THE TRIUMPH OF FORM OVER SUBSTANCE

As (one of) the oldest members of the (new) Sodality of Mary, Mother of Priests I’m conscious of the paradox that at the same time as one’s memory begins to fade it also reaches back further.  I also realise that the number who can recall events from 60+ years ago lessens as people of my age begin to die off: but it also means one can have a certain clarity concerning events which those who are younger may not have experienced.  We carry history.

One of those events concerns the debates in the 1960’s about the Book of Common Prayer when many were increasingly dissatisfied with the 1662 Rite of Holy Communion. So I’ve been surprised and concerned in noticing people expressing the view that it is a beautiful liturgy from the dawn of the Church of England (a dangerous notion) which helps define its identity (equally debateable).  This is the liturgy we struggled to be freed from so that developments in Eucharistic theology – not least the re-claiming of its sacrificial nature and the action of the Spirit – could be expressed in language not from the 17th century which was often misunderstood, a language which might express the wonders of Elizabethan English but which also spoke to many outside the church of its antiquated nature.

Over the years I’ve noticed that, in religion, there’s always a danger of form taking precedence over substance, feelings over facts.  That what and how we do something becomes more important than what lies behind why we do it – what the form seeks to express about the substance of faith and issues of worship is ignored: this is what I like.  This seems true for Catholics (and Anglo-Catholics) in particular because Christianity is an incarnational religion – matter matters – and so the senses have an important part to play. But I wonder whether, to a greater or lesser extent, it’s true of all denominations – and religions? Is it something of greater concern to the aesthete than the ascetic?

For example, Mass in Latin can appeal to those who love the language and its universality as opposed to vernacular translations only understandable by people who speak that language (of course, those who don’t understand Latin might have a similar problem … ).  Exactly the same would be true of the use of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) or the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible (AV) which can appeal to those who love the cadences of Shakespearian English but can leave most people wondering what it’s saying.

To maintain the use of the 1662 Communion Service ignores advances in liturgical understanding and developments in the way texts created at a particular time reflect the social and theological understanding of those times. It also ignores the compilers statement that: IT is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people. (Article XXIV) 

Finally, it ignores the way Anglo-Catholics, in particular, struggled to persuade the Church (of England) to develop a more theologically ‘catholic’ eucharist, a struggle seemingly forgotten by those who still support use of the BCP Communion Service (although few, I imagine, would use the Rite as instructed by the rubrics).  The way our forebears created the English Missal (and influenced the Rite of 1928) seems forgotten or overlooked even though these were enormous improvements on 1662 whilst keeping the cadences of BCP English.

Whilst this is true for the Communion Service it is equally true for the two Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer and liturgical developments in the RC Church and Church of England. As a former Religious I was involved in this and noticed that all Orders set about revising their Offices – to the extent that the Society of St Francis spearheaded those revisions resulting in Common Worship.  Those for whom the Office - especially the psalms - is the centre of their life and who pray it four - or seven - times a day it was clear that the form and language of the old Prayer Book did little to enable a living relationship with God - the language might be of interest to classists but simply didn't carry the prayer of those for whom the Office was central. It felt like two lovers, one of whom was talking to the other in an outdated language. Eventually every community has revised their Office and enriched their common prayer so that no Anglican Order now wojld consider using the 1662 version.  

In a similar way it was Anglican Religious who were at the forefront of developing the use of Plainsong (e.g. CSMV Wantage and the Manual of Plainsong).  They were also involved with creating more recent chants both of which have been realised as important aids to prayer in a way Anglican Chant can never be – so no Anglican Order has ever used that chant in its common Office.  Plainsong has a meditative quality lacking in Anglican Chant, possibly one of the main reasons why (unlike Plainsong) Chant rarely features on the radio in people’s choice of ‘meditative music’.

I’ve noticed a tendency to see both Anglican Chant and the BCP as defining the essence of Anglicanism.  Yet, surely, for Catholics these can only be a historical expressions lest a particular theology and liturgical usage emerging out of a specific geographical reformation, becomes an idol.  The importance of Catholic Societies such as the Sodality of Mary which ‘seek(s) to renew our Anglo-Catholic heritage and look(s) to the heroic priests of the past to inspire us and strengthen us’ (http://sodalityofmary.co.uk/about-us/) is to maintain and promote catholic form and practice.  Catholics need to be concerned with the substance of that faith, worship and sacramental teaching, and recognise the dangers of being attached to the forms that faith has taken, especially when these were developed as a re-action against Catholic practice.

After publication of the revised Eucharistic Rites by the Roman Catholic church (the Missale Romanum revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Council and published in 1969) use of the previous ‘Tridentine Mass’ was forbidden (an instruction recently re-iterated).  Given the changes to the Church of England Eucharistic Rite finalised in 2000 consequent to the recovery of the fundamental, creative place of the Holy Spirit and the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, perhaps our Church should have done the same (although I hate to think of the outcry there would have been)? 

For both Roman Catholics and Anglicans the issue is the same – is the Liturgy to be a living celebration or petrified (if beautiful) totem?