note the Anglican Prayer Book Society. Celebrating the BCP in Church life! 350 years (1662-2012). And the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, on the day of his death and martyrdom (for so-called treason and heresy), at the hands of Mary I, imprisoned for over two years, dramatically withdrew his recantations toward Protestantism, and died a martyr for the Reformation and the English Protestant Faith! Indeed, I stand with Cranmer! The Thirty-Nine Articles still stand for the classic Anglican statement of faith, both “catholic” & “reformed”. . . the Church of the via-media!
Btw, we should note how much King Henry liked and admired the Continental reformer Philipp Melanchthon, they wrote several letters, but of course Henry later moved away from the Lutherans. But, again later the King asked Achbishop Cranmer to write a new preface for the Great Bible. Btw, later Continental reformers grew beards to mark their rejection of the old Church. After the death of Henry for Cranmer, and then the welcome of the boy king, Edward VI. The rest is history! Here we should note that Cranmer later met the Reformed Martin Bucer face to face in England – after 18 years of letter correspondence. Cranmer also asked both Osiander and Melanchthon to come to England to teach, but they were never convinced of the CoE’s Protestant mission. (Could ya blame them? Not hardly! At that time.)
*Archbishop