The Liturgy of the Ordinariate and the Latin Mass
July 30, 2012 28 Comments
In response to certain questions that have been asked about the use of the Latin Mass in its Extraordinary Form in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson, Ordinary, issued this statement:
“We rejoice in the liturgical richness of the Catholic Church. We in the Anglican tradition certainly welcome the Holy Father’s concern that the Mass be understood as a living, continuous tradition. The communio sanctorum compels us to read and engage with the Church’s tradition with a hermeneutic of continuity.
“The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles — that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition.
“The liturgy of the Ordinariate is superintended by an inter-dicasterial working group (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW)). At the time the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter was established, the CDW provided important guidance for our liturgical use: The Book of Divine Worship Rite I should be amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition, particularly the words of Consecration. For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used.
“We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity.”
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Examining this letter, I have to say that no one is forcing anyone to worship in Extraordinary Form. The Ordinary Form is good, also. But the issue should be more about liturgical abuse, in both cases. As Cardinal Arinze once said, even in the era of Latin Masses, there were also abuses, but no one knew nor cared, because no one bothered (or was able) to understand Latin.
Now, going back to Msgr. Steenson’s statement- the question is; are members of the Ordinariates forced to attend only the Anglican Use, when they have all rights to attend any Catholic church in communion with Rome? Are clerics forbidden to perform Masses in Latin? I certainly hope not, but I hear talks of intimidation and other vague accusations about the leadership. Latin is special, and according to Vatican II, it should still retain a place of honor in the Church.
Blessed Pope John XXIII, in the Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of 1962, strongly mandated the study and use of Latin in ecclesiastical studies, theology, the Liturgy, and as a prerequisite for priestly formation.The good pope stated:
“Suae enim sponte naturae lingua Latina ad provehendum apud populos quoslibet omnem humanitatis cultum est peraccommodata: cum invidiam non commoveat, singulis gentibus se aequabilem praestet, nullius partibus faveat, omnibus postremo sit grata et amica.”
Translation:
[Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.]
Other translators didn’t want to say that Latin was pleasing and friendly to all, only that it was “acceptable.” You can see how Veterum Sapientia was ignored.
It is true that “Optatam Totius”, Vatican II’s Decree on Priestly Training (1965) said that before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should acquire a knowledge of Latin (n.13) but that was largely ignored too. In fact, the current code of canon law says that students for the priesthood should understand Latin well (canon 249) and Pope Benedict said:
“Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant;” (Sacramentum Caritatis n.62)
I personally think it makes sense to study the Latin, at least- from what I understand (and someone correct me if I’m wrong) the priest is allowed if he wants the mass he will say in Latin, or the Sacral English, but I’m not so excited about the informal English going on in the typical NO masses, though it’s allowed. (It’s still a valid and licit Mass, but… It’s so banal.) Maybe it’s allowed for pastoral reasons such as inculturation. But I think Latin was supposed to be retained in its usage within the RCC. If there ever was an exception more deserving, it’s definitely the Ordinariates. But the Ordinariates are not sui iuris, or autonomous churches; they are in fact, members of the Latin Church. So Latin would be sensible to study, even if it retains an Anglican patrimony.
Msgr. Steenson has the right to protect the patrimony and make sure that there’s a -point- to the Ordinariates, and preserving what ought to be preserved that everyone else is recklessly discarding. But everyone, both clergy and laity alike must be vigilant and clear and in agreement as to how things are supposed to be done, so that in the end, everything goes smoothly.
Oy, the uproar at The Anglo-Catholic! Some of us, even myself, forget that these men, though they are ordained, are not perfect, and are not always with us on Earth or even in the place we’d like them to be even while they’re alive; good priests, as well as bad priests come and go. So I’m not really worried too much about Msgr. Steenson, and neither should the Ordinariate members. Let us bear any crosses and help our spiritual leaders get up if they stumble.
Huh. One commentator from RORATE CÆLI stated:
“….The good [Ordinary] is simply saying that the Ordinariate exists for those former Anglicans who want to continue to practice their Anglican liturgy within the Roman Church. That’s all well and good. Those former Anglicans who want to practice the Catholic Faith in the Ordinary or Extraordinary forms don’t need to be part of the Ordinariate, they ought to simply be part of the larger Church. There’s nothing offensive about that. If someone approached a Dominican about offering the Ambrosian rite, he would rightly point you to Milan… No one ought to be upset about that. This is not a liberal, anti-traditional or anti-Roman statement – it’s a perfectly logical statement of the purpose of the Ordinariate.”
This person makes sense, and condensed the verbose comment I posted above.
A Balanced Response
On my Sodality’s Blog, I issued the following statement in response to Msgr. Steenson’s statement. As a member of Una Voce, I will continue to do what I can to promote the EF Mass in the wider church, but I concur with our Ordinariate designate that the primary focus within the Ordinariate is to promote and develop the Anglican Use liturgy within our communities.
Fraternally in Christ
From the Oshawa Sodality Blog http://oshawaordinariate.blogspot.ca/
The primary focus of this Sodality is to obtain ordained clergy to provide the Anglican Use liturgy on a regular basis and to become part of a Canadian deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. Currently, there are no plans to introduce the Extraordinary Form of the Mass at this location or in the near future.
For those living in the Oshawa, Whitby and Pickering areas, the Toronto Latin Mass Society-Una Voce may give consideration to establishing a monthly celebration of the Extraordinary Form at another location.
For those Anglican Use Catholics in the Greater Toronto Area interested in the occasional attendance at Extraordinary Form liturgies, information is available at the following website. http://unavocetoronto.blogspot.ca/
Hmm. I also wonder how much the Ordinariates is identified with this, one, particular Ordinary? It would seem to be a mistake in saying that the Ordinariates are characterized by this one man. It’s like saying the Roman Catholic Church is defined only by Roderigo Borgia, or those priests who sexually abused children. Or even just one good individual.
It is also dangerous to let the Ordinariates be defined by what a single person would say about the Traditional Liturgy. People talk as if Msgr. Steenson will be the first and the last Ordinary of the Ordinariates. Can anyone think of someone either better or worse to be in the position of Ordinary? What will happen when Msgr. Steenson is gone?
One would hope that Ordinariate Anglicans would read this, as even those of us Anglicans “outside”!
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
The Ordinary encourages his priests to learn the Extraordinary Form for service to the wider Church. Good place to start.
Isn’t this a peculiar sort of side issue for the Ordinary to be dealing with right now? It seems as though major candidates for the Ordinariate — those with buildings, budgets, and programs — are slipping through his fingers, and he’s involved with resolving some sort of dispute over whether Ordinariate priests will say EF mass here, there, or somewhere else. In fact, the resolution to this problem doesn’t seem to have been especially challenging — any Catholic can go to an EF mass and receive the Sacrament. An Ordinariate priest can say the EF mass, but maybe best not replacing the scheduled Anglican high mass. How much time did Msgr Steenson spend on this? What was put on the back burner so he could rush this one out?
@John: I would agree here, the major effort right now is the whole Ordinariate itself! And certainly “Latin” is not a real thing for the BCP! The AngloCatholic blog has some good points and pieces here! As noted, of course Latin was the language of the Roman leadership, in Jesus day…as Pilate said, “ecce homo” ‘Behold, or here is the man’. (John 19:5) Which of course has become precious to those of us that believe! So Latin can help in both theology and worship!
I agree, while we talk about what basically should be a non-issue, he seems to be silent about candidates for the Ordinariates. I’d like to hear more about them, but the Msgr. can say what he wants when he thinks we need to know anything more about them.
Btw, even us Reformed & Reformational Anglicans know the worth and use of studying Latin for theological use, note Richard Muller’s grand book: ‘Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology’. Of course as one raised Irish Roman Catholic before Vatican II, Latin was alive and well in those days of Catholic school and education. And now I am thankful to degree for those years of Latin!
John Bruce,
Any blame for the wasted time and resources surrounding this kerfuffle should fall at the feet of Mr. Christian Campbell, who instigated it with a libelous characterization of Msgr. Steenson.
Fr Robert, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve appreciated more the time I spent in high school with Julius Caesar, Cicero, and Vergil. On the other hand, the relationship of Latin to the Ordinariate is fuzzier. There are two sets of expectations that aren’t entirely complementary: one is that Anglicanism should be reunited with Catholicism — OK, well and good. The other is liturgical reform in a traditional direction. The main thrust of Catholic liturgical reform has been a return to the EF mass, but others — like Mr. Coulombe, who posts here, and whom I’ve met and respect — would also like to see Anglican respect for liturgical propriety also brought more into the Catholic mainstream.
I think these not necessarily complementary expectations are just one problem with the US Ordinariate as it’s coming to form itself, and I’m not sure if Msgr Steenson’s solution answers them. A UK blog once characterized the Ordinariate there as a “granny flat” (or in US-speak, a “mother-in-law suite”), and I think there’s some truth to that. What happens to the Ordinariate when the present, first generation of priests and parishioners passes on? What of seminarians who choose to become Ordinariate priests, are celibate when they go in, but subsequently wish to marry? Isn’t the whole Ordinariate idea meant to satisfy a particular set of dissatisfactions among early 21st century Anglicans, but could well disappear like the Shakers once that generation passes on?
One complaint I’ve seen about Msgr Steenson is a lack of vision, and I think this is an area where the criticism may be on point.
“What happens to the Ordinariate when the present, first generation of priests and parishioners passes on?”
1. Any Ordinariate can (i) establish its own seminary or, if it is small, (ii) can send its own seminarians for training in diocesan seminaries (like smaller Catholic orders do), OCSP is just 6 months old! In the UK, where Ordinariate is 18 months old, there already have a couple of their own seminarians under the scheme (ii). There is a story about one of them in the Oxford Ordinariate Blog.
2. Note that AU parishes have generated vocations, so, judging by this evidence, the Ordinariate communities can also be expected to produce them in due time – especially that men coming from AU parishes could only become diocesan priests with no guarantee that they would ever be used by bishops to take pastotral care of AU parishes, whereas any young men from among Ordinariate communities who decide to enter a seminary will be guaranteed to serve within the Ordinariate once they complete their studies and are ordained.
This still doesn’t answer my questions. When is the cutoff date for, say, a married Anglican priest who’s had his formation at Nashotah House to come into the Ordinariate as a priest? This won’t be forever. What of some married Episcopal priest in 2025 who makes that decision?
Second, it’s my understanding the Anglicanorum coetibus applies to parishes of existing Anglicans. I don’t believe that, strictly speaking, a cradle Catholic can become a member of an Ordinariate parish, no matter how much he or she likes the liturgy, even if he or she can receive the Sacrament. So down the road, is it only Anglicans who want to convert who can ever become Ordinariate parishioner-members in good standing? Or those plus those who are baptized or confirmed or whatever in an Ordinariate parish? Again, I’m starting to wonder about the Shaker problem here.
“This won’t be forever.”
Actually, several child baptisms were reported on Ordinariate groups’ websites in H1 2012 – and probably many others were simply not featured. And that even if the stream of Anglicans completely dries out, which I really do not believe will be the case at least in the next few years.
1. Formally, this is forever. Ordinariates have been definitely designed as an open-ended offer. In 2025, married Episcopal priests can be reconciled through the Ordinariate exactly like those entering now.
Again, we can reasonably judge future perspectives by the AU example. The Pastoral Provision process is 30 or so years long and still new episcopal priests are received and (re-)ordained through it every year (even this year there have been some new PP priests, who chose this scheme despite the establishment of the Ordinariate). So, if Vatican has been granting permitions for non-celibate episcopal clergy for 30 years under the Pastoral Provision (even though married priests are somewhat peculiar in the all-celibate diocesan environment), why should we be afraid that this rather generous policy will abruptly change with respect to the Ordinariate (in which the environment will be mixed or even mainly non-celibate for at least 10 or 20 years from now, anyway).
And as for replicating lay members, I suppose it will go the natural way
Finally, as far as I remember, once the Ordinariate parishes are initially received and established – there is no requirement of Anglican background any more to be reconciled through them with the Catholic Church (i.e. even people of non-Anglican background, e.g. Lutherans) can be reconciled through Ordinariate parishes and become their members with full rights.
@John: I hear ya! But of course this all depends upon how one sees the historic and theological-eschatological church! I know I don’t see the church doing well at/in this place of postmodernity! And here is much more than Anglicanism, Catholicism, etc. One can note too that the EO is certainly not doing well, either! If I live to be 80? Who knows what’s coming to or towards historic Christianity? So for me anyway, biblical theology & liturgy must become simply close again, as we can see in the BCP! But then of course I am a classic Thirty-Nine Articles Anglican!
And if I could, who has read, and likes, the works of Augustine: The Confessions, The Trinity (De Triniate)? The reason I ask, is, that if the Church Catholic is to maintain itself? It simply MUST renew itself in both ‘the Law and the Gospel (Good-News)’ of God in Christ! And the Amor Dei, the love of God.. as the motive of the Christian life! It is here too that we can see this in both a Von Balthasar and a Karl Barth! And btw, it is here too on ‘Law & Gospel’ that I see the the great effect of a Martin Luther! Luther has far too long been treated with contempt with Catholicism, and too misunderstood with many Lutherans! Thankfully some Catholic “theolog’s” have re-discovered Dr. Luther! (And even a few Anglicans!
Sorry, I am always gonna be theologically bent!
The Christology and theology of Christ is always going to rightly press liturgy & life!
Monsignor Steenson is absolutely correct….the Anglican patrimony dos not encompass the latin Mass. the BCP is a negation of the Latin Mass and a bold declaration that worship should be in the language of the people.
Cranmer may have had stately language but the rub is , his intrinsic Protestantism. That is why the CDF are re-writing Cranmer. Those Victorian Anglo catholics who adopted the Latin mass were a tiny fringe minority within the Anglican tradition.
Cranmer denounced the Mass, ” as the weed taht choketh the Gospel. ” He abolished the oblation,prayers for the dead and the invocation of Saints.he described catholic priests who said Mass as ” mumblers and mummers.”
In his Book of Homilies he likened Our lady of Walsingham to Diana of the Ephesians.
He robbed Englsih people of valid orders with his defective Ordinal and completely swept away the sacrament of extreme unction.
Indeed one cannot re-write Cranmer really, but the issue is always Protestantism or the real Evangelical Gospel, verses one that does not give the believer/saint the assurance of salvation! St. Paul certainly taught the “assurance” of salvation, in faith! (Rom. 5: 1 ; 8: 15-16) Thus is the crux of Evangelical Protestanism verses “Catholicism”! Luther, Calvin to Wesley, etc. “Salvation”, could and should be “known”!
And btw, I have known Roman Catholics myself, that if really pressed have admitted their delight in “knowing” they are in personal assurance of salvation in the present tense! And biblically, salvation is past, present & future all together! (Jude 1:1)
Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross destroyed our sins- it’s done, it can’t be re-done. But that doesn’t make us free from any responsibility for our actions; we’re certainly not saved if we commit mass murder and died unrepentant. But ultimately, God is judge. We just cannot presume God’s mercy. (Or the other extreme, Jansenism, wherein -no one- is guaranteed mercy.) The Catholic Church predestines no one to damnation, but works towards humanity’s salvation, with the Grace of God, and not just through human efforts alone.
We cannot subsist on faith alone, either, (doesn’t mean one doesn’t need faith entirely) if the acts we do are not filled with Grace from God. We receive Grace through the Sacraments, freely given, and the Sacraments are effective if one’s attitude is sincere. (This is where faith/good works intersect) While we cannot work for our Salvation, the Grace that will lead us to Salvation is given freely and we can choose to let that Grace work through us. Or not. I’d hate to believe that God did not give us Free Will and we are but puppets in an absurd show.
That’s all I can say about that- I don’t know anything more about Orthodox and Catholic theology of glorification/justification/sanctification/etc.
@Ioannes: As I have written, you need to look at Augustine here and his whole historical reality with Pelagius and Pelagianism! And both Luther and Calvin were Augustinian’s, it was from Augustine that both Luther and Calvin, (as also Jansen), as with Holy Scripture, that they took and learned their doctrines on grace. Of course Paul’s Letter of the Romans is central here! And Aquinas was certainly something of an Augustinian, as he himself mentions.
Btw, Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. has written a nice Catholic Commentary on Romans, back in the 90′s as I remember? You might try reading it! Yes, I have a copy myself, (somewhere?)
Finally, nowhere does Luther or Calvin (nor Jansen) teach that men are mere puppets in the hands of God, but they also cannot save themselves one bit, or draw an inch toward God on their own merit! (Rom. 3-4)
Salvation is a precious gift from God, but even St Paul worried that he could become a castaway.
@Robert I. W.: If you are refering to Paul in Rom. 9: 3, here St. Paul is using “Anamnesis” a figure of speech, ‘An expression of feeling by way of recalling to mind.’ “This figure is used when the course of the direct statement is changed, to recall something to mind ; and the matter, instead of being stated as a fact, as it might have been, is mentioned by way of calling it to memory, in recollection to method. the method or hyperbole & story recollection.
It is a very effective method of emhasising what we wish to impress on another. The Latins called it Recollectio, i.e. recollection. But it is not a reality or history, itself.
Again, in Rom. 9:3 is also an example of Hyperbole, and Paul is not saying literally he wised or wishes to be a accursed or “anathema” from God, but it is his moment of profound desire and great expression to his people Israel, they are his own agony, but not above or beyond God’s good will and purpose! Theologically, this does not suggest that Paul himself really thought God would forsake him! (He had literally no “worries” here!) Again, here is hyperbole (overstatement or exaggeration) and the method of recollection, in verbal method. But as the whole of Romans for Paul in chapters 9 thru 11, God is always Sovereign!
Btw, when I was way back when in Catholic College, I loved the study of etymology: the origin & development of words, etc. I was also early and English Lit. major, then I turned to Philosophy.
“For I could wish (hyperbole and mental recollection) that I myself..” (we should note that the verb is in the imperfect tense, and has the sense of “I used to wish.” And it may refer to his (Paul’s) former condition as a Jew in unbelief, and to his old hatred of the very name of Jesus!
Indeed the whole use and reality of the Figures of Speech as used in Holy Scripture, is something that we simply cannot neglect! All language is governed by syntax and the law of grammar! And the ancient Greeks reduced these new and peculiar forms to science, and gave names to more than two hundred of them. Later too the Romans carried forward this science, but with the decline of this subject in the Middle Ages, it almost died out. However, we have from the Greeks “Schema”, and by the Romans, “Figura”. Both words have the same meaning, viz., a shape or figure. We can see this in the Greek itself of the NT, as “Schema” found in 1 Cor. 7:31, “The “fashion” or schema of this of this world passes away”; Phil. 2:8, “being found “in fashion” as a man. Indeed the Latin word “Figura” is from the verb “fingere, to form”, and has passed into English in the words, figure, transfigure, configuration, effigy, feint, feign, etc., etc.
@ John Bruce
There is no cut off date.
Partners of Ordinariate Catholics and their descendants can be registered as Ordinaraiate Members so in God’s good time the Ordinaraites can grow in numbers.
This is not a short-term thing – but a very long term one. In time, if there sufficient vocations we may see Ordinaries in episcopal orders.