So what is it that Fr Holeton and the other critics are so concerned about? The new translation reverts to "and with your spirit" rather than "and also with you". The Gloria now appears in 'fuller' form. The Nicene Creed again becomes "I believe". The Sanctus is no longer "God of power and might" but reverts to "Lord God of hosts". And, of course, the words of consecration change from "for all" to "for many".
Now, those aware of the Anglican patrimony will be smiling at this point. Such revisions are not a rejection of 'common texts'. Rather, they represent a recovery of the shared liturgical tradition of the Latin West, common to both Rome and Anglicanism. All of the revisions quoted above are, in fact, the texts employed in the classical 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Here, then, is an example of how the 'reform of the reform' by both Rome and Canterbury draws our Communions closer to a shared source - the language and rhythms of the Latin West's historic liturgy.
Even where there is an obvious divergence in the traditions, profound similarities can be detected. The confession is a good illustration of this. The revised translation of the Roman Missal introduces a greater degree of solemnity into the confession - the changes from the current text are in bold:
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault,
through my own fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
The confession in the BCP Eucharist does not, of course, invoke our Lady and the saints. But that somewhat misses the key point. As Catherine Pickstock brilliantly demonstrated in an article on the text of the BCP confession, unlike modern rites, the BCP text does not merely refer to penitence - it is penitence. Precisely the same can be said with reference to the new, fuller text of the confession in the Roman revision.
+Rowan, recently commenting on preparations for next year's celebrations of the 350th anniversary of the BCP, has stated, "The Prayer Book is a profoundly valuable inheritance which we neglect at our peril". Part of the peril - as Fr Holeton has unwittingly emphasised - is undermining an authentic ecumenism, the celebration of the shared traditions of the Anglican and Roman patrimonies.
11 comments:
The only change I might quibble with is the reversion to "I believe" in the Nicene Creed for corporate worship. Jaroslav Pelikan has a good brief discussion of the I/we believe forms (with We believe being the form originally used by the Council, but perhaps building upon a simpler, earlier baptismal confession that used the singular) in Credo p. 10-12.
Also, this raises questions for our own BCP revision--will we be able to "reform the reform" while keeping the positives of the Liturgical movement? True, we maintain many of these forms in Rite I, but with a few interesting exceptions, Rite II is certainly dominant in a majority of our congregations.
Jody, many thanks for your comment. I certainly agree that an Anglican 'reform of the reform' cannot and should not be a counter-revolution. Liturgical reform has deeply enriched Anglican liturgy with patristic norms. However, it has also often been lacking in both linguistic and theological beauty. This is where the classical BCP tradition can provide the sources for a 'reform of the reform'.
The presence of Rite 1 in TEC's 1979 BCP is significant. Here in Ireland, our 2004 BCP has a Rite 1 which is the 1662 Eucharistic rite. While I firmly believe that 1662 has a view of the Eucharistic presence and sacrifice that accords with patristic catholicity, it is - of course - out of step with the historic shape of the Eucharistic liturgy.
In other words, I would be very happy if we in Ireland had TEC's Rite 1!
Easter Season greetings
You write, “All of the revisions quoted above are, in fact, the texts employed in the classical 1662 Book of Common Prayer.”
That would be very interesting for reactionaries, except for one minor problem: it is false.
Blessings
Bosco+
www.liturgy.co.nz
Bosco, Easter blessings to you.
Ooops - I guess I am a 'reactionary' (?). I genuinely do not think I am, as my comments above suggest. I do genuinely appreciate significant aspects of liturgical revision.
On your main point, however, I do think I am *mostly* correct: the examples I used from the new translation of the Roman Missal reflect those used in the BCP 1662. I accept, as I think you are saying, that the texts are not precisely the same in every aspect, but there is a very significant similarity.
"And with your spirit"; "I believe"; "Lord God of hosts"; and a fuller Gloria. All of these are BCP (with the exception of the use of contemporary English).
I am not a reactionary - but I do value the use of the classical BCP tradition alongside contemporary Anglican rites.
And ... I also believe the new translation of the Roman Missal is no obstacle to ecumenism.
I forgot to mention the most controversial aspect of the new translation - "for all" becoming "for many". This is not only BCP, it is also the wording used in many contemporary Anglican Eucharistic prayers.
Easter Season greetings
You write, “All of the revisions quoted above are, in fact, the texts employed in the classical 1662 Book of Common Prayer”
That would be very interesting for reactionaries, except for one minor problem: it is false.
Blessings
Bosco+
www.liturgy.co.nz
Bosco, Easter blessings to you.
Ooops - I guess I am a 'reactionary' (?). I genuinely do not think I am, as my comments above suggest. I do genuinely appreciate significant aspects of liturgical revision.
On your main point, however, I do think I am *mostly* correct: the examples I used from the new translation of the Roman Missal reflect those used in the BCP 1662. I accept, as I think you are saying, that the texts are not precisely the same in every aspect, but there is a very significant similarity.
"And with your spirit"; "I believe"; "Lord God of hosts"; and a fuller Gloria. All of these are BCP (with the exception of the use of contemporary English). And, of course, the most controversial change in the new translation - "for all" becoming "for many" - is both 1662 and, I think, the overwhelming number of contemporary Anglican eucharistic prayers.
Please, BC, would you do your readers the courtesy of reproducing the new Roman texts and the 1662 texts if you are going to continue your rather bizarre contention that “All of the revisions quoted above are, in fact, the texts employed in the classical 1662 Book of Common Prayer.”
“And with your spirit” isn’t present in the 1662 Communion rite at all. Yes, “I” in the creed corresponds to 1662 – the rest of the creed clearly doesn’t. Of the 34 words in the Roman “Holy, holy…” 14 correspond with the 1662 version – that’s only 2/5th! The Roman Gloria is “fuller” in the sense of being longer than the recent translation, but already departs from the 1662 version on the second word! And “all” to “many”, as you say, is not unique to 1662. That this is “the most controversial aspect of the new translation” is debatable. The determinedly uninclusiveness would certainly rank up there.
Your claim isn’t “*mostly* correct” – it is just plainly false.
Bosco, more than happy to accept that the *full* texts used in the new translation of the Roman Missal are not those used in the BCP 1662. However, my point is that the revisions I quoted - "and with your spirit"; "I believe"; a fuller Gloria; "Lord God of hosts" in the Sanctus; and "for many" - are used in the BCP 1662.
As for "and with your/thy spirit" not being in the BCP 1662 eucharist - of course not. But users of 1662 will be eminently familiar with its use in the daily offices. Alongside this, those who use other manifestations of the Prayer Book tradition - TEC 1928, Scottish 1929, CofE as proposed in 1928 - will be used to it in their Eucharistic rites.
In a way, this does underline the point that 'ecumenical common texts' have not embraced a significant part of the Anglican liturgical patrimony. Rome altering its translations of the Creed or Sanctus - and doing so in ways that echo the BCP tradition - is not a snub to ecumenical relationships.
BC, The 21st century RC English texts and the 16th century BCP texts are translations of the same Latin originals. That is the only reason why there is an “echo”. And, as I have demonstrated, what you call an “echo” is very faint. The previous English texts were identical across many denominations and a wonderful example of ecumenical cooperation.
"The same Latin originals" - that is my point. I fully accept it could perhaps have been made clearer in my original posting. It is, however, what I meant with by the statement, "they represent a recovery of the shared liturgical tradition of the Latin West, common to both Rome and Anglicanism ... a shared source - the language and rhythms of the Latin West's historic liturgy".
Brian.
Post a Comment