The NO, The TLM, and the Anglican-Use

[PatienceAndLove]

So, I have been doing a bit of research, and I stumbled across Our Lady of Atonement Parish, which is an Anglican-Use parish (meaning that many members of the parish are converts from the Anglican Church to the Catholic Church. And, under Pastoral Provision, they have formed a personal parish using parts of the Anglican tradition)

Anyway- I think it is parishes like this that form a perfect marriage between the NO and the TLM. I am praying that this liturgy becomes the new model for the NO. It retains all of the mystery and reverence of the TLM in the vernacular. And look
at that architecture!

Maybe this is what we should be sending to the Bishops about the new translation!

 

[Image_of_God]

So, I have been doing a bit of research, and I stumbled across Our Lady of Atonement Parish, which is an Anglican-Use parish (meaning that many members of the parish are converts from the Anglican Church to the Catholic Church. And, under Pastoral Provision, they have formed a personal parish using parts of the Anglican tradition)

Anyway- I think it is parishes like this that form a perfect marriage between the NO and the TLM. I am praying that this liturgy becomes the new model for the NO. It retains all of the mystery and reverence of the TLM in the vernacular. And look
at that architecture!

Maybe this is what we should be sending to the Bishops about the new translation!

That Church is so beautiful. I didn’t know the Anglican Use and the NO were so close. What is the difference? The architecture looks very traditional, too. The prayers and the order of Mass for the Rite 1 seem to be exactly the same.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

That Church is so beautiful. I didn’t know the Anglican Use and the NO were so close. What is the difference? The architecture looks very traditional, too. The prayers and the order of Mass for the Rite 1 seem to be exactly the same.

AU uses the Liturgy from the Anglican Church, but the words of the Eucharist are changed since the Anglican Consecration is not valid.

The AU churches also maintain much more of the traditional elements that should have been maintained with the NO. I figure the Anglican Churches managed to maintain the traditions of the Church within the vernacular because they didn’t make the switch during a period like the 60’s and 70’s with so much social upheaval. (I realize the AC was formed for political reasons, which is upheaval in itself, but you would have to talk to an Anglican or an AU Catholic about why the AC maintained the traditions with the vernacular)
I hope that makes sense!

I attended an AC Mass (?) in Scotland for Easter when I was in middle school. It was beautiful. I remember the priest (?) facing the altar, and my mother explaining the significance to me. I received communion (my rents said it was ok, I have since learned different) at the rail on my knees. Even though it wasn’t the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, I still understood the intense reverence receiving on my knees gave to the Eucharist.

 

[Brendan]

That Church is so beautiful. I didn’t know the Anglican Use and the NO were so close. What is the difference? The architecture looks very traditional, too. The prayers and the order of Mass for the Rite 1 seem to be exactly the same.

That is because the Anglican Use uses the exact same Canons,

Most of the liturgy is a translation from the Sarium Rite Mass that was common in England before the reformation.

But when the US Bishops approved the Anglican Use, they did not approve a translation of the Sarium Canon, but rather ‘cut and paste’ the current N.O. Canons in to the Anglican Use liturgy (which is somewhat of a mistake, as they are two seperate Missals).

Unfortunatly, it kinda comes off a a jarring distruption.

You will note the change from ‘Elizabethan’ English to the more modern translation when the priest starts the Canon, I find it kinda of jarring.

Hopefully, the new Missal translation will sound better. What would be even better is if the Bishops and Vatican approve a seperate translation for this usage.

 

[AJV]

That is because the Anglican Use uses the exact same Canons,

Most of the liturgy is a translation from the Sarum Rite Mass that was common in England before the reformation.

What are the Sarum elements in the Anglican Use?

 

[Image_of_God]

That is because the Anglican Use uses the exact same Canons,

Most of the liturgy is a translation from the Sarium Rite Mass that was common in England before the reformation.

But when the US Bishops approved the Anglican Use, they did not approve a translation of the Sarium Canon, but rather ‘cut and paste’ the current N.O. Canons in to the Anglican Use liturgy (which is somewhat of a mistake, as they are two seperate Missals).

Unfortunatly, it kinda comes off a a jarring distruption.

You will note the change from ‘Elizabethan’ English to the more modern translation when the priest starts the Canon, I find it kinda of jarring.

Hopefully, the new Missal translation will sound better. What would be even better is if the Bishops and Vatican approve a seperate translation for this usage.

Sorry, but I am utterly clueless. What new Missal Translation?

 

[Image_of_God]

AU uses the Liturgy from the Anglican Church, but the words of the Eucharist are changed since the Anglican Consecration is not valid.

The AU churches also maintain much more of the traditional elements that should have been maintained with the NO. I figure the Anglican Churches managed to maintain the traditions of the Church within the vernacular because they didn’t make the switch during a period like the 60’s and 70’s with so much social upheaval. (I realize the AC was formed for political reasons, which is upheaval in itself, but you would have to talk to an Anglican or an AU Catholic about why the AC maintained the traditions with the vernacular)
I hope that makes sense!

I attended an AC Mass (?) in Scotland for Easter when I was in middle school. It was beautiful. I remember the priest (?) facing the altar, and my mother explaining the significance to me. I received communion (my rents said it was ok, I have since learned different) at the rail on my knees. Even though it wasn’t the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, I still understood the intense reverence receiving on my knees gave to the Eucharist.

I have Anglican relatives but their Mass is still the same as the NO. The Mass is done facing the people.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

That is because the Anglican Use uses the exact same Canons,

Most of the liturgy is a translation from the Sarium Rite Mass that was common in England before the reformation.

But when the US Bishops approved the Anglican Use, they did not approve a translation of the Sarium Canon, but rather ‘cut and paste’ the current N.O. Canons in to the Anglican Use liturgy (which is somewhat of a mistake, as they are two seperate Missals).

Unfortunatly, it kinda comes off a a jarring distruption.

You will note the change from ‘Elizabethan’ English to the more modern translation when the priest starts the Canon, I find it kinda of jarring.

Hopefully, the new Missal translation will sound better. What would be even better is if the Bishops and Vatican approve a seperate translation for this usage.

I was actually going to print out and send a copy of the AU Mass to the Translation committee and say “Look here! This is what the NO should look like!”

 

[AJV]

AU uses the Liturgy from the Anglican Church, but the words of the Eucharist are changed since the Anglican Consecration is not valid.

The Anglican Consecration is not valid because they do not have validly ordained priests.

The Anglican Use liturgy was edited heavily to conform to the NO in the Presentation of Gifts and the Eucharistic Prayer (for which they were allowed their own translation of the Roman Canon (i.e. EP I) ]

The liturgy that the Anglo-Catholic’s use vary from Prayerbooks to vernacular translations of the Roman Missal (pre and post 1970) and all manner of hybrids in between.

And without any disparagement intended of the Anglican Use- I would much prefer that the NO stays the NO with a better translation and a not modeled on the AU except in the outward reverence and the idea of a dignified translation. Though I more or less grew up with the prayer of Humble Access (in a different position) the NO has few of the beautiful prayers left including all those before Communion (including the one before the Peace), and also elements like the Embolism which I would not like to trade for a simple doxology.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

The Anglican Consecration is not valid because they do not have validly ordained priests.

The Anglican Use liturgy was edited heavily to conform to the NO in the Presentation of Gifts and the Eucharistic Prayer (for which they were allowed their own translation of the Roman Canon (i.e. EP I) ]

The liturgy that the Anglo-Catholic’s use vary from Prayerbooks to vernacular translations of the Roman Missal (pre and post 1970) and all manner of hybrids in between.

And without any disparagement intended of the Anglican Use- I would much prefer that the NO stays the NO with a better translation and a not modeled on the AU except in the outward reverence and the idea of a dignified translation. Though I more or less grew up with the prayer of Humble Access (in a different position) the NO has few of the beautiful prayers left including all those before Communion, and also elements like the Embolism which I would not like to trade for a simple doxology.

So noted

 

[Image_of_God]

The Anglican Consecration is not valid because they do not have validly ordained priests.

The Anglican Use liturgy was edited heavily to conform to the NO in the Presentation of Gifts and the Eucharistic Prayer (for which they were allowed their own translation of the Roman Canon (i.e. EP I) ]

The liturgy that the Anglo-Catholic’s use vary from Prayerbooks to vernacular translations of the Roman Missal (pre and post 1970) and all manner of hybrids in between.

And without any disparagement intended of the Anglican Use- I would much prefer that the NO stays the NO with a better translation and a not modeled on the AU except in the outward reverence and the idea of a dignified translation. Though I more or less grew up with the prayer of Humble Access (in a different position) the NO has few of the beautiful prayers left including all those before Communion (including the one before the Peace), and also elements like the Embolism which I would not like to trade for a simple doxology.

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend what you are saying. What do you mean that the NO has only a few beautiful prayers? Don’t take this as a challenge, I just want to know what you mean.

 

[beckers]

Personal i like the AU mass better than the NO. There is one here in Houston. The mass is beautiiful and so revenant. I agree with the original poster that the AU is kind of the between between the TLM and the NO. It feels like the latin mass but something i can understand and follow along with in English

 

[AJV]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend what you are saying. What do you mean that the NO has only a few beautiful prayers? Don’t take this as a challenge, I just want to know what you mean.

Don’t worry, not taken so.

The liturgical reforms of 1970 have spared only a few of the prayers that were formerly in the liturgy- most were removed because of their private character. It would be a great ptiy for me if these too were removed. Compare (I’m posting a different translation of the prayers in an equivalent style of ye-olde-Englishe so as not to get bogged down by a translation)

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

• Deliver us, we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come, favourably grant peace in our days, that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope of the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, both now and ever.

• O Lord Jesus Christ, who didst say unto thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: Regard not our sins, but the faith of thy Church, and grant unto it that peace and unity which is agreeable to thy will, who livest and reignest forever and ever.

The peace of the Lord be always with you
And with thy spirit

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

• O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of the living God, who by the will of the Father, and the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast through thy death given life unto the world: deliver me by this thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities, and from every evil: and make me ever to cleave unto thy commandments, and suffer me never to be separated from thee.

• Let the partaking of thy Body, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, unworthy, presume to receive, turn not to my judgment and condemnation: but of thy goodness let it avail unto me for protection of mind and body, that I may receive thy healing.

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. * Blessed are those who are called to the banquet of the Lamb.

Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed.

Compare with the AU here

I think the asterisked prayers are very rich and would not like to see them go which is what would happen if the the NO was modeled after the AU.

The NO also sticks to its own good tradition, of a variable Postcommunion prayer, a variable Prayer over the Gifts, etc. These things would also go with the AU. That is why I feel a better translation and a more reverent outward ceremonial is what is really needed, rather than a modeling after the AU liturgy.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Don’t worry, not taken so.

The liturgical reforms of 1970 have spared only a few of the prayers that were formerly in the liturgy- most were removed because of their private character. It would be a great ptiy for me if these too were removed. Compare (I’m posting a different translation of the prayers in an equivalent style of ye-olde-Englishe so as not to get bogged down by a translation)

Compare with the AU here

I think the asterisked prayers are very rich and would not like to see them go which is what would happen if the the NO was modeled after the AU.

The NO also sticks to its own good tradition, of a variable Postcommunion prayer, a variable Prayer over the Gifts, etc. These things would also go with the AU. That is why I feel a better translation and a more reverent outward ceremonial is what is really needed, rather than a modeling after the AU liturgy.

I have never heard the prayers you have astricked.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I have Anglican relatives but their Mass is still the same as the NO. The Mass is done facing the people.

Perhaps I was at a High Service? It was Easter Sunday

 

[bkovacs]

So, I have been doing a bit of research, and I stumbled across Our Lady of Atonement Parish, which is an Anglican-Use parish (meaning that many members of the parish are converts from the Anglican Church to the Catholic Church. And, under Pastoral Provision, they have formed a personal parish using parts of the Anglican tradition)

Anyway- I think it is parishes like this that form a perfect marriage between the NO and the TLM. I am praying that this liturgy becomes the new model for the NO. It retains all of the mystery and reverence of the TLM in the vernacular. And look
at that architecture!

Maybe this is what we should be sending to the Bishops about the new translation!

In a perfect world. But the majority of Roman Catholics like their guitars, eucharistic ministers giving out communion, and <45 minute masses. So I highly doubt this will ever happen. Only God’s intervention will change the Bishops minds, as well as the liberal layity, who usually have the final say. God forbid if our priests face the east and the tabernacle. They need to look at us, because were special!.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Fr. Bergman, an AU priest, will be on Journey Home on the 22nd of this Month!

 

[Image_of_God]

I would like to attend an AU parish, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it should be the model of the NO. I think that the NO said reverently is just as good and better complements the TLM simply because parts of it were based on it.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I would like to attend an AU parish, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it should be the model of the NO. I think that the NO said reverently is just as good and better complements the TLM simply because parts of it were based on it.

But the Council of Bishop is looking at new translations for the NO. That’s what I was talking about.

 

[DebChris]

From the opening prayers, I like the request that our hearts be purified. We place ourselves under God’s submission so that which is not of God cannot interfere with our worship.
I also like the summary of the Law which is in keeping with the OT admonition to inscribe these words on our hearts and on our minds and to teach them to our children. I am trying to remember the Jewish name for the prayer as recited each morning by the faithful–Shula (?)
These prayers could easily be incorporated into the NO even with the current “The Lord be With You” opening.
My oldest sister who lives in San Antonio had told me about whole Episcopal churches (she may have meant Anglican) converting to Catholocism. It is nice to see this happen.