When poor Dr Cranmer composed his Liturgy there was not a lot of evidence about how the Early Church actually did worship. Despite his threefold appeal to ‘the auncient fathers’ in the preface to the 1549 book, we now know that in that and subsequent books a lot of primitive baby got thrown out and a lot of medieval bathwater got retained. This became clear over the next 200 years. And, as early liturgical texts gradually emerged from the presses, those who kept their reading up-to-date became aware that Cranmer’s Liturgy fell far short of what could be shown to be the’godly order of the auncient fathers’.
This left two possibilities: the Protestant option: Cranmer’s Liturgy may not be primitive but it is scriptural and that rules, OK; the Catholic option; his Rite must be reformed in accordance with what is now known about the worship of the Early Church, if we are to be faithful to what he himself set as his gold-standard. (snip)
” . . . during that century there was an assumption that the newly discovered early Eastern liturgical forms were ‘more primitive’ than Western forms such as the Canon of the Roman Mass. The Victorian Ritualists knew better, and a succession of Altar Books increasingly supplemented Cranmer with Roman material (sometimes diplomatically described as ‘Sarum’). This tradition of Altar Books culminated in the English Missal, which dominated Anglo-Catholicism until, after the Council, it lost its nerve and aped the progressive liturgical corruptions adopted by ‘Rome’. Our Ordinariate Missal is, of course, the final and splendid product of the English Missal tradition.
Is there any other of the ‘Reformation’ ecclesial bodies which has had such a succession of theologians and liturgists, since the 1630s, who assented to papal primacy, discarded Reformation texts or supplemented them with ancient liturgical texts, believed in the full reality of the Lord’s presence in the Eucharist, believed in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, offered it daily or weekly?