Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

Post Reply
User avatar
presbyter
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
Location: elsewhere

Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by presbyter » Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:57 pm

http://www.zenit.org/article-27270?l=english

and accompanying articles - discuss

User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by musicus » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:09 am

Fascinating. There are many issues here, but that to which the well-chosen thread title refers is perhaps the principal one (and one which might be said to be characteristic of and consistent with Benedict's thinking in other matters, e.g. the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, to mention but one).
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog

User avatar
keitha
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by keitha » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:12 am

The Apostolic Constitution has not yet, of course, been published. No doubt that will have more detail in it and, hopefully, will answer some of the questions that are being posed. It struck me as unusual that the press release was issued before the Constitution is published. On the other hand, it could be a subtle way of seeing what issues may arise before publication and then dealing with them in the final published document. I, for one, will not be buying a Book of Common Prayer quite yet!
Keith Ainsworth

User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by musicus » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:26 am

That same Book of Common Prayer (BCP) that contains the Thirty-Nine Articles! (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles, and also the excellent article on the BCP in the same series, which points out that, while the 1662 "edition has remained the official prayer book of the Church of England, ... in the 21st century, an alternative book called Common Worship has largely displaced the Book of Common Prayer at the main Sunday worship service of most English parish churches." Common Worship, of course, is entirely devoid of any such controversial material.)
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog

User avatar
keitha
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by keitha » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:39 am

I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that many of those 'coming across' will not be fans of Common Worship!
Keith Ainsworth

johnquinn39
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:44 pm
Parish / Diocese: Birmingham

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by johnquinn39 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:09 am

presbyter wrote:http://www.zenit.org/article-27270?l=english

and accompanying articles - discuss

It responds to requests from Anglicans who have expressed wishes to become Catholic, particularly as the Anglican Tradition continues to take steps toward opening their priesthood and episcopate to women and active homosexuals, and blessing same-sex unions.

Surely the above are issues that the Roman Church should be looking at.

johnquinn39
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:44 pm
Parish / Diocese: Birmingham

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by johnquinn39 » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:15 am

musicus wrote:Fascinating. There are many issues here, but that to which the well-chosen thread title refers is perhaps the principal one (and one which might be said to be characteristic of and consistent with Benedict's thinking in other matters, e.g. the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, to mention but one).


I really do not see the point in the 'extraordinary rite'. There is very little scripture in this, it is in Latin, and female servers and choristers are forbidden. It obviously appeals to people who are allergic to the presence of Christ, but in my view this is not 'liturgical diversity'.

User avatar
presbyter
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
Location: elsewhere

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by presbyter » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:36 am

keitha wrote:I may be wrong, but I strongly suspect that many of those 'coming across' will not be fans of Common Worship!


Nor even - in some cases - the BCP. If they are so-called Anglo-Catholics, they might have been using the Roman Missal already for years (as did, for example, Dom Gregory Dix). The only minor change some might have to make is the name of the Bishop in the EP.

User avatar
keitha
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by keitha » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:49 am

I take your point Presbyter, and, of course, if that were to be the case the same groups tend to have Vespers and Compline rather than Evensong. That then begs the question of just how much liturgical diversity there will really be. I am beginning to feel that there may be a master plan here:

1. allow the use of the Extraordinary Form with very few restrictions, thus

2. opening the way for both the SSPX and the traditional Anglo-Catholics to 'return to the fold' if the various dialogues work out, whilst

3. not having married bishops, so keeping the way clear for greater unity with the Eastern Rite.

Only joking!
Keith Ainsworth

NorthernTenor
Posts: 794
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:26 pm
Parish / Diocese: Southwark

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by NorthernTenor » Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:15 pm

These arrangements have effectively been trialled in North America for some time, under John Paul II's pastoral provision of 1980 for ex-Episcopalian congregations. These 'Anglican Use' congregations have their own missal, The Book of Divine Worship, which is a fusion of the American BCP and the 1973 Missal.
Ian Williams
Alium Music

User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by musicus » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:55 pm

johnquinn39 wrote:
musicus wrote:Fascinating. There are many issues here, but that to which the well-chosen thread title refers is perhaps the principal one (and one which might be said to be characteristic of and consistent with Benedict's thinking in other matters, e.g. the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, to mention but one).

I really do not see the point in the 'extraordinary rite'. There is very little scripture in this, it is in Latin, and female servers and choristers are forbidden. It obviously appeals to people who are allergic to the presence of Christ, but in my view this is not 'liturgical diversity'.

You are responding to my citation of the Extraordinary Form, which I adduced as another example of Benedict's thinking about liturgical diversity. While not wishing to take us any further off-topic, I must reply to your post. I will take your points in reverse order:
in my view this is not 'liturgical diversity'.

Of course it is. Not liking it does not make it not so.
It obviously appeals to people who are allergic to the presence of Christ

It is by no means obvious to me. Your statement is a non sequitur and gratuitously offensive to very many people. When the Tridentine Rite was normative, were all those people to whom it appealed de facto "allergic to the presence of Christ"? I hope not; if they were, then the Church was guilty of leading them out of the Presence of God.
female servers and choristers are forbidden.

For a different view, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur283.htm This is about servers, but the arguments may be applied to other roles.
it is in Latin

I think that those who choose to attend Mass in the EF know this. They may even like it. It is their choice.
There is very little scripture in this

Well, there was an Epistle and a Gospel, and the Ordinary is full of references to Scripture.
I really do not see the point in the 'extraordinary rite'

Fair enough; but the magisterium apparently does.
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog

Southern Comfort
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by Southern Comfort » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:57 pm

NorthernTenor wrote:These arrangements have effectively been trialled in North America for some time, under John Paul II's pastoral provision of 1980 for ex-Episcopalian congregations. These 'Anglican Use' congregations have their own missal, The Book of Divine Worship, which is a fusion of the American BCP and the 1973 Missal.


At least one of them is still using the 1662 Prayer Book.

Southern Comfort
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by Southern Comfort » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:05 pm

musicus wrote:
johnquinn39 wrote:There is very little scripture in this

Well, there was an Epistle and a Gospel, and the Ordinary is full of references to Scripture.


I think John may have a vague remembrance of the fact that there were virtually no Old Testament readings in the preconciliar missal. Less scripture, rather than little scripture. Or perhaps he is thinking that we are encouraged to worship in spirit and in truth, and he doesn't think that a kind of self-service liturgical smorgasbord is in keeping with this.

Southern Comfort
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by Southern Comfort » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:53 pm

musicus wrote:
johnquinn39 wrote:female servers and choristers are forbidden.

For a different view, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur283.htm This is about servers, but the arguments may be applied to other roles.


I've just dug out what the same expert canonist referred to (but not named) in the above link said in July 2007 on another liturgy forum:

In implementing the motu proprio, it will be necessary to keep in mind the distinction between the rubrical laws governing the immediate conduct of the liturgy and the liturgical laws governing matters of external discipline. The rubrics tell the priest and other ministers what they are to do during the liturgy; rubrics necessarily remain in force for those who celebrate Mass according to the 1962 rite. However, the liturgical laws from the 1917 Code, as well as certain liturgical laws prefaced to the 1962 Missal which are based on this discipline, have been abrogated. These earlier disciplinary laws need not be observed when the current law allows something different. The earlier laws are more restrictive than current law. Those who wish to observe these earlier, more restrictive laws may do so voluntarily, but the pastor or other authority may not insist on it.

A few examples may be helpful in demonstrating this principle. (1) In the law of 1962, Mass could not be celebrated in the afternoon. This restriction does not bind today, even when the 1962 rite is celebrated. (2) The faithful are not required to fast three hours before holy communion as they were in 1962, nor may a priest deny the sacrament to them if they wish to receive in the hand. (3) A celebration of the extraordinary form of Mass may not be refused simply because the priest lacks a maniple, since this garment does not affect the conduct of the rite, nor must the priest use a burse with the corporal. (4) A community that wants to have both males and females serving Mass or proclaiming the readings in the vernacular may so proceed, even though females were barred from ministering in the sanctuary under the old law.

Another demonstration of this principle is to be seen in the laws governing concelebration and communion under both kinds. The rubrics of the 1965 Rite of Concelebration of Mass and the Rite of Communion under Both Kinds must be observed in celebrations of Mass according to the 1962 Missal, because that is the Missal these rites were designed for. However, the disciplinary laws in those rites are very restrictive, especially regarding when concelebration may be done and when communion under both kinds may be given. These restrictive disciplinary laws have been revoked. The current discipline should be observed.

Regarding the subdeacon at solemn Mass, that role may be exercised either by a cleric or by a lay acolyte. The lay acolyte would wear an alb, not the subdeacon's tunic.
Last edited by Southern Comfort on Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
presbyter
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
Location: elsewhere

Re: Unity with Liturgical Diversity

Post by presbyter » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:54 pm

Southern Comfort wrote:At least one of them is still using the 1662 Prayer Book.


Really? Just for Morning and Evening Prayer or for the Eucharist too? The BCP Eucharistic rite is hardly Catholic in its theology.

Post Reply