Daily Office

Christian Renken’s review of Divine Worship: Daily Office (Commonwealth Edition) falls short in its omission of real engagement with the stated purpose of the liturgical provision of the personal ordinariates. This was articulated by the working group established for the preparation of these texts by the Apostolic See: Divine Worship “gives expression to and preserves for Catholic worship the worthy Anglican liturgical patrimony, understood as that which has nourished the Catholic faith throughout the history of the Anglican tradition and prompted aspirations towards ecclesial unity.” This is stated anew in the General Introduction of Divine Worship: Daily Office.

Renken’s review does not take account of this, and the result is a somewhat sterile and personal assessment of the book’s contents, rather than a serious consideration of whether the work actually achieves what it sets out to do. For instance, Renken is critical of the decision to include texts not found in classical editions of the Book of Common Prayer. He derides them as “ultramontane” and calls them “mannered and capricious.” Yet Divine Worship: Daily Office readily acknowledges the primacy of prayerbook texts, and the secondary nature of others. It even calls these latter sources “Supplementary Material,” and does not require their use. Nevertheless, they are included not as outmoded excerpts from the old Roman Breviary, but because they represent in a tangible way the very real aspirations for communion with the Catholic Church of central importance to the Apostolic See. These texts developed as a liturgical recognition of the shortcomings of Anglican polity, and their use – in some cases for over 150 years – pointed toward the explicit goal of communion with the Catholic Church. Was it really ultramontane for Anglicans to pray them, or was it in fact a liturgical outworking of a desire for Catholic communion?

It is tempting for those outside the ordinariates and unfamiliar with the Anglican patrimony to conform their understanding of the liturgical provision to familiar categories. Too often such views are aligned with the polemics that mar serious discussion of the Church’s worship today, and even stray into the dialectics of contemporary politics. It is a serious mistake to apply such a narrow approach to liturgical studies, especially when discussing the sensitive issues that specifically accompany liturgical expressions which, by their nature, derive from minority cultures, customs, and traditions. This rightly guides discussion of liturgical adaptation in settings outside the northern and western hemispheres, such as Africa and the Amazon region, and also more generally in study of the rites of the Christian East. It is only appropriate that the same respectful tone and care of language is used closer to home.

James Bradley, J.C.D.
School of Canon Law
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC