Friday, April 03, 2020

Dom Alcuin Reid Weighs in on the New Prefaces and Saints for the EF of the Roman Rite

The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well by Dom Alcuin Reid
Observations on Rome’s permission for new saints and more prefaces in the usus antiquior.

Rome moves slowly as we know, and there is no sign as yet of the official enrichment of the missal of Paul VI by its predecessor (that of 1962 and the tradition it transmits) on the horizon—indeed, idolatristic partisans of the missal of Paul VI seem determined to quash any possibility thereof. Their generation may need to reach retirement before a calm study of the question can proceed and bear fruit. In Roman time, that will not be too long.

Now, however, a mere thirteen years after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum—and numerous consultations and drafts later—we do have precisely that which the bishop could not envisage after dinner in Oxford that evening: the enrichment of the usus antiquior with some modern elements. Lest those who hold the ancient liturgical tradition dear become overly alarmed, it must be said that for the most part this enrichment has been done with care and sensitivity and can be welcomed without difficulty.

Can it be said with justice that the CDF handled this better than it did the Anglican Catholic Missal?
The omission of the preface for Advent amongst those newly permitted is truly odd, for the 1962 missal and its antecedents do not contain one. This must be regarded as a sadly missed opportunity. It would have greater use than some of the others approved. (It could be observed that the season of Advent is the ‘poorer sister’ in the older missal, not having proper Mass formulae for each day, as does Lent. Indeed, there is scope for careful future development here.)

Organic development. Is such a thing possible in a centralized patriarchate such as that of Rome? Wasn't Dom Alcuin Reid was going to discuss it in his sequel to The Organic Development of the Liturgy, but did he scrap that project? Or is he just busy and also waiting to gather more material for the book? According to this interview from a few years ago, he is still working on the book.

The other four prefaces, however, ‘come from’ the missal of Paul VI. Their central texts (the “embolism”) in the versions approved for use now in both new and old missals are practically identical. They have various origins, some quite ancient. But each of these texts as they appear in the missal of the usus recentior (the missal of Paul VI) and which are now permitted for (but which are not imposed on) the usus antiquior, have passed through the ideological sieve of the same study group (18b) of the Post-Conciliar Consilium which substantially edited and evacuated the theological content of the prayers of the missal (the collects, prayers over the gifts and postcommunion prayers), as the painstaking work of Professor Lauren Pristas (The Collects of the Roman Missals, 2013) has more than adequately demonstrated.

In respect of the four prefaces in question a detailed comparative study of their sources and content is necessary. That is impossible here (Anthony Ward and Cuthbert Johnson’s The Prefaces of the Roman Missal, 1989, is an exemplary resource for this). The prefaces of St John the Baptist and of Martyrs are “centonised” texts, that is effectively new compositions of the study group drawing on fragments of older ones. That is to say, they do not appear in liturgical tradition before 1970 in anywhere near the form given them by the Consilium which they now have. The preface of the Angels has an ancient precedent but is nevertheless an edited version of the traditional text. The preface for the Nuptial Mass is also edited, though less severely, without substantially altering the integrity of text.

Pope Benedict’s intention in 2007 was, without doubt, to enrich the usus antiquior with further prefaces. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. However, I very much doubt he intended to visit ‘products’ of the Consilium upon the older missal. It could easily have been augmented with the integral texts found in liturgical tradition. This would avoid the highly likely disdaining of the texts of these latter prefaces because of their at least perceived ‘tainted’ origin or editing in the post-conciliar Consilium. The lack of pastoral care and sensitivity here—seemingly sacrificed for the sake of an unnecessary textual uniformity between both missals—is regrettable and may well jeopardize the intent of the project, at least in part. So-called “traditionalists” can be hyper-sensitive. Offering the addition of at least three of these four texts may well offend those sensitivities.

Looks like I spoke too song about the CDF's handling of this. Did the CDF not consult any real liturgical scholars during the process? (Who would be recognized as such today?)

Three More Thoughts on the Anglican Catholic Liturgy

1. I remembered that the Anglican tradition was supposedly in need of correction by competent Roman authorities. Standing as an outsider now, I would expect that one of the problems Latins and Latinizing Anglicans would have with the BCP would have to do with its sacramental theology or the presence or absence of the word "sacrifice," given their adherence to Tridentine Latin Catholicism. How much disagreement was there in the past between Latins and Anglicans (and Protestants generally) about the Eucharist being a "sacrifice"? And was this debate grounded upon a misunderstanding of a principle, that is the meaning of "sacrifice" in Scripture and the Apostolic tradition?

Some sort of agreement between Anglicans and Latins was reached some time ago:
ARCIC-28 ~ Sub-Commission on the Notion of Sacrifice in the Eucharist in Anglican and Roman Catholic Theology
Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine (1971)

If I were to do further research on this topic, I would have to find out who the experts in Anglican Eucharistic theology are. But here are some affirmations by Anglicans that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Does that mean certain of their worship books were deficient with respect to form because they don't reflect a Tridentine Latin understanding of sacrifice? Maybe. Does that mean that they are objectively deficient from the standpoint of Apostolic tradition? Maybe not. Latins will insist that their understanding of sacrifice is dogma, promulgated by a valid "ecumenical council" and not just a preferred theologoumenon of that time -- will that barrier to dialogue have to be addressed first or is there some other common principle which we can employ?

Fr. Matthew S.C. Oliver:
No end to sacrifice: The legacy of Gregory Dix
No end to sacrifice: Anglicans on ‘offering’
No end to sacrifice: Mitchell and Meyers, Praying Shapes Believing

Eucharistic Sacrifice in Anglicanism

Anglican Eucharistic Theology: Essentially Compliant with both High and Low-Church Traditions.

A Companion to Anglican Eucharistic Theology: Volume 2

On the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Christian Priesthood. by Alan S. Hawkesworth (1896)

Episcopal Church Glossary: Eucharistic Sacrifice

How We Worship

Greg Goebel:
Good Friday: Do We Still Need A Sacrifice?
What do Anglicans Believe about Holy Communion?

Calvinism and Eucharistic Sacrifice by Rev. Dr. Eric M. Parker

From 2013: Ordinariate Mass - look carefully and you can see Lutheran and Calvinist influences by Fr Gregory-Palamas

A Comparison of the Roman Missal, Missale Romanum and Divine Worship Forms of the Roman Rite Eucharistic Liturgy
2. Before the introduction of Divine Worship in 2015, people asked and even hoped for some sort of restoration of the Sarum Use, but translated into hieratic English. How "Sarum" is Divine Worship? Is there any possibility of a future creation and introduction of another Missal that is more "Sarum"? And would a Sarum rite, whether in hieratic English or Latin, have to be revised, just like the Roman rite, if the Latin notion of sacrifice is found to be in need of correction or modification?

From 2012: Sarum Use in the Ordinariates (see the tagged posts under Sarum and Anglicanorum Coetibus)
The Future Liturgy of an Anglican Ordinariate: Why not Sarum? - The Use of Sarum
What Happened to the Sarum Rite?
The Death of Sarum

3. On the Epiclesis:
Some Anglicans did introduce it, whether it was in imitation of non-Latin rites (or the Pauline Missal?) or because they erroneously thought one was originally present in the Roman Canon, I do not know.

I know Fr. Hunwicke is opposed to its introduction to the Roman rite, because apparently the Roman Canon must remain unchanged (or unreformed, that is unrestored?). Is organic development of the liturgy possible, especially one takes into account the ecumenical councils of the first millenium, which one could say that the Church of Rome has not received properly, not because of its rejection of the councils, but because of its conservatism with respect to its own ecclesial tradition? Should the Roman Canon (and the Eucharistic prayers of Latin rites in general) be more Trinitarian and explicit about the Holy Spirit, even if it is recognized that it is not "sacramentally deficient in form" in the current texts of the EF?

I say Latin rites though acknowledging that it is debatable whether any of the others are celebrated in a way that can be called "living," reflecting a proper engagement and liturgical spirituality of the people that includes an appropriate understanding during the liturgy of what is being prayed and a participation in those prayers.

Romantic and Patristic Liturgy in Louis Bouyer

NCReg: From Earth to Heaven With England’s Glory: Sarum Vespers Resound in Philadelphia
Catholics prayed together in the Pre-Reformation English form of the Roman Rite familiar to St. Thomas More and his contemporaries.
Peter Jesserer Smith

Anglican Catholics and Divine Worship

I was reminded that I needed to add something to the sidebar for the Anglican Ordinariate use...

Anglicans of the Personal Ordinariate is too long, "Anglicans" by itself is confusing. For now I use "Anglican Catholics" until something more appropriate is accepted. How are we to refer to the modern rite of the Anglican Ordinariates as embodied in Divine Worship? One possibility:
On the Ordinariate Use of the Roman Rite vs Anglican Use

There have been grumblings among Anglicans and Anglican Catholics (not "Anglo-Catholics") about the Missal that was promulgated, especially because of OF "Latinizations," and many blame a certain bishop for his involvement in the creation of that Missal. I can understand why, and it was probably a mistake to put Latins with a Latinizing agenda (or with with no deep scholarship in the Anglican tradition?) in such positions of authority (or subsequent positions of authority, but the old insistence on bishops being celibate and all that). Latins who celebrate or attend OF Mass are nonetheless impressed, and such a reaction is understandable if their baseline for comparison is the typical OF Mass celebrated in Anglophone countries.

The Beauty of the Anglican Usage Liturgy (the Ordinariate)
What I learned from celebrating Mass in the Ordinariate Use by Fr Matthew Pittam
New UK Ordinariate Mass with Elements of “Latin Mass”!

But have Anglicans been discouraged from entering into full communion of Rome because they find this Missal, Divine Worship, scandalous to their sense of tradition and patrimony? Hieratic Elizabethan English is not enough.

Discussion and criticism of the liturgical creativity behind the new Missal:
From 2018: The first Romanist 'Anglican Use' liturgy published, and the crisis in the Ordinariate
Ship of Fools

Psallite Sapienter --
The Secret and the Canon and the Dominus Vobiscum
The Ritual Reason Why
The Ordinariate Mass – Why Eucharistic Prayer II?

There are defenders:
Why Divine Worship: The Missal is so Important
In defence of Divine Worship

And what of the proposed Divine Offices for the Anglican Catholics?

Meanwhile... the Latins are still tinkering with the Liturgy of the Hours. And undoubtedly the old guard is still inveighing against the most recent English translation of the Pauline Missal. They probably would not be happy with proposals to replace the 2011 translation with something more hieratic.

Two New Chant Projects for the Ordinariates
The Invalidity of Anglican Orders and the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter
The Future of the Roman Liturgy & the Ordinariate Option

Priest Excommunicated, Parish Closed After Criticism of Conciliar Popes by Stephen Wynne

My comment: Is this how the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter is being run? Don't use the name of St. Peter to justify ultramontanism/papal maximalism.

The Feast of St. Mary of Egypt


The Penitential Psalms in Books of Hours


Why No Teleconfession?

First Things: Why We Can’t Confess Over Zoom by Dominic M. Langevin, O.P.

The sacrament of penance can be described in its signification and effects as a conversation. The sacrament’s goal is to forgive serious postbaptismal sin so that we are restored to friendly and familial conversation with God and the Church. That conversation is itself brought about by a conversation. The ceremony for the sacrament of penance basically involves a discussion between two persons. The penitent confesses to the priest his sorrow for individual past sins, promises to do a satisfactory work, and asks for forgiveness. The priest-confessor assigns a satisfactory work and absolves the penitent, perfecting him in grace. Herein, the priest acts in persona Christi.

Unlike most other sacraments, an inanimate physical object is not needed. There is just a conversation. Some medieval understandings of penance placed the sacramental action exclusively in either the priest-confessor or the penitent. St. Thomas Aquinas clarified that both persons have an essential sacramental role. The Council of Trent confirmed this understanding. One could call the sacrament a “concelebration” between penitent and priest. The sacramental rite involves four specific acts: the penitent’s contrition, confession, and satisfaction, and the priest’s absolution. It is not a monologue, but a dialogue.

This salvific conversation cannot occur through electronic means because the sacrament of penance requires both joint physical presence and live, interpersonal action between the penitent and priest-confessor. The conditions for a full, natural, human conversation must exist.

Updated Sidebar Links

It took me a while to make progress, though the major changes in my journey had been reflected in some updates made a while back. I've added some new links and categories, and will make some more modifications before the weekend is over.

Adrian Vermeule on the Constitution

(via MoJ)

The Atlantic: Beyond Originalism by Adrian Vermeule
The dominant conservative philosophy for interpreting the Constitution has served its purpose, and scholars ought to develop a more moral framework.
But originalism has now outlived its utility, and has become an obstacle to the development of a robust, substantively conservative approach to constitutional law and interpretation. Such an approach—one might call it “common-good constitutionalism”—should be based on the principles that government helps direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good, and that strong rule in the interest of attaining the common good is entirely legitimate. In this time of global pandemic, the need for such an approach is all the greater, as it has become clear that a just governing order must have ample power to cope with large-scale crises of public health and well-being—reading “health” in many senses, not only literal and physical but also metaphorical and social.

Vermeule is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard? And he doesn't know that the Constitution is for the Federal Government and its powers are limited for a reason? Nor does he realize that the common good that is proper to the political community is not the same as the good of a federation because of the scale involved. In addition to being an integralist, Vermeule's a statist and a nationalist with respect to the Constitution. Those who disagree with him (I've included some reactions below), do so not because they disagree with the scope of power he is advocating for the Federal Government, but because of his favoring a confessional state or some other moral or religious principle. They would have a strong centralized government, so long as it promotes their ideology, and they too could talk about ruling for the common good as well, it's just that they have a different (and erroneous, though in their minds they think it correct and humane) opinion about how that common good is achieved and preserved.
Assured of this, conservatives ought to turn their attention to developing new and more robust alternatives to both originalism and left-liberal constitutionalism. It is now possible to imagine a substantive moral constitutionalism that, although not enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution, is also liberated from the left-liberals’ overarching sacramental narrative, the relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy. Alternatively, in a formulation I prefer, one can imagine an illiberal legalism that is not “conservative” at all, insofar as standard conservatism is content to play defensively within the procedural rules of the liberal order.

This approach should take as its starting point substantive moral principles that conduce to the common good, principles that officials (including, but by no means limited to, judges) should read into the majestic generalities and ambiguities of the written Constitution. These principles include respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function; solidarity within and among families, social groups, and workers’ unions, trade associations, and professions; appropriate subsidiarity, or respect for the legitimate roles of public bodies and associations at all levels of government and society; and a candid willingness to “legislate morality”—indeed, a recognition that all legislation is necessarily founded on some substantive conception of morality, and that the promotion of morality is a core and legitimate function of authority. Such principles promote the common good and make for a just and well-ordered society.

Let us do away with the pretense that the Constitution is even legally relevant with respect to preserving the order the Founders originally envisaged. That order disappeared a long time ago. What are we to do now? Do we do what we can to preserve observance of the moral law under the cover of the Constitution, interpreting it just so that for the sake of appearances, everything that is legislated is constitutional? Perhaps we would not disagree with this pragmatic approach so much, even if it involves a sort of "noble lie" or legal fiction that our observance of the Constitution is traditional. At least Vermeule admits that it is not. Our biggest disagreement remains - Vermeule looks to the central government as a solution; we look to decentralization and all that requires as the solution.

Common-good constitutionalism is not legal positivism, meaning that it is not tethered to particular written instruments of civil law or the will of the legislators who created them. Instead it draws upon an immemorial tradition that includes, in addition to positive law, sources such as the ius gentium—the law of nations or the “general law” common to all civilized legal systems—and principles of objective natural morality, including legal morality in the sense used by the American legal theorist Lon Fuller: the inner logic that the activity of law should follow in order to function well as law.

Doess the Anglo-American tradition recognize the Natural Law? It may depend upon its adherents, but I would think that the tradition would acknowledge that the Natural Law is embodied in the Common Law tradition; otherwise individual laws that are unjust are also invalid, and would or should have been nullified. Nonetheless, so long as we live in the shell of a federation of (sovereign) states we are tied to the Constitution, until that is replaced or some other agreement between the states is reached. Vermeule needs to stop imaging what power is able to achieve and consider instead what the limits of power are, after he has spent some time living in a true political community. Until that happens, his opinion (and that of integralists in general) is irrelevant as it has no basis in a true experience of community. It is just another version of received dogma with respect to political life.

How, if at all, are these principles to be grounded in the constitutional text and in conventional legal sources? The sweeping generalities and famous ambiguities of our Constitution, an old and in places obscure document, afford ample space for substantive moral readings that promote peace, justice, abundance, health, and safety, by means of just authority, hierarchy, solidarity, and subsidiarity. The general-welfare clause, which gives Congress “power to … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” is an obvious place to ground principles of common-good constitutionalism (despite a liberal tradition of reading the clause in a cramped fashion), as is the Constitution’s preamble, with its references to general welfare and domestic tranquility, to the perfection of the union, and to justice. Constitutional words such as freedom and liberty need not be given libertarian readings; instead they can be read in light of a better conception of liberty as the natural human capacity to act in accordance with reasoned morality.

A "liberal tradition"? Perhaps some liberals wanted to restrict it. Maybe some oligarchs wanted to restrict it as well. But some originalists and paleoconservatives also wanted to restrict the reading of the general-welfare clause as well, because the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal Government, to which it is limited. Again, what sort of professor of constitutional law is this? One whose family background (his family name is Dutch) is tied to New England WASPs (Yankees), and a product of Harvard for both undergrad and law school. (A legacy admission? His mother was a member of the faculty for Radcliffe.) It's no wonder he is a Yankee Nationalist with respect to his understanding of the Constitution. He was also a clerk for Antonin Scalia -- was Scalia ignorant of the purpose and meaning of the Constitution as well, or were these lessons never given to his clerk, or never requested by his clerk? He converted to Roman Catholicism in 2016, and that grace is not going to remedy any defects in his opinions about the Constitution.

Some reactions:

The New Republic: The Emerging Right-Wing Vision of Constitutional Authoritarianism

No surprise here, Vermeule is receiving support from other Latin integralists: Adrian Vermeule’s Brilliant Essay on Common Good Constitutionalism

Even some "conservatives" are sympathetic to his argument:

A critique: Rejecting Vermeule’s Right-Wing Dworkinian Vision by Lee Strang
NRO: Adrian Vermeule's 'Common -Good Constitutionalism': No Alternative to Originalism

The Problem with Catholic Integralism in One Tweet By Andrew T. Walker

Author Julián Carrón and Joseph Weiler on "Disarming Beauty: Essays on Faith, Truth, and Freedom"