It seems that the prospect of women in ministry–and especially women as diocesan bishops–is always linked to a discussion of the nature of authority in churches.  That was certainly the case in my own 2007 piece on the subject, Authority and Evangelical Churches, and now the CoE’s “Ugley Vicar” takes on the issue in his own post Anglicanism, Authority and Ordination.  Although our two church environments are different (they are both episcopal in nature, however) many of the underlying issues are the same.

One point I’d like to make from the outset is this: if it is unacceptable for a woman to have any kind of authority over a man at an episcopal level, i.e., a female bishop over a male priest/minister, than it’s unacceptable for a woman vicar/pastor to have the same kind of authority over a male layman.  The reverse is likewise true.  Once you allow women in what many of us would refer to as “credentialled” ministry, then you’ve blown your argument about the authority issue at a higher level.  That’s the situation that both the CoE and my own church find themselves in right at the moment.

But John Richardson (the Ugley Vicar) introduces something into the debate which, frankly, I wish I had explicitly done sooner: the concept of more than one kind of authority.  Taking his cue from John Goldingay’s book Authority in Ministry, he comes up with the following:

In it, he identified two kinds of authority. Authority A is the institutional kind possessed by the centurion, who said to one man “‘Go’ and he goes, to another ‘Come’ and he comes.” Authority B, he said, is the kind possessed by Jesus who, “spoke with authority because he was in touch with God and with truth” (8).

Richardson then spends a great deal of time applying this to the CoE.  To be honest, much of the discussion is specific to his church, a state church where “Authority A” is tied up in its legal status.  One thing he brings out that is relevant to my earlier treatment of the subject is the nature of the Act of Supremacy: he states the following:

That’s significant because, if one accepts the “engineers” premise, it absolves Anglicanism (or at least the C0E) of the great besetting problem with most of Evangelical Christianity, the one that is at the centre of my whole thesis in Authority and Evangelical Churches:

What I’d like to spend the rest of this piece doing is to generalise his concept of “Authority A” and “Authority B” and perhaps use this to shed some light for the rest of us who are involved with this issue.

If one looks at things objectively, any organisation–secular or religious–requires Authority A to function.  That just goes with the territory.  There’s nothing unique to the church about this.  This applies whether the church has state sanction (as is the case in the UK and many European countries) or not (the US.)  It also applies if the church is incorporated or an unincorporated religious association (and we see both in all parts of the world.)  And I’m also inclined to think that this kind of authority isn’t what is referred to in the New Testament when the subject comes up.  In fact, some writers (the Jesuit John McKenzie comes to mind) contend that one of the main points of the New Testament is that the church get past this kind of authority altogether.

Authority B is another matter altogether.  Although it certainly has New Testament sanction, how it’s implemented varies depending upon the ecclesiastical environment.

At one end of the spectrum is Roman Catholicism, whose implementation of this is tied up in the concept of magisterium, the inherent ability of the Church to authoritatively speak on matters of faith and morals.  That in turn is tied up with its ecclesiology, and I’ve discussed that issue many times on this blog, starting many years ago with We May Not Be a Church After All.  I’ve always felt that the Roman Catholic Church can never admit the sacerdotal ministry of women because of this and many other issues, unless they modify their underlying idea of themselves.  In this environment, Authorities A and B are effectively a unity.

At the other end are the “independent” Evangelical churches (the Baptists in this part of the world are foremost in this) who have, whether they care to admit it or not, evicted Authority B from their churches altogether.  They have done this through the aforementioned process of rebellion to be sure, but they have also done so because their concept of church is a complete rejection of the church possessing either the magisterium or the status of a formal intermediary between man and God.  As a consequence of this they have no grounds to exclude women from credentialled ministry unless they can demonstrate that Authority A is what the New Testament refers to.  Today, however, what we’re seeing in many Evangelical churches is a de facto entry of Authority B into the church, something which I think is objectionable and defeats the whole purpose of such churches.

Somewhere in this mix are the Pentecostal and Charismatic churches and groups, whose idea is to restore the spontaneous, Spirit-led appointment to leadership that we saw in the New Testament.  This is the mirror image of the usual Evangelical model: it has a clear concept of Authority B but in a sense evicts Authority A from the church.  This has in turn led to the woes the movement has experienced: lack of accountability, self-validating leadership and ephemeral organisations.  The Classical Pentecostal churches were the first attempt to fix these problems, and have done so in varying ways and with varying degrees of success.  Most of these lessons had to be learned the hard way once again during the Charismatic Renewal of the 1960’s and 1970’s, with even more variation in the results.  Women have always done relatively well here because of the Spirit-led nature of leadership, underscored by the explicit conferring of the gift of prophecy on women in Joel and Acts (something that Lord Carey likes to note.)  But back-pedalling has taken place here too, as we all know.

With Anglicanism, we have a muddle.

Richardson points out that, in the formation of the Church of England, the whole concept of the sovereign being a part of the doctrinal formation of the church was taken out of the equation.  English sovereigns had good precedent for doing so, as Roman Emperors made the fourth and fifth centuries an exciting time picking winners and losers in the Christological controversies.  But they, wanting a Protestant church (especially Edward VI and Elizabeth I) passed this up.  The 39 Articles notwithstanding, the Church of England also passed up the explicit assumption of magisterium, preferring to see itself as a restoration of New Testament and Patristic Christianity that had gotten lost in Roman Catholicism.  And I’ve always been inclined to think that Anglicanism is one of the better attempts to get back to this, all things considered.

But having done all of these “Protestant” things, the Church of England still retains the decidedly “Catholic” structure of bishops as successors to the Apostles.  And that’s where the tricky part comes in.  It’s true that the CoE’s ministers and bishops have legal authority and a structure, the “Authority A.”  But as bishops women would have (in theory at least; as Richardson alludes to, it doesn’t always work out) whatever spiritual authority comes from the “Catholic” side of the episcopacy, and, as he points out, for those who see this as an impossible combination, no provision has been made.

Given Anglicanism’s equivocal nature (and I mean that in the scholastic, not pejorative sense,) I think that there are three possibilities for resolution.

The first would be to actually adopt a consistent, univocal theory of the authority of the church, i.e., either Roman Catholic, Evangelical or even Charismatic.  Given that this hasn’t been properly resolved on either side of the Atlantic, this is unlikely, and given some Evangelicals aversion to women as ministers (let alone bishops) it may not resolve anything.

The second is that of parallel jurisdictions.  This flies in the face of the concept of the “holy Catholic and apostolic church,” but the blunt truth is that, considering these churches as a whole, we already have parallel jurisdictions.  As Richardson reminds us, the Articles state that “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England,” but subsequent to that he established a presence in the UK and has certainly made a nuisance of himself lately.  (Personally, I think the term “flying bishops” used in this context is a promotional scheme for the airlines, but I digress…)

The third would be for the church, as have many churches, simply decide to ordain women as bishops and let the chips fall where they may.  And that’s what I think is going to happen.

I’ve been a supporter of women at all levels in ministry, and remain so.  But that support is based on an ecclesiastical environment where churches have either a) denied, b) forfeited or c) adopted a Charismatic concept of “Authority B.”   Taking this step needs to be done with a clear idea of authority in the church, and very few have thought this issue through.  Richardson is to be commended for having explored the issue the way he has.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Since this is the day we’re supposed to think about these things, I’m going to feature an album from The Ancient Star-Song that’s a favourite of mine: Choose Life, from the School Sisters of Notre Dame (in Mankato, MN.)

Since the album dates from 1976, I would think that, when they recorded the title track (which you can download here,) they were thinking about Roe v. Wade.

The thing that separates this album from a lot of the Catholic music of the era is the quality and complexity of the vocal arrangements.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

On the first day of this decade, one Muslim extremist broke into the apartment of Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose “Muhammad-in-a-bomb” cartoon’s publication in Jyllands-Posten ignited another round of rage in the Islamic world. Westergaard joins Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders and others who are forced to live underground because they have drawn the ire of at least part of the Muslim world.

As Bruce Bawer in City Journal notes, across the Skagerrak in Norway, long-time women’s rights activist Hege Storhaug has suffered a home invasion of her own. Three years to the day before Westergaard retreated to his panic room, one or more people burst into her apartment, beat her unconscious and left her in a pool of her own blood.

Muslims on the prowl again? Probably not. In this case, Hege’s main opponents were a combination of leftists in both the Norwegian media and the political activist community who were incensed by her 2006 book But the Greatest of All Is Freedom: On the Consequences of Immigration. In response to this they launched a campaign to demonise her as a racist and Islamophobe and, following the play-book they ascribe to their opponents, hate speech led to violence.

Islamophobe? Why should the left care if anyone hates Islam or not? They certainly don’t care if people hate Christians. But Islam, if it succeeds, will be the end of much of what leftists hold to be “beautiful and good.” That includes but is not limited to their sexual agenda. Homosexuals and those who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage—especially women—will find themselves subject to capital punishment if sharia is implemented, a frequent goal of Muslim groups.

And yet we in the West have been treated to this strange pas-de-deux between leftists and Muslims which has complicated our efforts to deal with those followers of the Prophet who use terrorism to achieve their aims. Leftists have pursued this agenda consistently, especially in the last decade. London Mayor Ken Livingstone thought nothing of displacing the Kingsway International Christian Centre while making way for the largest mosque in Europe near the 2012 Olympic venue. The Anglican/Episcopal world has been regaled with the strange relationship between Episcopal Bishop of Washington (DC) John Chane and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While promoting the complete acceptance of homosexuality in the life of the Episcopal Church, Chane has cultivated his friendship with a man whose regime hangs homosexuals from truck cranes. Sometimes things leave the realm of reality completely. New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art recently moved to eliminate images of Muhammad from its Islamic Art Gallery (these were done many years ago, before the absolute ban on these images went in to effect.) They are even changing the name of the Gallery to that of art from “Arab Lands, Turkey, Iran, Central Asia and Later South Asia.” Their solicitousness for Muslim sensibilities is so divorced from reality that Islamic arts’ export Kishwar Rizvi characterised the name change as “a shame” and misleading.

Examples such as these abound. But how to explain them? Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this one stretches credulity. From the Islamic viewpoint, the relationship is fantastic; it has given Islam credibility in the West it would not otherwise have. But how can the “multicultural” left justify it? Let us look at four aspects: a) the shared assumption between the left and Islam, b) “millet” or “identity” politics, c) the left’s myopic view of Islam and d) hedging their bets in the event of an adverse result.

The Shared Assumption of the Left and Islam

With all of the significant differences between Western liberalism and Islam, one important similarity stands out: the goal of both is implementation and enforcement of their respective agendas by the state. In that respect the two sides are alike and can, if not agree, understand each other.

With Islam, the situation is fairly simple. Islam is an idea where religion and politics not only go together, they are a unity. The ultimate goal is the establishment worldwide of the dar-al-Islam, under sharia, lead by the Caliph, who is at once a religious and secular leader. The major change in recent times is that Muslims are becoming more proactive in the achievement of this goal, as opposed to the fatalism of the past. Both the nation states that are especially active in forwarding the agenda (Iran and Saudi Arabia) and the non-governmental organisations formed along the way (al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) are transitional in the achievement of the objective. The major complication is that there is more than one Muslim idea out there as to who amongst these “transitionals” ends up actually leading the caliphate (the Sunni-Shi’a divide is the most prominent of these divisions.)

The left, by and large, is a statist movement. Their goals are ultimately achieved through supra-national organisations, the EU currently being the most successful. (The UN is somewhat more complicated because of the presence of Third World countries in the General Assembly, which have the bad taste sometimes to express their own views rather than those of their liberal patrons.) Nation states and NGO’s are their transitional organisations, especially the former, who have the power to tax. They furnish employment for their advocates and dispense patronage for their client groups. Their ability to promulgate laws is, for them, the preferred method of defining morality. If it’s legal, for the left, it’s moral, and illegal is immoral. The complicating factor, as with Islam, is how to deal with the “lower level” divisions when things finally coalesce.

Thus we have two sides whose style of mind, with distortions, are mirror images of each other. Neither of them have any use for Christianity, who proclaims a kingdom beyond this world, a purpose for life beyond politics and power, and whose logic and MO frequently baffle both.

“Millet” or “Identity” Politics

Students of Ottoman history are familiar with the millet system. Certain religious groups, especially Christian ones, were allowed to practice their religion if they lived in an isolated society, a “millet.” Their community leaders were accountable for their actions and held authority in the group. Christianity went on for centuries in the Middle East in this way, only to be chased away in recent times by Islamic extremists practising religious cleansing.

So why did the Ottomans, the successful leaders of Islam for more than four centuries, allow these people in their midst? Because they were useful to them! They were a reliable counterweight to Islamic groups, many of which were always conspiring against Ottoman rule. As long as they served the purpose of the Ottoman state, they were allowed to remain.

To a large extent leftists, although they preach equality, are in reality practising millet (or in a more contemporary expression identity) politics. One only needs to look at the Democratic Party in the US to see this in action. They are in reality a coalition: blacks, Hispanics, “women,” LGBT people, etc.. If one’s opponents make strategic mistakes (such as the Republicans’ stand on illegal immigration) then keeping such a coalition together is all the simpler. Each community has its leadership which demands and receives patronage for themselves and their group. Those who would breach this convention and look elsewhere for inspiration (like Clarence Thomas) are punished. The left sees Muslims as another identity group to be added to their arsenal, ready to receive the same kind of patronage as the others. Additionally the left sees Islam as a counterweight to Christianity, its usual opponent for the last three centuries.

The Myopia of the Left

It should be obvious from the above that the left’s primary challenge is to keep all of the groups that support them in their camp, as opposed to either leaving the fold or overpowering the rest. So far they have been reasonably successful in this endeavour. Based on past performance, the left proceeds with the idea that they can both use the Muslim community as a part of their power base while at the same time containing their higher ambitions, as they have done with other groups.

That expectation is buttressed by the idea that Islam, in their view, cannot win against an “enlightened,” secular West. Such as view has more than a tinge of racism attached to it, since most Muslims do not have European ethnic backgrounds. It’s a supremely ethnocentric view, but also overlooks a simple fact: if a weapon of mass destruction is properly built and operational, it doesn’t matter whether the man or woman who pushes the button or sets the timer believes in Western civilisation or not. Recent history, especially in Europe, also suggests that, when Muslims act in concert, they are capable of blunting the rule of law and imposing their idea on at least the proportion of the population adjacent to them.

Hedging Their Bets

It’s probable that at least some on the left have considered the possibility of the failure of their political scheme. And that leads to another aspect of the leftist-Muslim entente: the idea that the left, realising their own weakness, is going along with Islam’s demands in the hope that, if Islam predominates, they can become a protected millet within the scheme of things. This turn of events is most likely to first come to pass in Europe.

Unfortunately such attempts to curry favour (or use others for one’s own advantage) can backfire, and do so tragically. One of the best examples of this comes from post-Roman Britain. Having cast off imperial rule, the native rulers found themselves saddled with the task of defending their part of the island on their own. They, convinced by Vortingern, brought in the Saxons to help defend against barbarian attacks from the Continent. This was good Roman practice; however, this time, the results went an entirely different direction, as the Saxons turned on their Briton masters and began their own conquest of England.

Experience teaches that Islam, once the controlling factor in a country, will move to impose sharia on the population and do so without exception. Although the Ottomans were probably the most able rulers the Islamic world has ever known, their system of encapsulating and using non-Islamic groups to their own advantage is going out of fashion, replaced by the religious cleansing we see all too often in the Middle East today.

So What’s a Christian To Do?

This strange, symbiotic relationship between the left and Islam leaves Christianity in a quandary. How best to deal with it? What is our future in the face of two such powerful and antipathetic groups? There are three possibilities.

The first is to go on fighting what is, in effect, a two-front war against these groups on a legal and political basis. In my opinion, such a conflict, waged in a purely political and legal environment, is not winnable. Christianity in the West will continue to find itself caught in the middle, and ultimately share the fate of old Poland, partitioned and eliminated.

The second is to attempt an alliance with one or more elements on one side or the other. Islam, with its shared aversion for Western mores, is a logical partner. But there is too much bad history between Islam and Christianity for this to be viable on a consistent basis, and in any event such a pairing suffers from the same problems that the Islamic-leftist relationship does, especially when it comes to answering the question, “Who wins?”

Looking in the other direction has possibilities as well. Although the multiculturalist leadership will brook no opposition to their idea, some of the followers are having second thoughts. For example, Dutch homosexuals, swept from the streets of Amsterdam by Muslim thugs, are largely voting towards the right. The Creteil Bebel soccer league business underscores the antipathy between Islam and the LGBT community. Ken Livingstone lost his last re-election bid as Mayor of London. For this to work, however, will require a more libertarian view of the role of the state on both sides, and particularly in the US that doesn’t look forthcoming.

The third possibility is this: Christians should be…Christians. Americans are notorious for projecting their “God and country” ideal back into the New Testament and its teachings on our relationship with government. But the truth is that the church came into a world driven by patronage from top to bottom, cruel in dealing with opponents (the Jews and Britons took the worst of Roman power during the first century) and without a really good way for most people to redress their grievances or impact state policy. Nevertheless, the church grew until it achieved what Michael Walsh referred to as “the triumph of the meek” largely by caring for those around it and pointing them to a kingdom that really was the way their Saviour described it:

“My kingly power,” replied Jesus, “is not due to this world. If it had been so, my servants would be doing their utmost to prevent my being given up to the Jews; but my kingly power is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

Is ours any different?

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Communism teaches hard lessons:

Jesus Christ is “king” of a municipality in Lithuania.

The aldermen of a small city in Lithuania, a country with strong Catholic majorities, have “enthroned Jesus Christ as King” to their community, hoping to boost the morale of the population in this time of economic crisis.

“Enthrone Jesus Christ as King of our municipality, solemnly declare that he is our sovereign and protector,” said Mayor Zdzislav Palevic of Šalčininkai (southeast), as quoted by Baltic news agency BNS .

“During this difficult period for the country when crisis affects the world, the role of Christ becomes important not only in the personal lives of people, but also in political and cultural life,” proclaims the act of induction, which was adopted unanimously.

“This decision couldn’t hurt. The area is very Catholic, and if it can encourage people to respect the Ten Commandments, then why not?” Leonard Stancikiene, one of 25 city council members, told Agence France-Presse by telephone.

This town of about 7,000 people, mostly ethnic Poles, is located about fifty kilometres south of Vilnius,  the first Lithuanian city to have entrusted its fate to Jesus Christ. In an act approved last 12 June, the Vilnius region was placed under the protection of Christ “to avoid painful mistakes, dangers and threats”.

Lithuania, a former Soviet republic which became independent in 1990 and a member of the EU in 2004, is a secular state, but the Catholic religion remains a vital component of the country.

Before the swearing in of new President Dalia Grybauskaite, the bishop of Vilnius, Archbishop Audrys Backis, delivered a speech to parliament. Solemn masses are usually celebrated at major national holidays.

HT to the Salon Beige.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Fr. Greg’s response to my diatribes has been there for a while, but with current exigencies here and some technical issues to resolve re this blog (when you’re self-hosted, you have to deal with these things) has delayed a response.

Some of the items he brings up–especially concerning the authority and nature of the church–we’ve actually discussed before, as you can see here.  There are two specific issues that I’d like to address, and those are the discipline and the reform of the church.  Much of the dialogue has centred around people who have been out of sorts with either Roman Catholicism or Russian Orthodoxy, and that represents my concerns, which have haunted me since I took my leave from the former.

Let me start with this:

Church discipline is exercised in order to bring someone to repentance and thereby, to eternal life, never to deprive anyone of eternal life. Remember that if the Eucharist is received unworthily, such reception, far from bringing the receiver closer to God, does just the opposite, subjects the one who so receives to Divine Judgement, and endangers their participation in eternal life (I Cor. 11:27-32). Also, in all the Apostolic Churches, all Church discipline ends at the time of death; the person in question is released into the hands of the ultimate judge, Jesus Christ himself. As further evidence of this, all priests are duty bound, in the case of danger of death, to administer the last sacraments to anyone, regardless of standing with the Church, at the least sign of repentance (construed in the most general of terms): all disciplinary bets are off (or, if the person is unconscious, the priest is to presume repentance and so to administer anointing and absolution). Further, the question of infallibility doesn’t real enter into questions of discipline per se. Thus, your numbered points are at best a caricature.

All other things being equal, this is true.  But they aren’t.  There are two reasons in particular why history shows that this isn’t always followed the way it should be.

The first is state involvement.  If the state decides that it has an interest in the suppression of heresy, pastoral considerations such as you outline above can go out the window.  That was all too evident with both the Old Believers and the Jansenists, to say nothing of the Christological controversies (now I know you’re in league with Peter the Fuller!)  That’s something that we don’t see as much of as we used to, but it still happens.

Of more interest in our own time is when the church decides to “keep up with the Joneses,” i.e. follow modern trends.  That was certainly the case with the Old Believers, and the Jansenists too.  The Jesuits wanted to present a faith that they felt was acceptable to the people of their time, and austere Jansenism was in the way of that.  So Port-Royal was razed.

I think it’s also worth noting that, with Roman Catholicism, its solicitousness to bring people back to orthodoxy can easily turn into an endurance match with the heretics, grinding them down rather than bringing them up.  That’s a legacy of the Inquisition, and Dostoevsky was right in attacking it.

One other thing: the issue of infallibility certainly does come up if the issue involves one of the doctrines which is claimed to be so promulgated.

In our time the worst practitioners of this kind of thing are those who Kendall Harmon refers to as the “reappraisers.”  We’ve seen this kind of thing in the “scorched earth” policies of the TEC.  Those on the left can be very brutal when dispatching their opponents, even if they do it in the name of preserving the “integrity” (double-entendre intended) of the church.

But that leads to my next point.  Let’s look at the following:

Further, while the Churches are always in need of practical reformation (not dogmatic reformation) to one extent or another, our primary task, as individual Christians, is not to reform the Churches, but to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, through the ministry of the Church, in the transformation of each of us as persons so that we conform to the image and likeness of Christ. The fundamental rule of thumb here is Matthew 23: “do what they say but not what they do.” The Christian path has long been laid down: it is simple, but no, it is not easy. So many would seek an easier softer way, and it is so much easier, and more gratifying to remove the speck from your eye than to remove the plank from my own. (Yes, I’m aware of the irony here.)

There are actually two issues here, related but not identical.

The first is the reform of the church.  Tied to that, however, is the mission of the church.  Each and every Christian is obligated by Jesus Christ to be a part of the mission of the church.   The successful implementation of that depends in large part on the opportunity level of the church which the individual believer faces.  If that church is relatively inert, if that inertia is buttressed by institutionalism, if that institutionalism encourages a low level of participation, then the believer isn’t going to be what God intended for him or her to be.  My main experience here is with Roman Catholicism, but it isn’t restricted to that church.  The whole Wesleyan secession could have been avoided if the Church of England, lead by its Governor, had properly released the enthusiasm which Wesley and his friends had exhibited.  Institutionalism isn’t restricted to a church which considers itself a formal mediator between man and God, but a church which has that high a view of itself is more prone to justify itself on institutional grounds than one that doesn’t.  Many moves towards reform are tied to people who wish to see the fulfilment of their own divine purpose on earth, and don’t see the opportunities to do so at hand.

It’s certainly possible for one to live a good and holy life without reaching out and working to reform the church around them.  That’s one reason why I caution Evangelicals about being so quick to judge people in Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches not having a proper relationship with God.  But it isn’t the “whole deal” either.

There’s one more minor point I’d like to make, about this:

Don, what you have written concerning the end of sacrifice assumes that the foundational purpose of sacrifice is dealing with sin.

The forgiveness of sin is a necessary part of sacrifice, but it certainly is not the entire purpose.  Part of the problem with discussing anything with me is that my theology can be composite.  I’ve made it clear that I do not think that salvation solely consists of having one’s name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.  It also consists of the indwelling of Jesus Christ in us.  That’s an inheritance from my years as a Roman Catholic.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

Ireland’s long running sex-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church reaches a turning point:

Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin Dr Jim Moriarty has offered his resignation to Pope Benedict XVI.

The announcement was made in the last few minutes following a meeting between the Bishop and Diocesan priests and staff in Portarlington, Co Laois.

Bishop Moriarty was an auxiliary Bishop of Dublin during some of the years in which the Murphy Commission found that the Archdiocese had covered up cases of clerical child sexual abuse.

Bishop Moriarty has said that there were no grounds for his resignation in what was said about him in the Murphy Report.

The Murphy Commission said that Bishop Moriarty could have asked Archbishop Connell to research the files on Fr Edmondus after complaints about the priest had been received by the Diocese.

Although this has been going on for a long time, it’s taken longer to come to a head in the Republic of Ireland than in the U.S.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

The form and structure of liturgies is something that churches which employ these in worship either take for granted or argue over intensely. But very few people understand how a) these came into being or b) how they should be revised or replaced in times of liturgical change. What kind of theology is embodied in a liturgy? What attention to the rhythm and metre is given? How will a liturgy work in a language other than one the one it’s written in? How well does a liturgy communicate its message, in addition to being the setting for the “sacred pledge” of the Eucharist? All of these important questions frequently get the short shrift, either by defenders of an existing liturgy of by proposers of a new one?

Liturgical change is the time when these questions do get asked the most. Probably the most important liturgical transition of the last one hundred years took place when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was instituted in 1970. That mass was the result of both theological and liturgical forces that had been going on in the Church for most of the preceding century.

Many of those changes—and probably some of the process that led to the NOM—were set forth in Cipriano Vagaggini’s book The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform. Published in 1967, it is a careful and thorough treatment of the subject, and probably represents the thinking of those in charge of the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II.

The focus of his work is the anaphora, which is, by Vagaggini’s definition, “the liturgical text which accompanies and expresses the offering of the Church’s sacrifice to the Father.” The RCC had used the Roman Canon for nearly fourteen centuries and, while Vagaggini is careful to underline the importance of the Roman Canon to the life of the Church, he is also clear that it has its defects as well.

In this series (which starts here,) we will reproduce the various historical anaphorae he sets forth, plus two Projects “B” and “C” which are his proposals (or perhaps those at the Vatican in the process of formulating the then really “new” NOM) for new anaphorae to be used in the church. Vagaggini also has extensive explanations for all of this; consult the book for these.

I will reproduce the English translations of these anaphorae only. Serious liturgists would do well to consult his original Latin, as the translations look like they were taken from the Italian without consideration of the original Latin text. I have tried to winnow out errors in the OCR process but, if you find some, please bring them to my attention.

A general overview of this topic can be found here.

(Here ends the fixed portion of the introduction; the variable portion follows.)

Our last anaphora is Vagaggini’s “Canon C,” which has a fixed preface, and which is “…to be used ad libitum on sundays of the year, and in those masses which do not have a proper preface .” It presents the history of salvation, which we saw in some of the ancient canons.

I

1-5 It is good and fitting, and for our salvation, to give glory to you; to offer thanks at all times, in every place, to you, Lord,

6 holy Father,

7 almighty and eternal God,

8 through Christ our Lord.

9 Through him you have enabled us to acknowledge the truth

10-12 that we might humbly adore you above all things, Father of eternal glory, with your Son and the Holy Spirit;

13 that in proclaiming you, Love itself beyond all telling, 14 we might love you with undying gladness of heart.

15 It is in him. your only Son.

16 that you have made all things, visible and invisible,

17 in order that he be first among all men;

18 and all creation is in him;

19 and through him all forever praise your name.

20-21 Through him, therefore, all the choirs of angels adore your eternal glory.

22 the countless saints of heaven worship your eternal majesty.

23 Gathered around your throne

24 with unending joy they sing:

25 Holy,

26 Holy,

27 Holy,

28 Lord, God of all.

29 The heavens and the earth are filled with your glory.

30 Hosanna in the heights of heaven.

31 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

32 Hosanna in the heights of heaven.

II

33 You are indeed, Lord, holy:

34 truly you have filled heaven and earth

35 with the wonder of your glory.

36 In the beginning you made man out of earth,

37 made him in your image, like to yourself;

38-43 so that, having subjected all living things to him, the wonders of your world are his to rule; all that you have made is a gift in trust, and at all times he adores you in the wonders of your works.

44 After his fall from the life of grace

45 you did not cease to favour him

46 so that he still searched for you:

47 in your goodness, through the Law and the prophets, you led him by the hand to the Saviour.

48 You loved the world so much. holy Father,

49 that you sent you only Son to be our Saviour,

50 that you might love in us what you have always loved in the Son.

51 Conceived through the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary,

52 he has brought back to us, in abundance,

53 the gifts we lost in the first Adam.

54 He loved us to the end;

55-56 thus, through the Holy Spirit he offered himself to you, a blameless Victim,

57 fulfilling in himself what the sacrifices of old prefigured,

58 and once for all gained our eternal redemption.

59 He arose from the dead in glory,

60 ascended to his place at your right hand,

61 the eternal High Priest, living forever to intercede for us.

62 He will come to judge the living and the dead,

63-64 and we have his promise he will be with us forever.

65 And so, from you, Father, he has sent another Paraclete,

66 the Spirit of truth, to teach us all things

67 and fill the world with all holiness.

III

68 We ask, therefore, most merciful Lord,

69-71 that the Holy Spirit be pleased to fill with the presence of his glory these gifts w.e offer for you to sanctify;

72 through him may they become the body and the blood

73 of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord,

74 to be a sacrifice pleasing to you,

75 the sacrifice he demanded we offer you.

IV

76 For he, the day before his passion,

77-78 gave us in trust this great mystery of the new covenant,

79 an everlasting memorial of his marvellous works:

80 in his mercy he ordained before he offered himself on the cross

81 that we too, his humble servants

82 should constantly offer this sacrifice

83 in the mystery of his body and his blood.

84 So when he was about to give himself to die,

85 he took bread in his holy and blessed hands,

86 looking up to heaven, to you, God, his all-powerful Father,

87 he gave thanks, blessed and broke it and gave to his disciples saying:

88 take and eat, all of you:

89 this is my body which shall he given for you.

90 Do this in memory of me.

91 In the same way when they had eaten,

92 he took wine and water in a cup,

93 gave thanks, blessed and gave it to his disciples saying:

94 take and drink,all of you:

95 this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood

96 which shall be poured out for you and for everyone

97 to take away all sins.

98 Do this in memory of me.

V

99 Therefore, Lord,

100 we your servants, and your holy people,

101 remember the glorious passion of your Son,

102 his wonderful resurrection and ascension into heaven;

103 thus, while we await his second coming,

104 we confidently approach the throne of your loving mercy;

105-106 we thank you, we offer you this bloodless sacrifice, the gift which you yourself have given us :

107 the pure Victim,

108 the holy, blameless Victim.

109 the victim given that the world might live.

VI

110 We beg you, eternal Lord,

111 receive this Victim, for you desired our salvation through his intercession.

112 Look with kindness on the offering of your Church,

113 an offering made holy by the work of your Spirit.

114 Accept it, we pray;

115 grant, in your goodness, that as many of us as receive the body and blood of your Son,

116 may be filled with this Holy Spirit;

117 may we become in him one body, one spirit.

118 May he make us an eternal offering to you,

119 that we may come to the lasting inheritance the saints enjoy.

VII

120 Above all in company with the blessed, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary,

121 mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ;

122 with blessed Joseph and John the Baptist,

123 your holy apostles Peter and Paul,

124 saint N. (patron of the diocese), saint N. (saint of the day), and all your saints; [in Masses which are not de sanctis the individual priest—or community—may here insert a saint's name of his own choice.]

125 we trust that through their merits and prayers we shall receive your help, as they plead on our behalf.

VIII

126 Remember, Lord, your holy Church throughout the entire world,

127 for which we offer this saving Victim.

128 Be pleased to gather your people from every place on earth and protect them,

129 with your servant our Pope N., and all the bishops of the world,

130 our own bishop .N., and the holy people you have redeemed.

IX

131 We pray, Lord, accept

132 the petitions and prayers of those who have made this offering

133 and all those here present, who offer this sacrifice of praise to make amends.

134 Wipe away their sins through these holy mysteries, 135 and. in your kindness. cleanse them

136 that they may receive forever the gift of your faithful love.

X

137-8 Look on us, ministers at your altar, with mercy, Lord, for we too are sinners.

139 Accept our service kindly,

140 grant that our lives may be true to the mystery we celebrate.

XI

141 Remember also, Lord, those men and women, your servants, who have died

142 marked with the sign of faith,

143 and rest in the peace of Christ.

144 Let them enter, we pray, that place of eternal joy and light,

145 where we hope one day to enjoy with them the everlasting vision of your glory.

XII

146 Through Christ, our Lord,

147 through whom you give all gifts to the world, [when food is blessed here, there is said: ...through whom you ever create all things, and they are good, you make them holy, you endow them with life, you bless them, and you offer them to us.]

148 through him,

149 with him,

150 and in him

151-3 be all honour and glory, to you, God the almighty Father, one with the Holy Spirit,

154 forever and ever. Amen.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

The form and structure of liturgies is something that churches which employ these in worship either take for granted or argue over intensely. But very few people understand how a) these came into being or b) how they should be revised or replaced in times of liturgical change. What kind of theology is embodied in a liturgy? What attention to the rhythm and metre is given? How will a liturgy work in a language other than one the one it’s written in? How well does a liturgy communicate its message, in addition to being the setting for the “sacred pledge” of the Eucharist? All of these important questions frequently get the short shrift, either by defenders of an existing liturgy of by proposers of a new one?

Liturgical change is the time when these questions do get asked the most. Probably the most important liturgical transition of the last one hundred years took place when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was instituted in 1970. That mass was the result of both theological and liturgical forces that had been going on in the Church for most of the preceding century.

Many of those changes—and probably some of the process that led to the NOM—were set forth in Cipriano Vagaggini’s book The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform. Published in 1967, it is a careful and thorough treatment of the subject, and probably represents the thinking of those in charge of the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II.

The focus of his work is the anaphora, which is, by Vagaggini’s definition, “the liturgical text which accompanies and expresses the offering of the Church’s sacrifice to the Father.” The RCC had used the Roman Canon for nearly fourteen centuries and, while Vagaggini is careful to underline the importance of the Roman Canon to the life of the Church, he is also clear that it has its defects as well.

In this series (which starts here,) we will reproduce the various historical anaphorae he sets forth, plus two Projects “B” and “C” which are his proposals (or perhaps those at the Vatican in the process of formulating the then really “new” NOM) for new anaphorae to be used in the church. Vagaggini also has extensive explanations for all of this; consult the book for these.

I will reproduce the English translations of these anaphorae only. Serious liturgists would do well to consult his original Latin, as the translations look like they were taken from the Italian without consideration of the original Latin text. I have tried to winnow out errors in the OCR process but, if you find some, please bring them to my attention.

A general overview of this topic can be found here.

(Here ends the fixed portion of the introduction; the variable portion follows.)

Here we veer away from the ancient liturgies and look at Vagaggni’s own “Canon B, “ “with a movable preface to be used ad libitum in the Masses with a proper preface.”

I

It is good and fitting. ..

Holy. . . Hosanna in the heights of heaven.

II

1 You are indeed holy, Lord,

2 and it is right that your creation

3 gives you unending praise

4 with a voice proclaiming forever

5 that the heavens and earth are filled with the wonders of your glory;

6 for through your Son, Jesus Cnrist, our Lord,

7 and through the life of the Spirit within us

8 vou make all things -live. all things holy.

III

9 We ask, therefore, most merciful Lord,

10 be pleased to bless these gifts, and make them holy,

11 gifts which we offer for you to sanctify.

12 We pray you, bid your Spirit in his strength, to enter them

13 by the power of your Anointed, our Lord,

14 so that they become, for us, his body and his blood,

15 a sacrifice pleasing to you

16 such as he demanded we offer you.

IV

17 For he, the day before his passion,

18-19 gave us in trust this great mystery of the new covenant,

20 an everlasting memorial of his marvellous works:

21-22 in his mercy he ordained before he offered himself on the cross that we too, his humble servants

23 should constantly offer this sacrifice

24 in the mystery of his body and his blood.

25 So, when he was about to give himself to die,

26 he took bread in his holy and blessed hands,

27 looking up to heaven, to you, God, his all-powerful Father,

28 he gave thanks, blessed and broke it: and gave to his disciples saying:

29 take and eat, all of you:

30 this is my body which shall be given for you.

31 Do this in memory of me.

32 In the same way when they had eaten,

33 he took wine and water in a cup,

34 gave thanks, blessed and gave it to his disciples saying:

35 take and drink, all of you:

36 this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood

37 which shall be poured out for you and for everyone

38 to take away all sins.

39 Do this in memory of me.

V

40-42 Therefore, Lord, we your servants, and your holy people, remember the glorious passion of your Son,

43 his wonderful resurrection and ascension into heaven;

44 thus, while we await his second coming,

45 we confidently approach the throne of your loving mercy;

46 we thank you, we offer you this gift which you yourself have given us,

47 this bloodless sacrifice:

48 the pure Victim,

49-50 the holy, blameless Victim,

the Victim given that the world might live.

VI

51 We beg you, eternal Lord,

52-57 receive this Victim, for you desired our salvation through his intercession. Look with kindness on the offering of your Church, an offering made holy by the work of your Spirit. Accept it, we pray; grant, in your goodness, that as many of us as receive the body and blood of your Son, may be filled with this Holy Spirit;

58 may we become in him one body, one spirit.

59 May he make us an eternal offering to you,

60 that we may come to the lasting inheritance the saints enjoy;

VII

61 above all in company with the blessed, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary,

62 mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ;

63 with blessed Joseph and John the Baptist,

64 your holy apostles Peter and Paul,

65 saint N. (patron of the diocese), saint N. (saint of the day), and all your saints; [in Masses which are not de sanctis the individual priest—or community—may here insert a saint's name of his own choice]

66 we trust that through their merits and prayers we shall receive your help, as they plead on our behalf.

VIII

67 Remember, Lord, your holy Church throughout the entire world,

68 for which we offer this saving Victim.

69 Be pleased to gather your people from every place on earth and protect them,

70 with your servant our Pope N., and all the bishops of the world,

71 our own Bishop N., and the holy people you have redeemed.

IX

72-73 We pray, Lord, accept the petitions and prayers of those who have made this offering and all those here present,

74 who offer this sacrifice of praise to make amends.

75 Wipe away their sins through these holy mysteries,

76 and, in your kindness, cleanse them

77 that they may receive forever the gifts of your faithful love.

X

78-79 Look on us, ministers at your altar, with mercy, Lord, for we too are sinners.

80 Accept our service kindly,

81 grant that our lives may be true to the mystery we celebrate.

XI

82-84 Remember also, Lord, those men and women, your servants, who have died, marked with the sign of faith, and rest in the peace of Christ.

85 Let them enter, we pray, that place of eternal joy and light,

86 where we hope one day to enjoy with them the everlasting vision of your glory.

XII

87 Through Christ, our Lord,

88 through whom you give all gifts to the world,

[when food is blessed here, there is said: . . . through whom you ever create all things, and they are good, you make them holy, you endow them with life, you bless them, and you offer them to us.]

89 through him,

90 with him,

91 and in him

92 be all honour and glory,

93 to you, God the almighty Father,

94 one with the Holy Spirit,

95 for ever and ever.

Amen.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

The form and structure of liturgies is something that churches which employ these in worship either take for granted or argue over intensely. But very few people understand how a) these came into being or b) how they should be revised or replaced in times of liturgical change. What kind of theology is embodied in a liturgy? What attention to the rhythm and metre is given? How will a liturgy work in a language other than one the one it’s written in? How well does a liturgy communicate its message, in addition to being the setting for the “sacred pledge” of the Eucharist? All of these important questions frequently get the short shrift, either by defenders of an existing liturgy of by proposers of a new one?

Liturgical change is the time when these questions do get asked the most. Probably the most important liturgical transition of the last one hundred years took place when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was instituted in 1970. That mass was the result of both theological and liturgical forces that had been going on in the Church for most of the preceding century.

Many of those changes—and probably some of the process that led to the NOM—were set forth in Cipriano Vagaggini’s book The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform. Published in 1967, it is a careful and thorough treatment of the subject, and probably represents the thinking of those in charge of the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II.

The focus of his work is the anaphora, which is, by Vagaggini’s definition, “the liturgical text which accompanies and expresses the offering of the Church’s sacrifice to the Father.” The RCC had used the Roman Canon for nearly fourteen centuries and, while Vagaggini is careful to underline the importance of the Roman Canon to the life of the Church, he is also clear that it has its defects as well.

In this series (which starts here,) we will reproduce the various historical anaphorae he sets forth, plus two Projects “B” and “C” which are his proposals (or perhaps those at the Vatican in the process of formulating the then really “new” NOM) for new anaphorae to be used in the church. Vagaggini also has extensive explanations for all of this; consult the book for these.

I will reproduce the English translations of these anaphorae only. Serious liturgists would do well to consult his original Latin, as the translations look like they were taken from the Italian without consideration of the original Latin text. I have tried to winnow out errors in the OCR process but, if you find some, please bring them to my attention.

A general overview of this topic can be found here.

(Here ends the fixed portion of the introduction; the variable portion follows.)

This is the “Anaphora of St. Mark,” which, like St. Basil’s comes from Alexandria, is nevertheless more in the Egyptian tradition.

…Holy, holy, holy Lord of all! Heaven and earth are full of your glory.

Fill us too with your glory, and deign to send your Holy Spirit upon these offerings which you have created, and make this bread the body of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and this cup the blood of the new covenant of our same et Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. And as this bread scattered on the mountains and hills has been gathered to become one body… just as this wine from David’s holy branch and this water from the spotless lamb have been mixed so as to become a single sacrament: so gather together the catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

For our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night in which he gave himself up … (Beginning and last part of the prayer which follows the anamnesis)…your death we announce; your resurrection we proclaim.. . and we pray. .. grant us your servants the power of the Holy Spirit that our faith may grow to the hope of the eternal life that is to come.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom glory is given to you Father with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

I

The Lord be with you all.

And with you.

Let us lift up our hearts.

We have raised them up to the Lord.

Let us give thanks to the Lord.

That is right and fitting.

II

It is indeed right and fitting, holy and just, and most wholesome for our souls, to praise you who are the Master and Lord, God the almighty Father, and to thank and rejoice in you, to speak and to sing of you, in the day and in the night, our lips never quiet and our hearts never silent. For it is you who made the heavens and all they contain, the earth and all that is in it, the sea, the torrents, the rivers, the lakes and all that is in them. It is you who made man in your own image and likeness and bestowed on him the delights of paradise; when he had sinned you did not scorn and abandon him, but in your loving kindness called him again through your law and instructed him by your prophets. At last, you restored and renewed him by this most wonderful, heavenly and life-giving sacrament. All this you accomplished through him who is your wisdom, the true light, your only Son, our Lord, God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

III

It is through him that we offer to you, as also to him and to the Holy Spirit, this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice which all the nations offer you Lord, from the East to the West, from the North to the South. Because great is your renown among all the nations, and in every place a sacrifice of incense is offered to your name, a pure sacrifice, a fragrant offering.

IV

We ask and prav vou Lord that you who are the true lover of mankind may be mindful of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which stretches from one end of the earth to the other; remember, Lord, all your peoples and all your flocks.

Fill all our hearts with that peace which comes from heaven, and give us peace in this life.

(A long series of prayers of intercession are inserted here for various intentions. For the most part they are rather wordy and without much order, with repetitions which show that the text is certainly later than that of the Strasbourg papyrus. So we give here in the footnote, the Latin translation of this passage of the papyrus.)

(Deacon: Let those who are seated rise)

Free the prisoners, come to the aid of those who are in need, nourish those who are hungry, omfort the anguished, convert those who are in error; enlighten those who are seated in darkness, lift up those who have fallen, give courage to those who hesitate, heal the sick; lead all in the way of salvation and gather them all into your sheepfold; cleanse us from our sins, you who in all things are our protector and guardian.

V

(Deacon: Look towards the East)

You are above all kingdoms, powers, empires and dominations, and above every name that can be named, not only in this world but in the world to come. You have around you thousand upon thousand of holy angels and all the armies of archangels. You have before you those most noble beings: the cherubim with the innumerable eyes, and the six-winged seraphim, who use two wings to cover their faces, two to cover their feet, and two to fly. They cry one to another, never ceasing to speak and to utter your sacred praises, singing that triumphal and thrice holy hymn, proclaiming, glorifying and exalting the splendour of your glory:

Holy! holy! holy! Lord God of all! Heaven and earth are full of your glory.

(He raises his voice): All things glorify you at all times, but grant that together with all those who glorify you, you may also receive the praise we offer to you, our Lord and Master, we who praise you with them and say:

(People): Holy! holy! holy! Lord, God of all! Heaven and earth are full of your glory.

VI

Truly, heaven and earth are full of your glory through the coming of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Fill, O God, this sacrifice with that blessing which comes from you by the coming of your most Holy Spirit.

VII

Our Lord and God and sovereign king Jesus Christ, on the night in which he gave himself for our sins and suffered death in his flesh for all men, when he was eating with his apostles and disciples, took bread into his holy and spotless hands, lifted his eyes to you, his Father, our God and the God of all, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke it and gave it to his holy and blessed apostles and disciples saying:

(in a loud voice)

Take and eat.

(Deacon: Stretch out your hands)

(in a loud voice)

This is my body, which is broken for you and is shared among you for the forgiveness of sins.

(People: Amen)

Likewise, when he had finished the meal, he took the cup, filled it with wine and water, lifted his eyes to you, his Father, our God and the God of all, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, filled it witb the Holy Spirit and gave it to his holy and blessed apostles and disciples saying:

(in a loud voice)

Drink some of this all of you.

(Deacon: Stretch out your hand again)

This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for you and for aU men for the forgiveness of sins. (People: Amen) Do this in memory of me. In fact, whenever you eat this bread or drink this cup, you will proclaim my death and my resurrection and announce my ascension, until the time when I return.

VIII

That is why, Master and all powerful Lord, King of heaven, in proclaiming the death of your only Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ; in acknowledging his blessed resurrection from the dead on the third day, his ascension into heaven and his sitting at the right hand of you, Gad, his Father; and in waiting for his glorious and terrible second coming, when he will come to judge the living and the dead with justice and will give to each man according to his works,

-spare us, Lord our God

we place before you these gifts which come from you.

IX

We ask and pray you, you who are the true lover of mankind, to send from your heavenly sanctuary, from your celestial dwelling and unutterable dwelling place, the Paraclete himself, the Holy Spirit of truth, who is Lord and giver of life, who has spoken through the law, through the prophets, and through the apostles. He is present everywhere and fills all things, and he brings about by his own power and not as a minister, the sanctification of those whom he chooses of his own free will. He is simple in essence, but has many different operations; he is the source of divine gifts and consubstantial with you; he proceeds from you and sits with you on the throne of your kingdom, which is also the kingdom of your only Son, our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Look on us and send upon these loaves and cups your Holy Spirit, that, being God almighty, he may sanctify and consecrate them,

(in a loud voice)

and make of this bread the body

(People: Amen)

(in a loud voice)

and of this cup the blood of the new covenant of our Lord, God, Saviour, and sovereign King, Jesus Christ. (Deacon: Deacons, come down.) May we who participate in it find there faith, soberness, healing, wisdom, holiness, renewal of our souls, bodies and spirits, a share in happiness, eternal life and immortality, the glorifying of your holy name and the remission of sins.

X

And in this time as in all times, may your most holy, venerable and glorious name be glorified and praised with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

(People: As it was, is, [and shall be from generation to generation and for ever and ever. Amen]).

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites

The form and structure of liturgies is something that churches which employ these in worship either take for granted or argue over intensely. But very few people understand how a) these came into being or b) how they should be revised or replaced in times of liturgical change. What kind of theology is embodied in a liturgy? What attention to the rhythm and metre is given? How will a liturgy work in a language other than one the one it’s written in? How well does a liturgy communicate its message, in addition to being the setting for the “sacred pledge” of the Eucharist? All of these important questions frequently get the short shrift, either by defenders of an existing liturgy of by proposers of a new one?

Liturgical change is the time when these questions do get asked the most. Probably the most important liturgical transition of the last one hundred years took place when the Roman Catholic Church promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae, which was instituted in 1970. That mass was the result of both theological and liturgical forces that had been going on in the Church for most of the preceding century.

Many of those changes—and probably some of the process that led to the NOM—were set forth in Cipriano Vagaggini’s book The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform. Published in 1967, it is a careful and thorough treatment of the subject, and probably represents the thinking of those in charge of the liturgical reform initiated by Vatican II.

The focus of his work is the anaphora, which is, by Vagaggini’s definition, “the liturgical text which accompanies and expresses the offering of the Church’s sacrifice to the Father.” The RCC had used the Roman Canon for nearly fourteen centuries and, while Vagaggini is careful to underline the importance of the Roman Canon to the life of the Church, he is also clear that it has its defects as well.

In this series (which starts here,) we will reproduce the various historical anaphorae he sets forth, plus two Projects “B” and “C” which are his proposals (or perhaps those at the Vatican in the process of formulating the then really “new” NOM) for new anaphorae to be used in the church. Vagaggini also has extensive explanations for all of this; consult the book for these.

I will reproduce the English translations of these anaphorae only. Serious liturgists would do well to consult his original Latin, as the translations look like they were taken from the Italian without consideration of the original Latin text. I have tried to winnow out errors in the OCR process but, if you find some, please bring them to my attention.

A general overview of this topic can be found here.

(Here ends the fixed portion of the introduction; the variable portion follows.)

Today we look at the “Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia.” That’s a name that can get you into trouble, but here it’s an anaphora in the Edessa or East-Syrian tradition.

I

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God the Father, and the gift of the Holy Spirit be with all of us, now and for ever-more.

May your minds be raised aloft, to the sublime heights, to the awe-inspiring region of glory where the wings of the cherubim never cease to move and the seraphim never cease from singing the sweet praises of your holiness.

They are with you, O God.

The living and worthy offering of our first fruits, the acceptable and unbloody victim, the Son of our race, is offered for the creatures of the universe to God. the Lord of all.

That is right and fitting.

(Deacon: Peace be with us.)

II

It is right, Lord, every day, and fitting at all times, and good at every hour to give thanks to your holy name and to adore your divine majesty in every region and place: you, O God, Father in very truth, who exist from eternity, and your only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever: for you are Lord and creator of all things, seen and unseen: who through your only Son, God and Word, who is the reflection of your glory, the splendour which radiates from you, and the image of your substance, have created and established heaven and earth with all they contain. And through your Holy Spirit of truth, who comes from you, Father, all rational natures, seen and unseen, are strengthened, sanctified and made worthy to offer praise to your adorable godhead.

In truth, Father, there stands before you and before your only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ and before the Holy Spirit thousands upon thousands of sublime spirits, and ten thousand times ten thousand holy angels, whose bliss in life lies in hallowing, by never-ceasing praise, your name, great and holy. Through your grace, Lord, you have once more made our frail race of mortals worthy to give praise and honour, with all the choirs of these sublime beings, to your majesty which controls all things; with those who rejoice without pause before your supreme holiness, in celebration of the glory of your glorious Trinity, exclaiming, glorifying perpetually, crying out one to another, saying and replying: Holy, holy (The priest says this prayer: Holy, holy, holy the all-powerful Lord).

III

(The priest says this prayer of supplication in a low voice)

Truly holy and worthy of praise, Lord for all eternity. You are holy, God our Father, unique and true, and holy is the Holy Spirit, of divine nature, not created, the founder of all things, who is by nature truly and absolutely holy: holy is his name and holy his dwelling place, he who sanctities all those who are worthy to receive the gift of his grace. And we give praise, glory, thanksgiving and adoration to you, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever age after age.

We adore you, Lord, give you our thanks and glorify you for all your gifts to us: for you created us out of nothing, and made us worthy by honouring us with the gift of liberty and understanding: you who are solicitous at every instant to preserve in being the life of every one of us.

In the presence of your great and awesome name, we kneel and adore: and with us give praise and thanks all the choirs of the sublime spirits, because through your inexpressible favour to us, mankind, and for our salvation, your only Son, the Word, although he was the image of God, did not cling to his rank of equality with God, hut emptied himself and took upon himself the likeness of a slave, descended from heaven, put on our humanity, a mortal body and a rational soul endowed with intelligence and immortality, through the holy Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit: he thus accomplished and completed the whole of this great and admirable dispensation which had been prepared in your foreknowledge before the foundation of the world. You have again fulfilled it in most recent times through your only Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, in whom dwells corporeally all the fullness of the Godhead: it is he who is the head of the Church and the first-born from among the dead, and he himself is the perfection of all things, because it is through him that they achieve perfection. He offered himself without spot to God, through the eternal Spirit and sanctified us through the oblation of his body, made once and for all. Through the blood of his cross he has brought peace to heaven and earth. He was delivered up for our sins and he rose again for our justification.

IV

On the night when he was betrayed, with his apostles he celebrated this mystery, great, awesome, holy and divine: taking bread he blessed it and broke it and gave it to his disciples saying: this is my body which is broken for you so that sins may be forgiven. Likewise with the chalice: he offered thanks, gave it to them and said: this is the blood of the new covenant which is shed for many so that sins may be forgiven. Take, all of you, and eat of this bread and drink of this chalice, and do this whenever you assemble in memory of me.

V

We are now assembled just as he prescribed, we, your servants, humble, poor and helpless, to celebrate by your favour the great, awesome, holy and divine mystery by which the salvation of all our human race has been accomplished. (Canon)At the same time we offer praise, honour, faith and adoration to the Father, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and for evermore.

(The deacon says: Pray in your hearts, etc. The priest says this prayer: The all-powerful Lord …)

We adore you, Lord, and give you thanks and glorify you because, although unworthy on account of our sins, you have given us access to yourself through your countless mercies: and you have renewed us and sanctified us by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and made us worthy to carry out this awe-inspiring and divine mystery in your presence, for the salvation of our life: at the same time we profess our faith before you with great thanksgiving for the salvation granted to us by your well-loved Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord. In the presence of your glorious Trinity, and with a humble heart and penitent spirit, we offer this living and holy sacrifice, which is the mystery of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, asking and praying in your presence, Lord, that your adorable divinity may find it pleasing and that through your mercy this pure and holy oblation, by which you are appeased and reconciled, may be accepted for the sins of the world.

VI

Now once again, O Lord, this oblation is offered-in the presence of your great and awesome name, for all your holy and catholic Church: so that your tranquility and peace may dwell in her midst for all time; and that she may remain far removed from persecutions, agitations, schisms and division, and that we may ail be united among ourselves in unanimous agreement, with pure hearts and in perfect love.

And for all our father bishops, priests and deacons, who are in this ministry of truth: in order that they may hold firm and fulfil their ministry in your presence in a pure, radiant and holy manner, and so please your will that they may deserve to obtain from you sublime blessings in the revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And for all the sons of the holy Catholic Church who are here and in every land: that they may advance in adoration of your majesty, in true faith, good works and praises for the salvation of their lives.

And for your servant, sinful and guilty: so that by your grace, Lord, you may pardon my sins and forgive the offences which I have committed in your presence knowingly or in ignorance.

And for all those for whom this sacrifice is offered: so that they may find mercies and graces in your presence, and live. And for the fruits of the earth and the calmness of the air: so that the year may be blessed in your grace and kindness.

And for the whole race of men who are to be found in sin or error: so that by your grace you may make them worthy to know the truth and adore your majesty: so that they may come to the knowledge of you as Lord from all eternity, divine nature, not created, creator of all things, Father, Son and Holy Spirit: and so that they may know that for us men, for our salvation, the Son of God, the Word of God, put on the perfect man, he who is our Lord Jesus Christ: he was made perfect and justified by the power of God and by the Holy Spirit, and be is the mediator between God and man, he who gives life age after age to those who through him have access to God the Father: to whom be praises and blessings for ever-more.

Lord our God, receive from us, by your grace, this sacrifice of thanksgiving, the worthy fruits of our lips so that they may become in your presence a happy memorial of just men of former times, of holy prophets, of the blessed apostles, martyrs and confessors, bishops, doctors, priests, deacons and of all the sans of the holy Catholic Church, of those who have de-parted this world in the true faith, so that by your grace, Lord, you may grant them the forgiveness of all the sins and errors they have committed in sinning and offending you in this world, mortal and subject to change, for there is nobody who does not sin.

VII

We ask, beg and beseech you Lord, that your adorable divinity be pleased, and that by your goodness

(Deacon: In silence and fear)

the grace of the Holy Spirit may come down upon us and upon this oblation, that he may stay and descend on this bread and on this chalice, bless them, sanctify them and sign them with his seal in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: and that the bread may become by the power of your name-this bread I mean-the holy body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and this cup, the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: so that to all those who eat of this bread and drink of this cup in true faith, there will be given the pardon of sins and the forgiveness of offences, the great hope of the resurrection from the dead, the salvation of body and soul, and the new life in the kingdom of heaven.

And make us all worthy, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that with all those who have been pleasing to your will and directed their lives according to your commandments, we may rejoice in the kingdom of heaven in the possession of those goods which will not pass away.

VIII

And here below and there on high we will all equally and in unison profess our faith, adore and praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit now and for ever age after age.

Bookmark to:

Hide Sites