I was a member of an Anglican Use parish for many years. I consider myself a well-studied Catholic. The parish I was at was very orthodox, the priest was very devout, his sermons were brilliant and solid, the worship was very reverent and very sacrifice-oriented, the solemnity was extremely palpable, and you left those Masses feeling like you truly had touched Heaven. For those who have the opportunity to visit such a parish, I highly recommend it. They have much to teach the mainstream parishes when it comes to liturgical beauty (both in ritual and in architecture).
As far as the comment above, I would say that since Rome has accepted the rite of Mass, what are they afraid of? Do they believe the consecration is invalid? On who’s authority do they base this concern?
Not a question of validity (whatever that means anymore).
Just why don’t they stick to the Scripture as the Anglicans did? And as far as acceptance, does Rome accept it, accept it conditionally, or just tolerate it? If it means diddly squat to your bishop, it probably means the latter.
Having said that, I have studied the text of the Mass and it is indeed beautiful for an English Mass.
I’m not sure what you mean by “better”, but I can attest to the fact that all the AU priests I have met are orthodox in their theology, their liturgies are solemn and beautiful, they stress the sacramental life. This is the typical experience at an AU parish.
If you can find a Novus Ordo parish that has these critical strengths, then it is a mere question of preference. If you find a weak presentation of the faith in a parish, run away!!
I know the church you’re talking about, and my husband and I visited a few years back. I really liked it, but (at the time) it was rather cramped. Also, so much incense was used it made it difficult for me to breath - and I love incense!
The Mass was quite different than what I’m used to… very old-fashioned and they used intinction. Wish I could remember in better detail… As it is, I’ve been trying to convince my husband to let us visit the parish again.
Is it the Rite you want to join or the parish/community? It’s perfectly OK to attend any or many Catholic Rites anytime you want. If you become interested in registering or changing registrations, then the bishop or patriarch or the rectory would be the one you’d want to approach.
The Anglican Use is actually not classified as a rite unto itself, but even if it were this would present no subsequent difficulty for someone trying to decide between the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite and the Roman Rite according to the 2002 missal. This is because even though we use “changing rites” in everyday speech, the phenomenon toward which you’re gesturing is a change in canonical enrolment in a church (one of the 23 churches *sui iuris *that form the Catholic Church). Both the Roman Rite (in either form) and the Anglican Use thereof belong to the Latin/Roman church, along with Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, Dominican and other rites.
To the larger question, I think the individual parish’s practice of its liturgy would be more important to me than the books its uses, because either set could be used poorly. Despite the fact that from what I gather most AU parishes seem to have very good heads on their shoulders, I might ultimately decide against committing myself to AU life, though, because I believe its juridical status is currently one designed to expire - granted to converts as an indult, but set up to die with them. AU parishioners feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on that point.
The Anglican church has a very ancient and beautiful Tradition that is unique to the British Isles. The Anglican Use Mass was created to give converts from the Anglican Church a liturgy that kept many elements of that Tradition. Because it is such a recent creation, and because the name “Anglican Use” sounds a little too temporary, I wouldn’t rely on it. The Anglican Tradition has a lot to offer the Church, and we should pray that more Anglicans convert to Catholicism. It would be good for the Church to have another Western Rite- an Anglican Rite.
English Catholics really had a rough time of it in the 16th century, and among the unfortunate effects of their rulers’ schism, heresy, then outright persecution of true believers was that the distinctively British liturgies that would have easily survived Quo primum were effectively lost through the Church by not having a hierarchy to perpetuate them. Part of me would love to see traditional communities in Britain be able to use missals representing their distinctive heritage, but I think the wiser part of me knows that would be antiquarian by this point and there’s no sense pining for a type of liturgical diversity that simply has not existed for centuries.
That’s a long way of getting around to saying that I was glad to see someone second my reservations about going Anglican Use due to its (at least perceived) temporary status, it’s a shame English Catholicism was deprived of its heritage, and I suppose preserving the Anglican Use (or even a rite of its own) is a good start toward making up for that loss.
Just to be clear, when you say “Anglican Liturgy” or “Anglican Mass,” are you talking about the Cranmer’s Common Book of Prayer? I would like to “play along” with the thread but I want to make sure I’m actually on the same channel before going off into research for a posting.
The Anglican Use of the Roman Rite is a “cleaned up” version of the BCP, meant to cull any heretical elements and insert anything necessary for Catholicity and/or validity. This makes me somewhat hesitant about its use, as the liturgy on which it was based was designed to differ from Catholic worship, but at the same time I don’t see the mere resurrection of the Sarum and other missals as an option. I’m not sure which of the English missals Cranmer was working off of when composing the BCP.
The BCP, as I understand it, was specifically designed to be differentiated form the Catholic Missal in order to separate the Anglicans liturgically and theologically from the Roman Church.
If there are Anglicans seeking to be re-united to Rome, then why would they even want to remain attached to a missal which of its very nature separates from Catholic custom? Why not just adopt the Novus Ordo Missae? It’s not like they have to say it in Latin…
Since we cannot discuss (openly, at least) the comparisons between liturgies, could someone who knows the differences between the Anglican Mass and Novus Ordo Missae please PM me with a list of differences, or a link where such a listing and differentiation has already been posted to the web? Thanks!
This link is the Anglican Use Rite Order of the Mass at the Parish I attend.
Note - Incensing is done 3 or 4 times, bells are rung three times each for each concecration of the Bread and Wine, the Priest and Deacons face the altar leading the people, the Gospel reading is done by the deacon from the center aisle of the Church, Communion (by intinction) is taken at the Commun rail. The people genuflect as the cross enters and leaves down the main aisle.