Fr Hunwicke. English Missal

Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
Fr John Hunwicke

The English Missal

Part I


Go into any Anglo
Catholic sacristy in England and, gathering dust on some top
shelf, you will find

The English Missal


And probably more
than one copy in more than one edition.

Fr Henry William Gordon Kenrick, 1862
evangelical in origin, he trained at the London Divinity School. Having discovered
the Catholic Faith, he was, from 1
905 until 1937, Vicar of Holy Trinity Hoxton;
years in which Anglo
Catholicism flourished in the Church of England, in its most
Tridentine form.

The genesis of his


appears to be a Missal, hand
written for the most part
beginning of 1907, which is now in Pusey House
used it at the Altar "for some time and then translated into English, made many
additions then got it printed as 'The English Mis
sal'". Published in 1912,
throughout its history it bore the publisher's name of W Knott.

In his introduction to the original manuscript Missal, Fr Kenrick nervously states
that its "idea" was "to group the great pictures of the world around the Altar ...
There is here also an attempt to combine absolute loyalty to the English Church
and Liturgy with the felt want of systematic aids to the private devotions of the
priest". This device ... the provision of private devotions ... goes back to the
beginning of
the provision of Anglo
Catholic Altar Books; the erudite Rector of
North Cerney, Fr P G Medd (compiler also of the Prayer Book in the original Latin
of its Medieval and earlier sources), produced

The Priest to the Altar

in 1861
("privately ... sold to subs
cribers) "after some consultation with Canon Liddon and
other friends resident in Oxford" (Liddon himself was accustomed to say the
Canon of the Mass in Latin

sotto voce
when celebrating the Communion). In this
book, short passages coyly labelled "(Sarum)"
provided, in English, extracts from
the Roman Rite.

But Kenrick's manuscript goes much further than these earlier publications. It
consists of nothing less than the entire Prayer Book eucharistic rite (homilies and
all) in English, with almost the entire R
oman Rite
in Latin.

Fr Kenrick writes "The
Latin parts are sanctioned in principle by the Preface in the Book of Common
Prayer 'Concerning the Service'. One who desires to use only the Prayer Book can
do do by reading only the English parts of this book. An
y exceptions need the
sanction of the Bishop".

A priest using Fr Kenrick's Missal would say the Preparation at the foot of the
altar, and the Introit, in Latin; followed by the introductory material from the
prayer book (including the Commandments and the
Collext for the King) in
English, until he had read the Collect and Epistle for the day. He would then revert
to Latin for the Gradual. Later in the service he would incorporate the Roman
Canon before and after the Prayer Book Prayer of Consecration, and c
ontinue in
Latin with the Lord's Prayer and all the other Roman material up to the
Communion. After Communion he would say the Lord's Prayer

again, but this
time in English.

and the rest of the Prayer Book material up to the end of

Gloria. Placeat

followed, and then the Prayer Book blessing (during which,
since the Blessed Sacrament was still upon the Altar until the Ablutions, he had to
genuflect before turning to bless the people).

Part II


After this, he would revert to Latin and use all the elements of the Roman Rite
from the communion up to the end of the Last Gospel; the only compromise being
that he would not say

Placeat tibi

and bless the people a second time. Despite Fr
Kenrick's disavowals, this is clearly a rite compiled by a man anxious to say as
much as possible of the Tridentine Mass, and to say it in Latin. And Fr Kenrick
could justify all this by neatly claiming that i
ts very language marked out his Latin
materials as only "private devotions of the priest". Mass at Hoxton cannot have
been brief.

Copies of the first printed edition apppear to be quite rare; it did not give the Latin
texts of the Propers, but translated t
hem into English. But it obviously supplied a
need, because the second and subsequent editions abound in churches all over
England and were still being purchased and used in the 1950s.

But, as the century progressed, Kenrick's nervous protestations of loya
lty to the
Prayer Book gave place to a new attitude among Anglo
Catholics, which was
doctrinally and ecclesiologically based. An influential book

The Truth about the
Prayer Book

was published in 1935 by Fathers Alban Baverstock and Donald
Hole, in which th
ey argued that the Prayer Book was in fact illegitimate and the
Roman Rite the truly lawful liturgy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York (this
was how many Anglo
Papalists preferred to refer to their Church; it was two
lamentably separated provinces of
the Western Church and not, as the phrase
'Church of England might suggest, an independant ecclesial body). "The Missal
and Breviary formed the only 'prayer book' possessing canonical authority in the
Church of England. Then, suddenly, an entirely new litu
rgy was forced upon the
English provinces by the authority of Parliament. It possessed no spiritual or
canonical authority whatever. Its introduction was in no sense the act of the Church
of England, it was thrust upon an unwilling Church at the point of a

sword." Even
more significantly, they were inclined to argue that, anyway, "it would have

ultra vires

for a provincial synod to abrogate a rite which had the prescriptive
use of a thousand years behind it in the West".

This Altar book existed in many

places in combination with the


Depending on how 'instructed' his congregation was, a priest might use

English Missal

on Sundays, and the

Missale Romanum
on weekdays, and
particularly at private Masses. The culture was: the

Missale Rom

is the truly
lawful book of the Western Latin Church of which we are (sadly, canonically
separated) members members; the

English Missal

is a way of working towards that

Part III


Thus it is recorded of one of our more eccentric clergy, Fr Sandys Wason, of Cury
and Gunwalloe, that as he approached to Altar on dark weekday mornings, he
would murmur to his server "A
nyone here?", and if the answer were negative,
would reply "Good. Latin Mass". Mr Kensit's inventory of the enormities he found
MISSAL"! At Walsingham, no longer in the Sacristy but sin
ce the 1960s preserved
among the archives, are large numbers of the

Missale Romanum
, showing many
evidences of long and continuous use. And there were churches in which
everything, even on Sundays, was Tridentine and in Latin (details in M


Since the revival of 'ritual' in the Church of England, there had been a tendency for
the Advanced, Extreme behaviour of one generation to have become 'mainstream'
in the next. Thus, as the twentieth century progressed, there was much less bothe
about the perceived enormities of the previous century, such as candles, Eastward
Position, the Mixed Chalice, Mass vestments, even incense and sacring bells.
Many of the bishops were now doing these things or some of them themselves. The
new controversi
es centred round the Presence and the Sacrifice: the extra
cultus of the Blessed Sacrament (Benediction, Exposition, Corpus Christi
Processions); and the Canon of the Mass. In other words, bishops did their best to
ban Benediction and to stop th
e interpolation of the Canon of the Mass, said
silently, before and after Cranmer's Consecration Prayer.

This made the bishops very unpopular. Just imagine. A group of disaffected
Protestant laity would go to a bishop with their list of complaints about th
eir 'High
to appoint the next Vicar (the present one enjoying Parson's Freehold, and hence
being unsackable). But what Protestant laity very often wanted was the return of
g Prayer instead of the Eucharist as the main service on a Sunday morning;
if not that, they desired at least the removal of incense, chanting, servers, candles,
bells. Their list of desired 'reforms' would almost certainly not include the removal
of the C
anon of the Mass, for the very simple reason that the Vicar said it silently
during the singing of the Sanctus and Benedictus. They had never heard it and so
they didn't even realise that they ought to be violently against it! The bishop would
promise to s
ee that the next Vicar was less Extreme. When the time came, he
extracted from candidates for the job an undertaking that they would abandon the
Canon and, in its place, use the "Interim Rite" (which meant that two of Cranmer's
placed the Canon).

The Low Church Laity were furious. They knew nothing about the importance of
the Canon, and gave the Bishop no credit for its elimination. All they saw was that
the Bells and Smells continued. They were convinced that the Bishop had done

dirty on them. Bishops became, in their eyes, devious and deceitful men who broke
their promises; shifty individuals, hand in glove with 'extreme' clergy, who never
looked you in eye. Catholic clergy and laity were as damning; when the living had
me vacant, the bishop had assured them with his nicest pastoral smile that he
would "maintain the Catholic Tradition" at S Luke's; instead, he appointed a
member of the group which was coming to be called "Protestants in Chasubles".
To outsiders, the worsh
in use. All they saw was complex ritual. One old Anglo
Catholic shrine church, All
banned from the hospitality of his altars clergy who used the Canon. Wagging a
forefinger, he would say "You know the rule here, my dear; choreography
according to Fortescue

but libretto by Cranmer

some half a century, the Anglo
Papalist clergy were persecuted for using the
Canon. This resulted in an awareness of its enormous importance being branded
deeply into their (our) memories. Even today such persecution continues in the
Church of England; Ang
lican diocesans intimate that they will not make a fuss
about any liturgical practice however technically illegal

as long as an Anglican
Eucharistic prayer is used.


Part IV


The 1960s came as a nasty shock to Angolo
Catholicism. They were expecting
reform from Rome, but not the sort of radical rupture which was to occur. Thus,
writing in 1962, a Fr Bertram J
ones, Vicar of Wrawby (
New Rites ... Right or
) acknowledged that "the desirability of revising the Roman Mass ... is
evident, though haste should be, and probably will be, avoided.

, it is
almost certain, a revised Roman Mass will emerge,
with the Latin Canon inviolate
but much, if not all, of the audible part in the vernacular". He urged, for use within
the Church of England, "the interim policy of treating the Roman Mass in Latin as
the norm to be used whenever and wherever,

all things re
levant carefully
, it is practicable to use it; the rite of 1662 and the vernacular for the
audible parts as the only permissible deviations from it; and the Gregorian Canon,
silent and in Latin (with the 1662 Prayer of Consecration


as of strict obligation in every Mass".

Fr Jones was, as most Anglo
Catholic clergy still were, very attached to the Roman
Canon. He cited "a former Regius

Professor of Divinity and certainly no uncritical
admirer of all things Roman, Dr Alexander Nairne" as calling it "the best of
prayers (if not the best of all Latin compositions) in its direct, unadorned
prayerfulness". He strongly prefered that it be use
d in Latin, reminding readers that
"'to be learned in the Latin tongue' was a requirement laid down no less for
Anglican ordinands than for Roman". As for the silent recitation, he had "no doubt
that the Holy Spirit has not only inspired the words of the C
anon, but led the
it is unlikely ever to be abandoned".

Within five years, a raw policy of naked aggression against Tradition had put paid
to everything which Anglo
ts such as Jones thought to be obvious. Since
they had always believed in Roman Authority over Liturgy, reluctantly, they
buckled down to the new rites,


because they believed that Rome had
abolished the old rites. We now know that this is not so.


clarified the matter (which had remained uncertain ever since a
Committee of Cardinal Canonists in the 1980s had come to the conclusion that
ythe old Roman Missal had never canonically been abolished, their report being
left unpublished o
ut of fear for its possible consequences).

A few churches continued to use the English Missal, but they were regarded as
eccentric. It was the authorisation of the Ordinariate Rite which restored the
substance of the

English Missal.

Part V


In conclusion, I would like to make a few remarks about principle.

I have heard it argued that the Extraordinary Form is not part of the Anglican
Patrimony. I find this difficult to understand,
and, if you have read the first four
parts of this piece, so will you. Of course, the Extraordinary Form was never
officially authorised in the Church of England or the American and Australian
branches of the Anglican Communion.

But, then, neither was the

Certainly, in England, the Anglo
Papalist movement which is our own much
loved ecclesial background


use the Tridentine Rite, used it and loved it, and
suffered persecution for that use and that love. The

Missale Romanum

was the gold
dard, with the

English Missal

providing, over half a century, an intermediate
stage in the journey towards its full adoption. That is the place we have come from.

In any case, the Magisterium has solved the matter.

clear (Para
graph III) that Ordinariate clergy may use the Roman Rite as well as
using their own liturgical books, and the Apostolic Constitution makes no
the Latin Church. And



establishes that, in


Catholic priest of the Latin rite may use the Extraordinary Form
without permission either from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. To put the
seal on it, the Ordinariate Order of Mass promulgated by Rom
e incorporates the
Preparation, the Offertory Prayers, the

Libera nos
, the Last Gospel, from the
Tridentine Rite. These things


seen by Rome as part of the Anglican

Roma locuta est.

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 18100595
    Размер файла: 37 kB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий