23 July 2009

LITURGY FOR UNITING ANGLICANS

I there is ever to be an entity for Anglicans in full Communion with the Holy See, I suspect it will need a proper liturgical provision. This is not easy to prescribe, since Anglicanism itself, in its different provinces not to say its different tendencies, has widely different attitudes both to liturgical style and to text. I suspect that three provisions might need to be made; and here I am speaking only of the Mass.

(1) There will be those who are very happy simply to use the new ICEL texts when they are authorised. A considerable majority of Anglican Catholics in England tend to use the current ICEL texts and would naturally in the course of time accept the new, vastly improved, translation. They will themselves have to answer the inevitable question "So, if your worship is going to be identical to ours, what exactly is this Anglican patrimony you say you want to bring with you?" They will have to explain that it is not just a question of liturgy; there is a whole spirituality which goes with the Anglican Faith-History. This is true ... even if it is a bit intangible.

(2) There should be a provision for something like the Novus Ordo, but in an English idiom which is Cranmerian. Where Cranmer has rendered a text (e.g. the Sunday collects per annum) his versions should be used even when he has slightly mistranslated the Latin. Their 450 year use is now itself part of the history and reception of these texts. They evolved and mutated in the early Latin Sacramentaries and in many cases were changed, not always wisely, by the post-conciliar Roman revisers; their post-reformation evolution in Anglicanism should not be dismissed out of hand. Texts like Gloria, Credo, Preface, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus, Blessing, should be Cranmer's, invisibly mended to the smallest degree possible. One advantage here is that the new ICEL texts - because they seek to be literal renderings - have moved distinctly closer to Cranmer's versions.

The Confession is a problem. There is a consensus that the Confession as Cranmer left it is unusable, but the replacements offered throughout the world must by now run into dozens (the C of E's Common Worship itself offers several). I suggest that a single text, crafted from phrases in and with echoes from Cranmer's, will have to be confected. Throughout the medieval period, the text of the Confiteor was fluid, and the post-conciliar Roman revisers felt free to rewrite it. There is no reason why there should not be an Anglican variant.

And, of course, the Eucharistic Prayer. There should be two. The first should be the translation of the Roman Canon in the Book of Divine Worship. The second should be a new prayer, unambiguously orthodox, with the structure which is common to the new EPs in the post-conciliar Missal, but confected as much as possible from phrases in Cranmer and in the non-Juror/Scottish/American tradition. Since one of its purposes would be to provide a EP for contexts in which the Roman Canon was deemed too long, it should be careful about its length. But it should not be as short as 'Hippolytan' EPs, since their brevity is itself a scandal.

Collects should be for the most part from the Prayer Book, together with their associated Secrets and Postcommunions as translated in the English Missal. The modern Roman Lectionary should be used.

(3) The English Missal in one of its most recent pre-conciliar editions should be authorised but with the single proviso that Cranmer's Consecration Prayer (and the combination of his Consecration Prayer with his Prayer of Oblation, once known as the Interim Rite) should be excluded because it is not orthodox. It should be replaced by the prayer suggested in the previous section. The Canon Romanus, in the same translation as that mentioned above, should remain on offer. Since the EM includes the whole of the Tridentine Missal translated into pastiche Cranmer (often extremely skilfully) and the whole of the 1662 Mass, the authorisation of this book thus modified would provide a liturgy suitable for those who wished to use the Tridentine Mass simpliciter in English; and for those who wished to use the historical rite of 1662, sanctified by the memories of Charles I and Laud, of Cosin and Kenn, of Pusey and Keble, in an unaltered form (except for the Consecration Prayer); and for those who wished to combine elements from both.

Option 3 would not, perhaps, be widely used, at least in England. But I think it would be worth fighting for such a rite both for those souls who would love it, and as a monument to the 450 years of Anglican Faith-History, in which, by the grace of God, although much has been amiss, not all has been flawed. It would also be a resource for the whole Anglophone Roman Rite, since it is not inevitable that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite will never be desired in English.

27 comments:

Malcolm Kemp said...

Having recited the entire modern RomanLiturgy of the Hours for a number of years and being happy with the modern Roman Rite for Mass (and only slightly less happy with the old English Missal) my own feeling is that if we are going to have any sort of unity with Rome then we sould use their liturgies and Rites rather than compile yet another lot. As I've written more than once before in various places and contexts, our litugies are so unnecessarily complicated and cluttered up with options compared with the Roman rites. I know this is an emotive topic for many Anglicans but, having perforce been subjected to modern language liturgies for around 35 years or more now I've grown to prefer them and can't really see any justification in the 21st century for producing imitation Cranmer.

I am in a strange situation in that I accept and believe totally that Rome is the only, one true church to which we should all aspire to belong and I think it would be marvellous if like monded Anglicans could be accepted into full communion with Rome "en masse" so to say. However, I agree absolutely with Father Hunwicke that there is a valuable Anglican spirituality and tradition which hould, perhaps, not be discarded lightly, not to mention a tradition of music and liturgy done very well. Anglican catholics also have a superb record of wonderful pastoral care from wonderful priests and I would not lightly want to accept that their orders are invalid.

Yes, we should all aspire to reunion with the Holy See and that should involve using their Rites. They might, in all charity, like to agree that we have something worthwhile to offer them from our own tradition. My own observations are that Roman clergy are probably more attuned to this than some of their laity who, from comments on other blogs, sometimes seem to regard us as something the cat dragged in. I also suspect that many of the best Roman priests are themselves converts.

Put in over-simplified and admittedly somewhat controversial terms, Henry VIII was a silly boy who threw his rattle out his pram when he didn't get his own way. If only his elder brother hadn't died!

Conchúr said...

I believe Prof. Tighe has mentioned the 1764 Scottish Episcopal Prayer Book as a possible basis for a distinctively Anglican Usage for an Anglican body in communion with Rome. He said it would be relatively straightforward to "Catholicize" compared to some of the other options IIRC.

William Tighe said...

I was going to mention 1764, which is a bit tediously verbose in places (e.g., "how own oblation of himself once offered"), and which was Protestantized a bit for the 1789/1928 (P)ECUSA BCP (e.g., it replaces the clear Eastern-style consecratory epiclesis of 1764 with Cranmer's evasion of it of 1552, "that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine ..." etc.)

BUT (and now he thinks of running for cover) what do you think of the second Eucharistic prayer of TEC's 1979 Rite I? This Rite I is the "Cranmerian English" rite, and it has two EPs. The first is straight 1928; the second is a condensed and abbreviated version of the same, but one more "traditional" in its phraseology. I wouldn't myself wish to take anything from this tainted source (there is already too much of 1979 retained in the Anglican Use BDW, including the semi-"inclusivized" psalter), but that EP is worth glancing at.

Can anyone produce a link to it here?

Fr Anthony said...

As a priest in the TAC, I would suggest a choice of three options:

1. The "ordinary form" of the Roman Rite in the new ICEL translation, in a "reform of the reform" spirit à la Benedict XVI, with the possibility of singing Anglican musical settings of the Cranmer Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei.

2. A revised "Anglican Use" Order of Mass with the Proper of the "ordinary form" Roman Missal with adaptations to render it into "pastiche Cranmer". Offertory prayers from Sarum.

3. The full Use of Sarum in a choice of Latin or Cranmerian English. Alternatively the 1962 Roman Rite as in use in traditionalist Roman Catholic communities.

In the event of union of parts of the Anglican Communion or "Affirmation of St Louis" Cintinuing Churches like the TAC with Rome, a certain amount of flexibility in the liturgy would be essential.

Fr. Anthony

Christian said...

Given that most anglo-catholics these days use the Novis Ordo Missal straight I fail to see any need for all this liturgical faffing. Regarding spirituality, I would not underestimate the influnce of ex-Anglican spirituality already present. Newman is, obviously, the best example of this. One can also, however, find the influence of Anglicanism amongst the Benedictines and (since 1994) in diocesan seminaries. The vocations director of Westminster diocese is, for example, an ex-Anglican.

Other than it superfluity, special liturgical provisions pose further problems. They would divide up the Church in England. It is one thing to give oriental rite Catholics access to their own traditions but it is quite a different thing to devide up the native population between "English" and "Roman". Where would I go? My fathers family converted in the 19th century and my mother's family are recusants. I am hardly a "Roman" Catholic. Then again, I would never be prepared worship with the words of Cranmer; a man who's Services my mothers ancestors spent 300 years being persecuted and (in some cases) murdered for refusing to attend.

This raises further questions, if ex-Anglicans are "English" Catholics then what exactly are recusants? Are they somehow less English? One might even sense that this is an implied challenge to the deeply held belief of English Catholicism for 450 years, that Catholicism is the only true English Faith, the "faith of our fathers." It might also be taken to imply that the Anglo-Catholic "branch theory", a condemned heresy, has some validity

Harold said...

Isn't the elephant in this living room the Book of Divine Worship already created for those Anglicans who entered into full communion with Rome but wanted to retain their distinctively Anglican liturgy?

William Tighe said...

Yes, but it is clear that the Vatican and also most of those American Anglican use clergy that use the BDW regard it as unsatisfactory in various ways, and in need of a conservative revision.

The young fogey said...

The inevitable question "So, if your worship is going to be identical to ours, what exactly is this Anglican patrimony you say you want to bring with you?" They will have to explain that it is not just a question of liturgy; there is a whole spirituality which goes with the Anglican Faith-History. This is true ... even if it is a bit intangible.

Precisamente.


1) Everything Thomas Day has written about English-speaking RC culture is true: persecuted Irish -> anti-English + Jansenism = liturgical minimalism, anti-high church.

2) After the council, throw Modernism with ’roid rage into that Irish stew and you understand why Pope Benedict must have ex-Anglo-Catholics' back, supporting them as part of his Catholic revival by starting RC national parishes for them like the motu is supposed to do for Tridentine RCs.

Funny how American ACs love Cranmer's Prayer Book and English ones don't. The Americans are usually non-papalist (believing in their version of something called 'Anglicanism'); the English papalist. And there's what I call the 'Masterpiece Theatre' phenomenon after a highbrow American television series showing historical dramas made in England and based on classic English literature; the reverence for these shows seems entirely American, an idea of merry old England removed from the real thing.

That said I agree with Fr H; the idiom and culture are worth saving when put into Catholic moulds like the English Missal and new improved ICEL.

I also think the BDW (an American phenomenon the English aren't interested in) is better than run-of-the-mill Novus but not ideal as it now is. Pope Benedict's ICEL changes would take care of those problems.

lukacs said...

Per Prof. Tighe's request for the alternate EP from the US 1979 BCP Rite I Holy Eucharist:

http://www.bcponline.org/HE/he1-altgt.html

Malcolm Kemp said...

I think there is a danger of missing the point. Christ prayed "that they my be one" and in order to achieve this the ultimate aim must be total re-union with Rome. Any attmepts at unity without Rome are futile. At the moment people of Anglican tradition/origin - for whatever reasons - seem to be rather good at making more divisions rather than heal those that already exist. This is the main reasons I dispair of all these "continuing" and "traditional" churches. Having one liturgy - preferably that used by the RC church itself -would surely be a major step in the right direction.

The big hurdle - as I have already hinted - is to get grass-roots people in the pews in all these churches to put aside age-old, and frequently mis-informed prejudices against each other. That will be much harder to achieve than matters of liturgy but, hey, who would have thought that the Holy Spirit would have worked the way it did with Vatican 2?

Bishop of Ebbsfleet said...

Good principles seem to me to be
(1) modern English vernacular liturgy ought not include Anglican translations and texts;
(2) Anglican translations and texts of the Extraordinary Form of Mass and historical structures and texts of and for the Office ought to be available;
(3) Some Anglican Pastoral Rites (e.g. Series 1 Marriage and Funeral Rites, based on England BCP 1928)ought to be preserved (not least because they are better than most other texts for these purposes);
(4) Archaic texts - e.g. Ordinary (minus Credo), canticles - ought to be available for musical performance in whichever form;
(5)Texts for the Confiteor and the Credo at Mass should be uniformly Novus Ordo English or Latin. (Anglo-Catholics would happily take to Credo III) but there could be more latitude in the Office (allowing, for instance, the BCP Apostles' Creed).

If we tried, we could get a consensus on all this.... and it may be that the CDW will read it......

+ Andrew

rev'd up said...

Mr. Kemp, when you said: "but, hey, who would have thought that the Holy Spirit would have worked the way it did with Vatican 2?"

My immediate question was,

"What you talkin' 'bout!"

Now, either you are thoroughly tongue-in-cheek as to whether the Holy Ghost actually showed his face at the V2C (which is my guess) or you erroneously believe that UP can become DOWN and 2+2=3.

The consequent facts post V2C tell a remarkable story; virtually no one in the Church (Anglican or Roman) who has committed their heart to the NO Missae (a secretion of the V2C) believes in God/Jesus Christ in the same manner as pre-V2C Christians did. To wit, Church attendance is dismal, belief in the "real Presence" is at perhaps 10% of so called believers, reverent behaviour at Mass is almost non existant (flip-flops, shorts, mini-skirts, tube tops, t-shirts...), ungodly wordly musik, etc.

There are still a few of us loonies out here that believe we *must* return to the old way of worshiping God in the "most beautiful Thing this side of Heaven" or we will fail to actually be worshiping the God of Heaven and Earth.

I think an apt analogy lies in the Hebrew worship of the golden calf. Aaron (the Pope) validated idolatry and when Moses (S Peter, Christ's true and only vicar) caught them - you know the rest. Psalms 78 and 106 clearly prophesy of the modern "have it your way" Church as they truly spoke of Jewish apostasy. And along these lines, in partially restoring the old Mass, the current Pope seems to play the role of King Josiah. God's judgment will be severe. Who is going to stand in the gap?

BillyD said...

There is a consensus that the Confession as Cranmer left it is unusable,

Why?

francis said...

Bp Andrew, I take it that your point (1) should read "…ought to…" rather than "…ought not…". Yes, I know it seems obvious (unless I'm really misunderstanding you), but it's just the kind of thing where, after being filtered through the usual Chinese-whispers-based systems of communication one gets in the Church, the "ought not" reading could end up being treated as a definite request from Anglicans!

francis said...

Malcolm Kemp, if you are suggesting that it is proper to derive from our Lord's prayer "that they may be one" the imperative "that they may worship using one form", then that is a notion I would resist most strongly, on grounds equally of history, ecclesiology and logic.

Reunion should not be made the grounds for imposing a new "Act of Uniformity". In the same way, however, the desire to maintain legitimate diversity of forms of worship should never be allowed, in itself, to justify continued divisions in the Body of Christ. Where there are established forms which can be continued either "as is" or (as with the BDW) adopted with a minimum of judicious adaptation, the only criterion should be "does the liturgy express the faith of the Church?" The extent, however substantial, to which it varies from those forms which have emanated from Rome, especially in the last 40 years, ought to be neither here nor there.

Mother Julian said...

Some form - any form - of corporate re-union with Rome is a treasure of such great value that litugical texts are of secondary importance, if we can keep the sense of reverence and God's immanence created through our liturgical and ritualistic praxis ,at least when it's at its best.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

Bishop Andrew is quite right - a consensus on what "Anglican Patrimony" is and what it might contribute to the Roman Communion should be at the forefront of people's minds. This undoubtedly would help the CDW... and perhaps the CDF in evaluating and appreciating what Anglicans are offering the Holy See...

Bishop of Ebbsfleet said...

Sorry Francis, I really did mean 'ought not include' modern Anglican texts. Soem of these texts are very good indeed,and I speak as one who took part in (but was not generally a craftsman of individual texts for) the Church of England Liturgical Communion's Common Worship. But we have had a wholesale reworking of the Roman Rite in modern English recently and that work will not only continue but may eventually include some of the texts we might miss. Meanwhile too much diversity in modern texts would be cacophonous.

What Anglicans bring to the feast is an older tradition of vernacular expression and translation, particularly suited to the Extraordinary Form and to the public celebration of Morning and Evening Prayer. The Sarum/Cranmerian version of the old collects and Mass readings, the Coverdale Psalter and some individual canticle and prayer texts are particular jewels. In a slightly different category, but still valuable, are some of the pre-conciliar breviary (monastic and secular)texts, as, of course, are some of the office hymn translations, therein and beyond.

The other aspect, of course, is the Bible in English. Balancing clarity, exegesis, resonance and tradition, I should be happy for the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition (Ignatius Press) to be the English text for most purposes. When the NRSV isn't being silly, it offers some improvements and there are magic moments where Douai or AV might be preferable - Nine lessons and Carols e.g. - but very little would be lost if the RSV became the one.

+ Andrew

Fr Anthony said...

I was quite annoyed with some of the comments I have seen on this thread, and I resolved to let the night pass before answering. The same thing is hashed out again and again and again. Liturgical and spiritual diversity are dangerous, because they reveal the inadequacies of a certain Catholicism built upon un-Catholic principles like exaggerated Ultramontanism (with its origins in 19th century Liberalism) and the warmed-up remainders of Jansenism. I am immune, but this kind of narrowness of spirit still has too much influence in my reckoning.

These two things are restricted to Catholic enthusiasts, whilst the majority of people in the Church are utterly indifferent to the “dangerous” influence of Anglicans with a different vision of Catholicism. This vision promotes a “hermeneutic of continuity” throughout the history of the Church, including the late middle ages, as Pope Benedict XVI is trying to teach us that the Catholic Church was not founded in 1965, but continued through Vatican II in spite of the abuses and excesses that are beginning to be corrected.

The real gift of Anglican Catholicism is its having been the pioneer of what our good Pope is trying to get over to us, not by force and constraint, but by teaching and spiritual healing. It will work, not by the Church resembling the Army or Orwell’s totalitarian world, but through the respect of diversity in the confession of the Catholic Faith and common Christian purpose. This is why there should be liturgical diversity between the two forms of the Roman Rite, the medieval diocesan Uses, variations of Prayer Book liturgies with necessary corrections made, the use of intelligence to provide for the possibility of using older musical settings despite a diversity of styles of translation.

I am confident that the Pope and the Roman Curia will not work as Anglo-Saxon neo-conservatives would like, and that the movement of Unity will be facilitated by pastoral solicitude and flexibility.

Fr. Anthony

roydosan said...

I can see a need for an 'Anglican use' for a temporary period after large numbers of conversions - particularly those that involve entire parishes for example. But in the longer run the aim should be for unity and that means using the ordinary/extraordinary form of the Roman rite alone. This could happen gradually over a number of years so that the Roman rite increasingly replaces the 'Anglican use' until it no longer exists. I can see the arguments from those who would not wish to lose a liturgy that they grew up in and love but for the sake of unity uniformity has to be the ultimate aim.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

If the current "Anglican Use" provision is anything to go by... the Holy See has already attempted to be "pastoral" as Fr Anthony suggests re the assimilation of Anglican Catholics.

The question though, I suspect, on most "people's" minds, is how a larger group of Anglicans - such as the TAC and others - might be received? A further extension of the Anglican Use and the BDW or a new and different format for Anglicans "en masse"...

The question is "how" - will Anglicans be given a choice by the Holy See - options - will it be a once only offer for en masse conversions - will it be individual reception - will a distinct Canonical entity be offered e.g. a Prelature... questions, questions, questions...

As a sympathiser, may I just observe, that at present none of the interested Anglican parties seem to be making an answer easy for the Holy See to consider...

It would seem obvious to me that all those Anglican Catholics who are seriously considering joining the Roman Communion should come together and offer an identifiable package to the Holy See. Making it clear who they are, where they are, what they can offer, and even tentatively suggest how they might be received?

Who represents Anglicans in the CofE re the prospect of unity with Rome? FiF is still fighting within the CofE... this gives the impression that unity with Rome is secondary to maintaining a position within the Anglican Communion - yet, let's face it - unity between the Anglican Communion and the Holy See is just no longer a viable possibility anyway...

The launch of FCA indicates a desire to remain Anglican - not Roman... the practice of women's ordination within ACNA decidedly betrays a desire to remain Anglican - effectively ruling out the prospect of communion with Rome (remember the various Cardinal's at Lambeth and their words concerning Apostolic tradition?).

Forgive me for saying so, but the present situation is "a mess". Anglicans in the CofE wanting unity with Rome should group together, the TAC and all such groups should be in discussion together.

It's all very well "leaving it to the Holy See"... but it wouldn't hurt to give them a hand would it? Imagine if you were in the CDF at the moment tasked with the "Anglican situation" where would you begin? Who would you talk to? How would you deal with the conflicting behaviors and statements? Would you unpick the partisan politics or ignore them? You'd probably VOLUNTEER to be involved with the dialogue with the SSPX than touch the "Anglican situation"!

Perhaps the problem with Anglicans is, they can never seem to speak with one voice - even on things they appear to agree on?! If pro-Roman Anglicans were to organise themselves - you all know each other - into a single entity that Rome could talk to, maybe, just maybe, you might begin to get the murmurings of an answer from the Holy See... perhaps even an invitation to form a committee to discuss the problem from both sides...

Ben said...

If I may quote the soon-to-be-Blessed Vicar of St Mary's, in Tract 75: 'There have been before now divines who could write a Liturgy in thirty-six hours. Such is not our Church's way.'

Of the making of liturgical books there is no end, but perhaps there should be, at least for the time being. Setting aside religious orders with their own liturgical patrimony and those of Eastern origin, a church (parish, diocese or province) uniting with Rome now has three Mass books to choose from: 1962, 2002, BDW. If there are communities that can accept none of these, surely the best policy would be for them to submit the books they use now to the competent dicastery, the Congregation for Divine Worship, to be asperged, edited or pulped as seems most appropriate to Card. Canizares.

Ben said...

And Fr Anthony, if you're having Sarum, can I have Nidaros?

Fr Anthony said...

Dear roydosan and others of this "position",

Ask the SSPX and the traditional Roman Rite communities in communion with Rome if they would appreciate being phased out, weaned off their rite and funnelled in onto the Novus Ordo.

If the deal is going to be a uniform liturgy or a progressive "bait and switch", then forget it and let's all say "good night".

The liturgical situation in the western Church is hundreds of varieties of the Novus Ordo. Perhaps this is not a bed thing. Let the anarchy continue, and perhaps some good can be done somewhere!

Anyway, we'll see if anything positive comes out of the new Benedict XVI / Newman era. We have every reason to be optimistic, as the show will not be run by English-speaking rubricists and uniformist pharisees.

At this stage it is a question of whether Rome will say "let them eat cake" and squander the last opportunity to do something that will do the most to restore western Christianity, or whether the solution will come from "outside the box".

I think the latter, and I continue to pray for this intention.

Fr. Anthony

rev'd up said...

Canon Jerome, I believe that ++Hepworth of TAC is the "go to" man as far as Rome is concerned. And he is very much on the job and optimistic about some sort of "offer" via legitimate channels and sooner rather than later. He proves himself a very discreet and capable intermediary. In the past, ACs have over much conferenced and finagled in regards to what they can do to make themselves more palatable to Rome and as a result Rome always lost interest. There are many influential RC folk that are fully aware of the AC patrimony and they will fight our liturgical battle for us.

When Rome announce their move to the vernacular 40+ years ago, intelligent, informed Roman clergy anticipated (hoped) that the powers would simply authorize use of the English Missal or produce something akin to it by extracting the English column from the S Andrew Missal. They were sadly misled. Now, however, Roman eyes are again on the English Missal (including those of the "Anglican Use").

RCs are not impressed by the fact that most AC parishes in England use the NO - I think they are rather perplexed at this strange phenomenon (I know here in the USA it always draws a smile and a chuckle! How eccentric our English brethren can be!) and especially with the EM an option - it is rather unbelievable. I would hate to think that the Pope only wants to assimilate a group of Anglicans that are little more than "fancy Novus Ordo-ites." Who cares if you can put on a dignified NO!?! There is something much much better than even the best NO; and I believe that is what the Pope is after. Thus, with ++Hepworth staying as much out of the way as possible, the Pope's hands are not tied.

BTW, ++Hepworth uses the EM.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

rev'd up

Father, I am much gratified to hear that ++Hepworth uses the EM - indeed, as do some of my colleagues (those unfamiliar with Latin)... and I concur, what is attractive about professional "NO" users?! Except that they express beautifully something of the "hermeneutic of continuity" that our beloved Holy Father desires for the whole Latin Rite.

Again, this brings up the question of "Anglican Patrimony" and I think you're right that if at least the EM (or even the AM or Sarum Rite) had been widely employed by AC's, Rome might now have an easier time of addressing the "Anglican situation"... under the aegis of the present Supreme Pontiff. However, to be fair, JPII (Servant of God?) was not so expressive of the "hermeneutic" and one understands why AC Paplists opted for the NO (tho' with a better praxis and sympathy towards the original "Liturgical Movement" than most Romans).

I think the adoption of the NO by AC's was deliberately to express a desire for unity with the Holy See and let's face it, despite Ecclesia Dei, the Extraordinary Form was not thought of favourably by Romanista's on both sides of the Tiber.

That said... like VCII... perhaps too much was "thrown out with the bath water" by AC's in England and the effective ditching of the BCP Offices by AC's was (probably) unfortunate. But one has to remember, that "they", like the good Father H here, thought of themselves as essentially "Romans" but with Canonical irregularity? Therefore, to say and pray with "The Church" was their motivation and the EF has essentially been "dumped" by the RC's.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

Sorry last line should read "had" not "has" re the EF!