It was decided early on that the Ordinariates, created to receive Anglicans wishing to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church, should have liturgical books which expressed their Anglican patrimony. Divine Worship Daily Office (Commonwealth Edition) expresses it thus: Divine Worship preserves such features and elements that are representative of the English prayer book tradition, in conformity with Catholic doctrinal and liturgical norms. (p20 n45) Moreover, it was decided that the liturgies created for the Ordinariate should maintain the language of the Prayer Books of 1549, 1552 and 1662 and their subsequent revisions, up until the decision of the various Provinces of the Anglican Communion to move to current English. (This is sometimes simply expressed as the move from thee/thou language to you/your forms.) I have pointed out several times that this was much more difficult for American Anglicans, who had come to equate ‘modern’ English with the galloping liberalism of their Province. In the UK this connection was not made, and many Anglo-Catholics embraced the modern language forms which were appearing in the C of E and in the Catholic Church.
It is worth noting the different approach to liturgical revision and promulgation of texts. In the C of E various experimental liturgies were produced – ‘Series 1, Series 2, Series 3 etc’ – used, revised by committee, and then subject to tedious line-by-line alteration in General Synod debates. The Catholic Church produced its new liturgies in a Latin original, each language group producing a vernacular translation which was then checked and agreed centrally before being published just before the agreed date upon which the new liturgy entered into use. The Catholic Church has the tidier and less exhausting process, but it may seem more closed to creative participation in the liturgy. (I am told that the French Bishops, having received the ‘doctrinally corrected’ version of our much more recent new translation, put it through a further stage to ensure that it was expressed in good French – but then the French have always been more particular about their language as a thing of beauty that English speakers.)
In this way the various liturgies were created for the Ordinariates. It would appear that the American understanding of the Prayer Book tradition prevailed, though Cranmer’s Prayer of Consecration, (even with the Prayer of Oblation as its second half) was replaced by a thee/thou form of the Roman Canon and a similarly retranslated version of Eucharistic Prayer 2 from the current Roman Missal.
Writing liturgical forms in current English is not easy. The language is fluid and we are living at a time where Received Pronunciation, once the standard of BBC broadcasting, is being rejected as ‘elitist’ in favour of local accents and the many Americanisms which have entered English speech in recent years. Translation from a Latin original into the vernacular is complicated. The Missal of 1970 was much criticised as being flat and prosaic in its language; the current translation is criticised as being too close to the form and vocabulary of Latin.
The Ordinariate liturgies have used existing texts from the various Anglican Prayer Books and the unofficial Missals of the 19th century. The quality of writing varies. Cranmer was at his best (interestingly) when re-casting the Latin Collects, and at his worst when seeking to impose, through liturgical prayer, his doctrinal obsessions – as in his Confessions at both the Office and Communion Service. But he created some masterpieces, and after him the quality dips. The services written to commemorate the Gunpowder Plot and the execution of King Charles I are not good, and the rites composed by the non-Jurors towards the end of the 17th century are lengthy and verbose. The Oxford Movement in the 19th century saw a great out-pouring of translation from Latin originals as Anglicans sought to break out and move beyond a Prayer Book seen as doctrinally and liturgically restrictive. Great in quantity, but not always great in quality, were the hymns and prayers borrowed (and translated) from mediaeval and contemporary (Roman) sources. “… Those who looked on e’en faithless yet / With mad infuriate rage beset / to mock Christ’s followers combine / As drunken all with new made wine.’ (Office Hymn for Pentecost) Indeed one might ask whether ‘Mercifully hear us, O God, that, like as we do rejoice … ” might not be more simply and elegantly rendered as “Mercifully hear us, O God, that as we rejoice … “
In selecting these texts we must seriously consider changes in meaning of words over the centuries. An obvious example is the Collect which begins, ” PREVENT us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour …” As a note appended on the internet explains, ‘ Prevent as used in King James/Book of Common Prayer era English means go before or lead. Are we justified in retaining this text unaltered, expending considerable time explaining to those who ask and which is puzzling those who do not!
I moved to a new Parish in 1981. A member of the congregation who was a competent poet had written some years previously a hymn for the May Devotion to Our Lady. The second verse began, “Maid Mary’s Son was brave and gay.” The author herself said to me that, although she objected to the appropriation of a word by a particular group, it had happened and to avoid misunderstanding she had re-written that line. We sang the hymn in its revised form.
More serious is the understanding of God and his actions which may be expressed. “O Almighty Lord God who for the sin of man did’st once drown all the world except eight persons ….”. I simply ask if we believe that God behaves like this? If we don’t then we can’t and shouldn’t pray like this.
So far we have seen that there are considerable difficulties to be overcome in composing a liturgy in language which is not current. We need to be aware of what someone once described as the ‘giggle factor’ – that is, opening our public prayer to ridicule because of the use of certain words and phrases. No doubt one can find many examples: I was struck by the line in a Canticle from the prophet Habakkuk: “my belly trembled / rottenness entered into my bones,” and, oh dear, images of the physical condition of some of my colleagues entered my mind. But rather more serious is the use of language to hide the meaning or to divert attention. We have become used to this in our generation with phrases like ‘friendly fire’ (meaning shot at by your own side) and ‘collateral damage’ (meaning the number of innocent bystanders killed and injured) but I was deeply perturbed in reading an ‘Examination of Conscience for Priests’. I read, ‘Do I wear in a dignified fashion all of the sacred vestments prescribed by the Church?’ (which presumably means that wearing the maniple must be confessed) yet I looked in vain for any real questions directed at my sexuality, which remains, even at my age, an area of concern! ‘Have I allowed myself to be in the proximate occasion of sin against chastity … have I been prudent in my dealings with the various categories of persons?’ A Church which has had serious problems with paedophile clergy needs to be rather more direct than this – both for its own reputation and in helping its clergy to know themselves. Might I suggest something like, ‘Have I been honest with myself about my sexual feelings and not behaved in an inappropriate manner with men, women or children. ‘ I think it is decent English, too.
Ordinariate Pilgrim 