Confused about the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

[EmilyAlexandra]

Given my cultural familiarity with Anglicanism, I have been curious about the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. The aspect that confuses me is “Anglican patrimony”. From what I have seen, there is little evidence of “Anglican patrimony”! For example:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

To me, this doesn’t look “distinctively” Anglican. If I think about a typically Anglican celebration of the Lord’s Supper, some features I would expect would be: a wooden table placed in the nave adorned with a white cloth and two candles, the priest facing the congregation (or, archaically, standing on the north side, the table having been rotated 90°), the priest vested in a surplice, scarf, and the hood of his degree (for a bishop, rochet and chimere). What I would not expect would be celebration ad orientem, seven candles on the altar, lace cottas, and the celebrant’s chasuble being held up. In other photos, I have seen a priest wearing a biretta and a bishop wearing a zucchetto. The correct headgear for an Anglican clergyman is the Canterbury cap.

I have also looked at the text of the Mass, which I was expecting to be essentially the Book of Common Prayer. However, the normative Eucharistic prayer is the Roman Canon, and the alternative Eucharistic prayer deviates significantly from the BCP. Basically, it seems to be a Catholic Mass with a few familiar prayers imported from the BCP.

I do understand that since the 19th century there have been Anglo-Catholic parishes that essentially carried on as if they were Roman Catholic, albeit that they used English rather than Latin and remained within the organisational structures of the Church of England. However, this was always contrary to Anglican canon law (and, at one time, was actually a criminal offence). I am not really sure what the point of the Ordinariate is if its Masses look pretty much like a traditional Roman Catholic Mass without any distinctively Anglican elements other than a few prayers imported from the BCP.

It also comes across as quite snobbish. A list of honorary vice-presidents of the Friends of the Ordinariate reads like a catalogue of English snobberies. The Duchess of Somerset is a patron of the rather ridiculous “London Season”, a revival of the tradition of debutantes being presented at court, abolished by the Queen after the 1957 season. The Countess of Oxford and Asquith is the wife of a great-grandson of H.H. Asquith and author of books about Shakespeare of dubious reliability. A founder of the Monday Club, Sir Adrian FitzGerald’s political career peaked when he was mayor of Kensington and Chelsea. I don’t think “Squire de Lisle” is even a real title. Charles Moore is a somewhat unpleasant journalist. Oddly, they insist on appending “Esq.” to his name.

 

[Bithynian]

However, this was always contrary to Anglican canon law (and, at one time, was actually a criminal offence)

Moderate Anglo-Catholicism largely became the predominant theological and liturgical mode of the CoE in the late 19th century. +JC Ryle bemoaned that he was the last Protestant bishop as he refused to don a mitre, and likewise he delighted in public scandal when he (very visibly) refused to face east when reciting the Creed. Given his statements, what is ‘distinctively’ Anglican is always in a state of flux (with the exception, arguably, of the BCP).

In particular, the outward manifestations that you describe (seven candles, biretta, zucchetto, etc.) have been commonplace amongst many Anglo-Catholic parishes and dioceses outside of England (such as in Australia) for decades, and - from their perspective - Anglo-Catholicism would be the only ‘distinctive’ and ‘authentic’ expression of Anglicanism.

 

[FiveLinden]

I went to an Ordinariate Mass once. The celebrant and congregation seemed to like it. Maybe its members decided what they wanted and went ahead and implemented it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am not really sure what the point of the Ordinariate is if its Masses look pretty much like a traditional Roman Catholic Mass without any distinctively Anglican elements other than a few prayers imported from the BCP.

I’ve been to Ordinariate Masses and I’ve been to TLMs. They’re not the same. The fact that the Ordinariate Mass is in English makes it light years apart from the TLM right there. The Catholic Church has no “traditional Mass” in the vernacular (meaning, in English). That’s why the Ordinariate is doing what they do. There are other differences as well.

@GKMotley can you elaborate on this please?

 

[twf]

I second this. I imagine the liturgy varies somewhat between the three Ordinariates and then between parishes. The parish I attended in Calgary, Alberta celebrated a very traditional and reverent liturgy, but off the top of my head it varied from the TLM in several ways:

-Thee and Thou style English
-LOTS of kneeling (more so than typical Roman Rite)
-reception of both kinds (but kneeling at altar rail)
-presence of Rood screen
-style of music (traditional Anglican / English hymns)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

At the “continuing Anglican” church fairly near my home, which I visited a few times in the interests of self-education and ecumenism, the priest celebrated Mass ad orientem and wore a biretta. The liturgy was basically a mutated Tridentine Mass in English, or so it appeared from an aesthetic standpoint (1928 BCP).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

-presence of Rood screen

I’d love to see a Mass in person with a rood screen at some point. The Ordinariate here does not have rood screens in the church or cathedral they use.

 

[Symphorian]

Anglican patrimony can be a rather vague term and I believe can mean different things to different people. I was acquainted with a CofE Priest who with about a third of his congregation joined The Ordinariate of OLOW in 2011. I attended a few of their Ordinariate Masses but they were using the OF of the Roman Rite at the time. Liturgically it was pretty much like a modern day middle of the road CofE Eucharist: Mass vestments, 2 candles on the Altar and one or two servers wearing Albs. In terms of evidence of Anglican Patrimony experienced at those Masses I would include enthusiastic singing of Anglican hymns, Communion in both kinds and 2 candles on the Altar. No Rood Screen or kneeling to receive Holy Communion as the Masses were celebrated in a modern Catholic building.

Much is often made of Anglican Patrimony in the form of the prayers and style of language taken from the BCP but ironically many Anglo-Catholic Priests and lay persons probably wouldn’t have used the BCP extensively whilst in the CofE. Anglican Patrimony might also include Merbecke’s setting of the Mass which originally had a very short life being composed for the 1549 BCP and then abandoned when the 1552 came out. (Merbecke’s ‘Common Prayer Noted’ was rediscovered by the Tractarians in the 19th century.) Choral Evensong could also be included as Anglican Patrimony. (Anglo-Catholic and Ordinariate groups often adding Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.) Much of this patrimony stems from Anglo-Catholic tradition of the latter 19th and earlier 20th centuries rather than the earlier classical Anglican tradition with Priests ‘north ending’ in surplice, scarf and hood or the High Church tradition of the Caroline Divines/Laudians.

 

[GKMotley]

I’m not au courant with the current Ordinariate (US) liturgical scene.( Heck I’m not au courant with my parish scene, haven’t been to Mass since March. The leading photo above, except of the number of folk, participating, looks very like my parish, at worship). But the Ordinariate liturgy is based, mostly, on that of Rite I (the more traditionally worded Rite), from the TEC 1979 prayer book), with a number of significant necessary changes. At one point, years back, I did a rough analysis and estimated that the Ordinariate liturgy, as in the then current Book of Divine Worship, was maybe 75-80% in common with the Episcopal Rite 1. I have heard that the Divine Worship liturgy has further morphed, since I last took a look at it. In what sense, I don’t know. But it is now Divine Worship: The Missal. Have not studied that. But from what I read (here, for example Divine Worship: The Missal - Wikipedia), it still reflects the Anglican historical tone and voice. Which was part of the intent of the establishments of the Ordinariates.

I note that the Divine Worship: The Missal is mandated for all three Ordinariates.

 

[GKMotley]

Sounds like a parish similar to my own. But that would have been 1928, as you say.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Ordinariate liturgy seems extremely “English” to me, but maybe that’s just my own bias. Every time I attend one I feel like I’m in some Masterpiece Theater presentation featuring a C of E vicar. I think it’s all the thees and thous etc. I never heard that stuff at RC Mass except maybe when I was a preschooler during the time of the transition between Tridentine Mass and Novus Ordo Mass, 1965-69, and my memory of that time is obviously fuzzy. When the full-blown OF Mass as we know it today emerged in about 1969 or 1970, all the language definitely went to modern English.

Culturally we never associated the Tridentine Mass with England in any way. We thought of it as being 100 percent Roman, due to the Latin and its being the Roman Rite used by the Pope, in Rome.

 

[GKMotley]

You can get modern English, in Rite 2 from the TEC prayer book. If that’s anyone’s idea of a good time.

Using the 1928 American BCP, we Thee and Thou all over the place. And yes, it has an English feel, it’s redolent of the language of the time of its origin.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

+JC Ryle bemoaned that he was the last Protestant bishop as he refused to don a mitre

Yes, I take your point that what the Ordinariate was designed for was possibly to absorb mainstream Anglicanism as it was practised at the time that the Ordinariate was set up. Even so, from what I have seen, the Ordinariate Masses seem to be rather more baroque than anything I have seen in an Anglican church myself. As somebody else alluded to, I have read that one irony about the Ordinariate is that the Anglicans who joined it in order to preserve their distinctive Anglican patrimony were precisely those Anglicans who had never had much time for anything distinctively Anglican anyway. I have some Anglican friends who are involved with something called the Chapel of St Leonard, Newland:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I believe quite a few people left St Mary’s, Bourne Street (pictured), for the Ordinariate:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I guess this is what I was thinking of as being distinctively Anglican:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[TomH1]

One of the issues here is the answer to the question, what is distinctly Anglican? You will find a diverse range of answers from Anglicans. It is a very broad church in, inter alia, its liturgical praxis.

The things you anticipate seeing are at the Protestant/Low Church end of the Anglican spectrum. These are the same Anglicans who wouldn’t go anywhere near the Catholic Church and so not the Ordinariate.

Those Anglicans who left the Church of England to join the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate of OLOW were at the opposite end of the spectrum. Therefore, it should not surprise you, if you knew that form of Anglicanism, that they would celebrate Mass ad orientem; have priests of deacons acting in the roles of deacon and sub-deacon; using the full range of vestments; using all permissible ceremonial; the use of incense; the use of bells; altars dressed in a full antependium and with a full set of candles to match the solemnity of the occasion. These are all part of the patrimony that Anglicans who have long thought of themselves as Catholics will have brought with them.

It is not the same as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass; however, you may see a good deal more ceremonial and formality than in the Ordinary Form in many a Catholic church that is not part of the Ordinariate.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Anglicans in USA who are joining Ordinariates or even forming “Anglican” churches as opposed to joining Episcopal churches are usually the equivalent of conservative or traditionalist Catholics. These Anglicans do not like what they see as the progressive excesses of the Episcopalian church in USA, in particular the welcoming of gays, gay clergy, married gay clergy, and to some extent women clergy, who may also be married gay women clergy.

The ones around here also place a greater emphasis on the Reformation and the English saints and martyrs than you get anywhere else in the USA. Other than St. Thomas More, who gets a lot of love in USA from the gazillion Catholic lawyers here, the English saints are largely ignored.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I’ve been to Ordinariate Masses and I’ve been to TLMs. They’re not the same. The fact that the Ordinariate Mass is in English makes it light years apart from the TLM right there. The Catholic Church has no “traditional Mass” in the vernacular (meaning, in English). That’s why the Ordinariate is doing what they do. There are other differences as well.

Apologies. I was using “traditional” in the colloquial sense, not in the formal sense of “Traditional Latin Mass” or “Tridentine Mass”. By “traditional”, I just meant observing traditions, formal, ceremonious, elaborate, ornate, etc. On the relatively rare occasions that I’ve been to a Catholic Mass (baptisms, confirmations, receptions into the Church, first Holy Communions, weddings, funerals, etc), I’ve found the liturgy to be generally modern in style, informal, relaxed, lacking in any particularly elaborate ceremonial. The priest has worn quite plain, simple vestments. Music has sometimes been on an organ, but other times a piano, guitar, or random assortment of whatever instruments are available. So, to me, the Ordinariate Masses look “traditional” in the sense that they wear elaborate vestments, there is a sense of grandeur to the liturgy.

I guess that would also explain to some extent the apparent fondness of the Ordinariate for the aristocracy and Toryism. The regular Catholic parishes where I live would have no interest in such things. The congregations seem to comprise youngish Africans, youngish Poles (and probably a few Lithuanians), older working-class Irish people, and recently some refugees from conflicts in the Middle East. I doubt they’d be very impressed by lords and baronets.

the Ordinariate liturgy is based, mostly, on that of Rite I (the more traditionally worded Rite), from the TEC 1979 prayer book

That is interesting to know. I had assumed it would be based on the 1662 BCP directly.

I guess some of the text had to be sacrificed due to theological disagreements between Anglicans and Catholics, e.g.

who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

A very interesting and informative post. Thank you.

I am reminded that in 2011, prompted by a combination of the creation of the Ordinariate and the publication of the new translation of the Catholic Mass, the bishop of London issued an open letter to the clergy of his diocese gently but firmly impressing upon them that he expected them to use only the forms of worship authorised by the Church of England, not the old translation of the Catholic Mass, and most certainly not the new translation.

 

[TomH1]

I’m not a canon lawyer, and most certainly not an Anglican one. Therefore, this post must be read with that disclaimer in mind. As I understand it the Church of England has quite wide laws regarding the forms of liturgy that can be used. This has enabled Anglo-Catholic clergy to use forms of the liturgy that have not been published by the General Synod of the Church of England. I can point to one Church of England parish church where the Eucharist and Divine Office are celebrated according to the current liturgical books authorised for use by the Catholic Church in England and Wales. It does not use the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer or the suite of liturgies called Common Worship.

 

[GKMotley]

I was speaking of the Book of Divine Worship as it first developed for the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, in the US. How it went from there, in the new Divine Worship: The Missal, and whether what I had read about that being mandated for all the Ordinariates, I don’t know. Possibly I was wrong or something I read was, or both. That’s happened before.

And yes, parts of the Mass had to be “strengthened” to make the point more precise. The “memorial” didn’t necessarily imply a memorial sacrament, and the Invocation states “in the remembrance of His Death and passion, we may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood”. Which is the Anglo-Catholic reading of it.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Thanks.

Canon B1(2) states:

Every minister shall use only the forms of service authorized by this Canon, except so far as he may exercise the discretion permitted by Canon B5.

As I understand it, Canon B5 is therefore held to provide justification for using the Roman Missal:

1. The minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorized by Canon B1 according to particular circumstances.

1. All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.

I think they are stretching a point if they think that using the Roman Missal constitutes “variations which are not of substantial importance”. It’s also debatable whether using the Roman Missal is “neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter”.