... one of the most elegant and kindly operators in Blogland, explained that Anglicans in an Ordinariate would have to be more liturgically disciplined. He has a point; but I think he is being less than fair to the great majority of English Anglican Catholic Clergy. It is simply because they have felt that they should, as good Catholics, obey the edicts of the Holy See precisely and to the letter that nearly all of them use the dreadful Old ICEL version of Dr Bugnini's grotesque rite. And that is why snide papists are now making unpleasant cracks about how we don't actually have a Patrimony. A 'can't win' situation: obey the rules and you haven't got a Patrimony; disregard them, and you are accused of individualistic anarchy.
I am unlike most such Anglo-Catholics. The reason for this is that, although a Papalist, I never desired to to be in an ecclesial ghetto. My first parish was Prayer Book and surplice and stole, with Mattins for the brigadiers and stockbrokers at 11.00. My succeeding ministries were all in fairly mainstream C of E churches where I could not have got away with just dumping on them the rite imposed by Rome. In every case the only option was a gradual and organic evolution into something better. This is an approach which has a very respectable history among Catholic Anglicans from the 1840s down to 1970. And even when I came to S Thomas's a couple of years ago, I found that the priest who had cared for it during the long interregnum had, very shortly before I arrived, had splendid little books printed giving the rather peculiar combination of Cranmer, Common Worship, and Old ICEL which he had evolved to suit his own taste. The congregation was minute, and I did not want to scare away the few I had, so I proceeded gently. We have now moved on to something a little less idiosyncratic - at least I always use the Canon Romanus - although the rite remains rather sui generis; not least because, at first, I did not want to revise it without taking account of the then imminent New ICEL texts; and secondly, because I now wish to take account of what the Ordinariate comes up with.
In this rather betwixt and between time, it is true that I have also naughtily indulged myself the use of the 1939 EF Roman Rite. This does not mean that, should I happily find my position canonically regularised, I would decline to use the 1962 rite. But I confess that I will rather miss some of the things that disappeared during the protoBugnini period late in the Pontificate of Papa Pacelli.
Some practical points:
(1) The question of Calendar must be sorted out. Utraquism is bound to be a long term phenomenon, and sensible provision must be made for Utraquist churches. Anecdotally ... there are RC clergy who do use the EF with the OF calendar. I know Pastor wouldn't do something so wicked ... any more than you would catch him toying with the Sarum Rite ...
(2) Perhaps Pastor, given the connections that he has, could find out for me definitively whether I should be naming S Joseph in the EF 1962 Canon; and whether the Third Confiteor is still mandatory, abolished, or optional. Then I shall be at least better placed to know exactly what it is that I doing right or wrong.
(3) On the 25th of February Fr Zed did a post, full of gung-ho zest, in which he criticised the OF rubrics which prescribe that, at the OF Mass, servers and clergy genuflect towards the Tabernacle only at the start and the end of Mass. He said that, of course, it was his inflexible rule that people should Do the Red ... and then added "but ...". He also asserted his belief that ignoring these rubrics was not even a venial sin. Did Pastor whack Fr Zed for this? And ... gracious me ... Fr Zed is the Great High Priest of complete rubrical obedience!
Isn't that concept in its absolute form getting just a tiny bit frayed round the edges as both the EF movement and the Reform of the Reform gain in confidence? When Fr Schmidt was in London a year or two ago, he spoke in a way that made me rather wonder if he was quite squeaky clean when it came to not using the old and abolished Commemorationes de Tempore. And I believe that Lawrence Hemming uses an Urban VIII Breviary for his Office. Does this, in Pastor's view, fulfill the obligation? Papa Sarto, in promulgating his new distribution of the Psalter, categorically stated that it did not.
O'Connell, writing in the early 1940s, is fairly relaxed about some usages praeter and even contra legem, and cites SRC decrees in his support ("In some cases, the SRC has even ordered usages contra legem to be followed"). Some people ... like Fr Zed ... have been hammering home the concept of total obedience to the rubrics; and understandably so, because this is the only way in which the liberals can be restrained in the dark aftermath of Bugnini. But anybody who has studied the matter knows that rubrics have never really been accorded quite such a status: certainly not in the centuries before the invention of printing; and not even entirely in the more centralising times since.
Oh, and do SSPX clergy wear birettas on the way to the altar?