Sunday, May 10, 2015

My missals

My weekly missal is the Maryknoll one from 1957 with Cardinal Cushing's imprimatur.

I also have:

The English Missal, by Anglo-Catholics in 1911 (mine was printed in 1943), including the entire Tridentine Mass including the Roman Canon in Latin and English, with some Book of Common Prayer options for priests who had to use that; very Anglo-Papalist (what I call would-be Catholic, not believers in Cranmer, Hooker, and the Elizabethan Settlement at all). It has all of the Roman Missal's sacristy prayers, in both Latin and English, the entire Roman Rite calendar, and all of our votive Masses, among other things. It has its quirks (Sundays after Trinity with slightly shifted collects and readings, and also a supplement for those who wanted to follow the Roman Missal (in English).

The American Missal Order of Mass from the Order of St. Vincent for acolytes, from the '40s or '50s, an Episcopal booklet showing how such Anglo-Catholics spliced the 1928 BCP collects, readings, and canon (not allowed in the Catholic Church, because Cranmer was heretical in it; the church's Anglican Use doesn't have it) into the framework of the Tridentine Mass. What American Anglo-Catholics, such in the Episcopal Church, did in the '50s.

(British Anglo-Catholics, a tiny minority in the Church of England, were would-be Catholics who wanted nothing to do with the BCP, which the C of E was using against them. They wanted to come back to the church but corporately, in their [invalid] orders. American ones believed in something they thought was Anglicanism but was really their own invention, copying the Catholic Church much like their British cousins but more Prayer Booky. They thought Anglicanism was "Catholicism without the Pope" as we believe the Pope to be. Them: "He's our patriarch but he doesn't have universal jurisdiction nor does his office have the charism of infallibility.")

A Catholic altar missal from 1965, bad but important liturgical history with typed inserts and penciled-in corrections showing one parish's slow transition in the late '60s to the official rollout of the Novus Ordo. Starting in 1965 there were official revisions to the '62 missal until the Novus Ordo came out at the end of '69 or in '70. The official missal of the Roman Rite remained '62. There was no official '65 missal, but the modified Tridentine Mass (edited down; at first only the Roman Canon, only in Latin) starting that year was unofficially a new missal. The new stuff already was the Novus Ordo, bad paraphrases.
'62 all the way. That's the version of the Tridentine Mass approved for use by the Church.
The church officially approves only '62 for our Mass and that's fine with me (of course every church I regularly attend uses it), but I understand it has never banned older missals; before Vatican II, priests and parishes used older missals all the time. For an example of something a little older ('50s) there was the late Fr. Gommar De Pauw's radio Mass, a taped votive Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary broadcast every Sunday (ironic since you never have that Mass on Sunday): there's a second Confiteor before the people's Communion. My Maryknoll missal from '57 has that. No big deal.

(Related: St. Pius V allowed missals and breviaries in continuous use for over 200 years or something like that, which covers the Eastern rites and also European diocesan uses, so French dioceses kept their medieval missals and breviaries, not using the Tridentine ones until around the 1800s. St. Jean-Marie Vianney never used the Roman Breviary.)

The Tridentine Mass was tweaked that way for centuries after St. Pius V's Quo Primum issuing it in 1570; again no big deal. No rupture like with Cranmer's "Reformation" or the Novus Ordo. Interestingly the church's official line was that it was restoring the liturgy to something more ancient, just like the line with the Novus Ordo, but it really just slightly edited the medieval Mass. Which is right, because liturgical change should be organic and very slow. No rupture. The Christian East gets that.

5 comments:

  1. It is not true that British Anglo-Catholics wanted nothing to do with the BCP.

    Anglo-Catholics in the Twentieth Century were divided on liturgy between two factions. The Prayer Book Catholics, who fully accepted the BCP as a catholic book, though they welcomed the proposed revisions of 1928. The Anglo-Papalists on the other hand, felt the communion rite was inadequate at best. They used the English Missal that you mention above. However, on the whole they were very happy with the office of Morning and Evening Prayer according to the BCP. The English Missal was followed by the English Office Book, which adapted the BCP office for more Anglo-Catholic use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reminding me about the Prayer Book Catholics; I guess Percy Dearmer fell into that school. Anglo-Catholicism went through a romantic medievalist phase early on, in the mid-1800s after the high-and-dry (not interested in ceremonial) Tractarians hooked up with the concurrent Gothic Revival in architecture (all part of Romanticism's reaction against the dehumanizing Industrial Revolution); Sarumophile but Prayer Book, trying to follow the never-really-enforced Ornaments Rubric literally. A romanticized "Catholicism minus Rome" for the English. By British A-Cism's zenith, in the 1920s (I once talked to somebody who'd been at the Congresses), the Anglo-Papalists, dating from around 1900, had all but taken over the movement in Britain. Dearmer's ceremonial, toned down a bit, became the establishment's house style for things such as coronations and royal weddings. Interestingly, even though American A-Cism was in principle more Anglican-y, the Dearmer look never caught on here. Maybe it was the huge influence of immigrant Catholicism in American culture (that helped bring me into the church); even non-papalist Episcopalians fell in love with and imitated it instead of Dearmer. Their high-church people often still use it, in part!

      The Dearmer strain is arguably the forerunner of liberal high church, a.k.a. Affirming Catholicism, credally orthodox, interested in church history, and very sacramental, but loyally Anglican (becoming the mode in Episcopalianism). Even though few of those people, British or American, use Dearmer's style; they still love our Tridentine one (often with modern texts).

      Serious British would-be Catholic priests prayed the Roman Breviary in Latin privately just like our priests. The modern ones used the Liturgy of the Hours.

      I understand a reason for the ordinariates is Pope Benedict found out all these married Anglican priests already used the Roman Missal (British A-Cism went Novus Ordo as part of "following Rome"; oddly to an American, among them its use was a badge of "soundness"!) and believed everything the church teaches. Throwing the door of the church open to them makes perfect sense; they're not really Anglican. (And a number of them asked to come in; we didn't seek them out. They came to us.) At heart they're good "reform of the reform" Novus, with married priests; making them do Prayer Book stuff is silly.

      In America the old Prayer Book or at least its idiom became a rallying point for many Anglo-Catholics' big "no" to the Sixties, just like the Tridentine Mass among Catholics, so it became an identifying feature of the Continuum. Culturally completely different from the British experience.

      Partly why when I'm at the new Mass I use the Gloria and Creed from the old BCP, from memory. It's an American A-C thing.

      Delete
  2. Well,at least the Sedes preserved Organic Liturgical Tradition...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but, same problem as with the Orthodox and their rite and national identities, even a good thing becomes an idol when you separate it from the church. That said, I'm reluctant to say the sedevacantists are no longer Catholic; the scenario they describe can happen but never has. Right now, we're not even close. The Pope upholds what's in the catechism, as is his job, and thanks to his predecessor, you can go to any Catholic church in the English-speaking world and learn Catholicism from the text of the Mass, for the first time in over 40 years.

      Delete
  3. I use the Orthodox Missal here (Official AWRV), The Roman Missal 1962 (Baronius Press), The Orthodox BCP, and St. Ambrose Prayerbook (both Lancelot Andrewes Press). Interestingly the Orthodox Missal isn't a complete daily missal. It only contains the propers for Sundays, holy days, and some other major feasts. I often have to use my Roman Missal for daily mass and office propers. I was rather disappointed as I would have thought the AWRV would have issued a complete daily missal. The Orthodox BCP is for daily offices primarily. The Psalter being up front rather than in back is a blessing. Also appreciated is the restored Catholic elements. FYI: I attend a Byzantine Rite Orthodox church, but observe the Western Rite at home with blessing from my priest and father confessor.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment