The Orthodoxy of the Anglican Use

Robert Ian Williams has written a booklet concerning the defects of the Anglican-Use Book of Divine Worship. He contends that it is dangerous; that since it contains prayers concocted by Protestants, it contains the seeds of heresy; that it was used by Protestant liturgists to replace Catholic theology with Protestant error. Worse yet, these prayers are being left unmodified by Rome. As a result, Roman Catholics with no previous ties to Anglican forms of worship, who probably know little or nothing of the history of worship in England, will attend Anglican-Use liturgies and, completely unbeknownst to them, be exposed to Protestantizing theology.

Mr. Williams's central principle is that we cannot separate the prayer from its author. But when Rome accepted the conversion of Patriarch Joseph I of the Chaldean Church, he modified the divine liturgy only by adding the institutional narrative into the Anaphora of the Apostles. The rest of the liturgy remained the same. If the principle that the author cannot be separated from the prayer is true, then why were the prayers composed by Nestorians, which comprised the Chaldean liturgy, not forbidden by Rome? The answer must be that they did not contradict Catholic theology. The principle of conversion has never been the enforcement of uniformity; the Maronites, once united with Rome, maintained their own liturgy, and they do not have a schismatic counterpart.

The principle of "unity in diversity" is what the Church has always followed, even though uniformity sometimes wins the day. As we have seen in the recent past, efforts at forcing uniformity lead not to unity, but to cleavage. No wonder that Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum allowed any group which maintained a 200 year old liturgical practice differing from the Tridentine Missal to retain that practice. The Slavic people of Croatia had been authorized to use the Glagolitic Missal since the time of Pope John VIII in the 9th century (their last missal was published in 1905). The only stipulation was that they could not mix the Glagolitic and Latin texts. Similarly, Benedict XIV in Ex Quo made every effort to avoid changing the Byzantine Euchologion, so long as its prayers could be understood in a sense not contrary to Catholic faith.

In this article I will analyze the four liturgical phrases in the Anglican-Use Book of Divine Worship to which Mr. Williams takes exception. What I have done is to show how they can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. Should he still insist that they are problematic, the only solution to the problem must be a letter to the Congregation of Divine Worship, asking them to reconsider these formulas. In the meantime, I feel that anyone attending Mass using this particular missal is not only fully justified, but will be rewarded with abundant spiritual fruit.

This thy table, in the Prayer of Humble Access

However, we see in Malachi 1:7 that the words altar and table are used interchangeably. The following is from the Douay-Rheims. If there had been a conflict between the two, St. Jerome would have not allowed them to remain side by side. "To you, O priests, that despise my name, and have said: Wherein have we despised thy name? You offer polluted bread upon my altar, and you say: Wherein have we polluted thee? In that you say: The table of the Lord is contemptible."

Likewise, St. Paul used the phrase "the Lord's Table" (Kurios trapeze, mensae Domini) in 1Cor 10:21: "You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils."

Finally, that the use of the word table is Catholic can be seen in the Didache, where there are two phrases: "partake of this heavenly table," and "into the presence of this your holy and spiritual table."

What is important here is to Whom the offering is made. Obviously, the Mass of the Anglican Use on a table is no different spiritually than one offered on a high altar: the offering is the same, and the intention is the same. Since the architecture of the altars (tables) used in the Anglican Use church buildings is one of ornate, stone altars, it is obvious that the situation in 1552 (when altars were being destroyed) and the situation in 2007 (when altars are being built) are not the same, even if the text is. While Cranmer may have interpreted the word "table" as being contradictory to "altar," we need not follow him. As long as the practice of facing east (ad orientem) is preserved in the Anglican Use, I see no danger of the altar, even if built in a table form, causing the Mass to be understood as a meal. Even less will the words of the Prayer of Humble Access cause the Anglican Use liturgy to be understood as a meal.

Incidentally, the Latin etymology of the two terms is revealing. Mensa, table, may refer to the fact that the table of offerings was placed in the middle of the guests. Altar comes from a word meaning height, since the altar was normally placed on the highest place available.

The Phrase Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving

The assumption here is that this phrase denies the sacrifice of the Mass. However, St. Paul in Hebrews 13:15 uses the phrase sacrifice of praise: "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name." It also appears in the memento of the Roman Canon: "...who themselves offer to You this sacrifice of praise for themselves..." Again, in the 1970 Missal, the words of consecration include "He gave You thanks and praise."

We must realize that in Hebrew, the noun thanksgiving (todah) is a sacrificial term, meaning a voluntary offering relating to spiritual health, specificially, an act of fellowship with God and each other through a sharing (communion) in the same sacrifice. It is sometimes known as a peace offering. So, thanksgiving in Hebrew implies a sacrifice; it does not deny it. And the word todah, thanksgiving, comes from yadah, to praise, which shows the relation between the two.

The Term Spiritual food

Mr. Williams's contention is that since Cramner denied the Real Presence, using this phrase does so as well. Here a few examples of a perfectly Catholic term being prefixed with the word spiritual, as used in the eastern liturgies:

• Spiritual table, spiritual sacrifices (Byzantine liturgy)
• Spiritual fragrance (Liturgy of the Presanctified, Gregory the Great)
• Spiritual feast (Nestorian Rite)
• Spiritual gifts, spiritual altar (St. James liturgy)

Of course, the term is biblical: St. Paul in 1 Cor 10:3-4 uses both spiritual food and spiritual drink: "And did all eat the same spiritual food, And all drank the same spiritual drink."

I will make the assumption that if a poll were taken concerning the beliefs of Catholics attending Mass using the Book of Divine Worship, that close to 100% would believe in the Real Presence.

Use of Miles Coverdale's translation of the Roman Canon

The assumption here is that since Miles Coverdale adhered to erroneous ideas, using his translation of the Roman Canon implies an approval of his other errors. A candidate to the Catholic priesthood who will be assigned to an Anglican Use parish even gave a talk in which he mentioned that the reason Miles Coverdale translated the Roman Canon from the Latin is because he wanted to write an English-language polemic against the prayer's theology. Even so, this translation should be judged based on its accuracy, not on its author. Does this translation contain any errors which impugn the orthodoxy of the prayer? Nothing Mr. Williams states concerns the theology of this translation. Besides, it cannot be nearly so bad as the 1970 Roman Missal translation from ICEL, which contains innumerable deletions and mistranslations. It would be interesting to set the texts of all three versions (1962, 1970, and Divine Worship) side by side and compare them.

In conclusion, I have never heard it said that a prayer must be rejected because the author was outside the Church. Rather, the Church accepts what can be understood in a Catholic light, and only modifies what cannot be interpreted in a Catholic light. At a time when the liturgy is a renewed concern of Rome, I do not include the Book of Divine Worship among the liturgical texts which need critical examination concerning their orthodoxy. Rather, it should be judged by its spiritual fruits. And from everything we in America have experienced, the Book of Divine Worship is a true blessing among Roman Catholics alienated by the liturgical texts currently in use by the vast majority.

Ed Snyder
January 27, 2007