Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Some Further Thoughts on the Ordinariate...
I think that those Anglicans who employ the use of the Knott Missal have it right, with regard to the liturgical action, if this is the direction you'd like to see the conversation go.
Essentially the Knott employs hieratic English. It has a set chant scale and it closely translates the TLM into the vernacular.
Obviously, there are some options which include the Book of Common Prayer, but they are just options and can be omitted in favor of retaining the Catholic identity of the liturgy. With the only things missing being valid Orders and the valid intent of Consecration itself.
Otherwise, it is hard to think of the Knott being anything other than the best option for those who wish to be part of the Ordinariate. This however, is a long way off. I am close to a priest of the Ordinariate and he has made it clear that the the Knott Missal (English/American Missal) is a long way off from being approved. The Book of Divine Worship Form I and II are the two which will be employed moving forward, for the foreseeable future.
The translation of the Knott Missal is at:
I spoke about this at length at Ars Orandi:
Ultimately, I think that the idea of the New Liturgical Movement within the Ordinariate is being undermined. The bill of goods which was being sold before they entered is not what is coming to fruition, at least from where I sit. The Book of Divine Worship is akin to the Novus Ordo celebrated at any parish.These are my initial views and they can be amended. I am certainly open to any holes which are in my thought process, but ultimately I cannot assent to the idea that the TLM is not part of the Anglican Patrimony.
A few other words....It is clear that I am critical of the Novus Ordo. I think that it is banal and on the spot. However, I do not question it's validity. I feel exactly the same way about The Book of Divine Worship. I feel it to be a compromise, as most of the priests of the TAC and ACA who came into the Church never celebrated it as a regular practice. It smacks of Conciliarism.
Also, I do fully support the idea of the TLM retaining it's glory as it is. There is no need to change (save adding the saints who have been canonized since the 1962 Missal), likewise I feel that the use of the Knott Missal (English/American) is most appropriate for the Ordinariate, based upon practical use and application which was widespread.
Insofar as the Ordinariate has their own tradition of using hieratic English, I am supportive of it being retained for their use, but I cannot say the same thing for the applications to the TLM. There is no basis for it and there is no real need, save the participatio activa of the faithful, to which I have spoken ad nauseam.I feel that if we are to retain our heritage as Roman Rite Catholics, then we should be working to embrace the TLM as it is set forth traditionally. To bring hieratic English into the picture does not speak to authentic heritage for Catholics, but rather a compromise with the Protestants in a development which is neither warranted or needed. The fastest growing segment of Catholicism is the traditional movement. This isn't being done from a sense of nostalgia, but rather from a sense of right thinking.
My cry is leave the English to the Anglicans...leave the Latin to the Romans. For the vast majority of Catholics (in this discussion), we are Roman.