Gardone is a small, very beautiful village set just a little way above the largest and loveliest of the Italian Lakes; indeed, since the beautiful baroque church (where we said our private Masses and joined together for a Sung Chapter Mass after the first Paper of the day) is dedicated to S Nicolas, I have wondered whether it may one have harboured fishermen. A little way down, on the lakeside, are grand Belle Epoque hotels and villas built by the German and Austrian monied classes for whom it was the Riviera. It must have been a very plummy posting for the Wehrmacht units which spent 1944-1945 here ... not exactly the Russian Front!
Although the rite normally used at the Roman Forum Symposium is the Extraordinary Form, we did one morning have a Ruthenian Liturgy celebrated by a participant with biritual faculties; and the Conference group contains a wide spectrum of orthodox Catholics not all of whom are 'traditionalists'. Many and different views are exchanged by young and old, male and female, laic and cleric, religious and secular.
Again, we welcomed the great historian of Vatican II, Professor de Mattei, who read a characteristic and fine paper on Islam. At this turning point in the history of the Catholic Church, the Professor is working very hard; the following Saturday he was in England to give a lecture, the text of which you can find at Rorate, at the Ordinariate's main London Church of the Assumption Warwick Street. I break off to point out, with surely pardonable Ordinariate pride, that this former Bavarian Embassy Chapel, with its history going back to before the Gordon Riots, has become such an important centre in London for the dissemination of orthodox Catholicism. Nobody can possibly deny the contribution we are making to the life of the Church!
I am going to risk being invidious by mentioning only one of the other papers: Professor Dr Thomas Stark, an Austrian who teaches at Heiligenkreuz, lectured on the theology of Cardinal Kasper. I do not think I was the only person to be edified by his exposition of the roots, going back four decades, of His Eminence's errors; he is an exceptionally dangerous man. (A version of Dr Stark's paper can be found on CWR.) Also at the Symposium were Eva Doppelbauer and her brother Fr Markus; she works with Gloria TV and had Professor Stark as her Doktorvater. Neither of them is ever dull!
Later, I will have something to say about the very important Lake Garda Statement, the text of which you can find on Rorate.
13 July 2015
600 of them!
I have been extremely cheered to find, on returning to the blogocosmos, an interview with Bishop Fellay in which His Excellency speaks very favourably about the desire of Cardinal Sarah to see the old Offertory Prayers of the Roman Rite incorporated into a future edition of the Missal of B Paul VI.
As the Bishop observes, His Eminence's proposal has been circulating in Rome for some time now. Its enactment would be a superb and authoritative repudiation of the notion, equally favoured (although for precisely opposite reasons) by extreme traditionalists and extreme liberals, that the Novus Ordo represented a formal rupture in Eucharistic doctrine within the Catholic Church, and a significant apostasy from the teaching of Trent.
Of course, His Excellency is not advocating that such an 'improved' version of the Novus Ordo should displace the older form of the Roman Rite which, in his important clarification, the previous Roman Pontiff as the Church's Supreme Legislator and Judge made clear had never been canonically abrogated. That form will necessarily remain available, not only in the canonically erected groups to whose charism it is integral, but to every presbyter of the Roman Rite, according to the prescriptions of Summorum Pontificum and Universalis Ecclesiae.
But, among some traditionalists, there has sometimes been a tendency to believe in 'all or nothing'; that overnight the Novus Ordo should be abolished and the liturgical life of the Western Church be thereby returned to the state it was in before 1962. What may be highly attractive as a fantasy is hardly a sensible practical policy for the reconstruction in Catholic orthodoxy of the worship of Latin Christendom. 'All or nothing' is also an agenda which would see the Usus Antiquior confined to neatly tended ghettoes outside the walls of which the weeds of heteropraxy would grow ever more luxuriant.
The welcome implication of Bishop Fellay's words is that the enrichment of the Ordinary Form is one important element in the long and laborious struggle to reverse those errors which followed (but were not mandated by) the Council. In other words, we have here a welcome glimpse of a SSPX which can be, not a defensive and heavily fortified military strongpoint, but an open source of God's grace to all the Latin Church. At a time when the Society is justifiably thanking God for the Ordination of its 600th priest, and rejoicing in its growing strength and vibrancy, His Excellency's words are a very good sign. They demonstrate a new self-confidence within the Society; a greater willingness to accept that things can happen in 'the Conciliar Church' which merit approval.
A final point. I wonder if Bishop Fellay is aware that the Tridentine Offertory Prayers (and Praeparatio and Last Gospel) are to be found in the Ordinariate Use. Indeed (it sometimes appears that Rome is a place in which the left hand is not always entirely sure what the right hand is doing) I wonder if the staff of His Eminence Cardinal Sarah are all aware of what the CDF sanctioned for Anglicans.
Precedents are precedents!
As the Bishop observes, His Eminence's proposal has been circulating in Rome for some time now. Its enactment would be a superb and authoritative repudiation of the notion, equally favoured (although for precisely opposite reasons) by extreme traditionalists and extreme liberals, that the Novus Ordo represented a formal rupture in Eucharistic doctrine within the Catholic Church, and a significant apostasy from the teaching of Trent.
Of course, His Excellency is not advocating that such an 'improved' version of the Novus Ordo should displace the older form of the Roman Rite which, in his important clarification, the previous Roman Pontiff as the Church's Supreme Legislator and Judge made clear had never been canonically abrogated. That form will necessarily remain available, not only in the canonically erected groups to whose charism it is integral, but to every presbyter of the Roman Rite, according to the prescriptions of Summorum Pontificum and Universalis Ecclesiae.
But, among some traditionalists, there has sometimes been a tendency to believe in 'all or nothing'; that overnight the Novus Ordo should be abolished and the liturgical life of the Western Church be thereby returned to the state it was in before 1962. What may be highly attractive as a fantasy is hardly a sensible practical policy for the reconstruction in Catholic orthodoxy of the worship of Latin Christendom. 'All or nothing' is also an agenda which would see the Usus Antiquior confined to neatly tended ghettoes outside the walls of which the weeds of heteropraxy would grow ever more luxuriant.
The welcome implication of Bishop Fellay's words is that the enrichment of the Ordinary Form is one important element in the long and laborious struggle to reverse those errors which followed (but were not mandated by) the Council. In other words, we have here a welcome glimpse of a SSPX which can be, not a defensive and heavily fortified military strongpoint, but an open source of God's grace to all the Latin Church. At a time when the Society is justifiably thanking God for the Ordination of its 600th priest, and rejoicing in its growing strength and vibrancy, His Excellency's words are a very good sign. They demonstrate a new self-confidence within the Society; a greater willingness to accept that things can happen in 'the Conciliar Church' which merit approval.
A final point. I wonder if Bishop Fellay is aware that the Tridentine Offertory Prayers (and Praeparatio and Last Gospel) are to be found in the Ordinariate Use. Indeed (it sometimes appears that Rome is a place in which the left hand is not always entirely sure what the right hand is doing) I wonder if the staff of His Eminence Cardinal Sarah are all aware of what the CDF sanctioned for Anglicans.
Precedents are precedents!
12 July 2015
LAKE GARDA
I have just returned from the Roman Forum at Lake Garda; if last year's was wonderful, this year's surpassed it! More about that in a day or two. You will remember that I am so primitive that, when I'm away from my home computer (which I think may be a temporis Leonis X model) my emails just stack up.
Earlier today, I had a spot of trouble with the aged computer, which delayed my reading of emails and moderating of comments. I've now been through the 300-odd emails which had accumulated, and done my best to answer those which call for an answer. I think I've enabled all the comments, except for two or three which I binned for the usual idiosyncratic and arbitrary reasons. My apologies if, in my desire to get all this out of the way, I accidentally deleted some proferred comments which I should have enabled. "Publish" and "Delete" are side by side! How can you expect a chap always to get things right?
I add, that I was very impressed by the quality, and the kindness, even of those comments with which I disagreed!
Now I must try to come down to earth. Gardone is a totally magical place; the papers which were read this year were of outstanding quality; and the conversations, especially over lengthy meals, with participants both female and male and of every conceivable age, taught me more than a dozen books could have done.
Why weren't you there? Have you booked for next year yet?
Earlier today, I had a spot of trouble with the aged computer, which delayed my reading of emails and moderating of comments. I've now been through the 300-odd emails which had accumulated, and done my best to answer those which call for an answer. I think I've enabled all the comments, except for two or three which I binned for the usual idiosyncratic and arbitrary reasons. My apologies if, in my desire to get all this out of the way, I accidentally deleted some proferred comments which I should have enabled. "Publish" and "Delete" are side by side! How can you expect a chap always to get things right?
I add, that I was very impressed by the quality, and the kindness, even of those comments with which I disagreed!
Now I must try to come down to earth. Gardone is a totally magical place; the papers which were read this year were of outstanding quality; and the conversations, especially over lengthy meals, with participants both female and male and of every conceivable age, taught me more than a dozen books could have done.
Why weren't you there? Have you booked for next year yet?
11 July 2015
MACARONICA only for Classicists
Ibam forte per Viam Belli Montis .... agnoscitis, docti, sermonis genus ... well, as one does, I turned into Mr Cockerell's Ashmolean ... Atria Gallinacea, do you think? ... for a chin-wag with Papa Lambertini quem dii vocant Benedictum XIV. Haec secuta sunt.
"Ek Dios archomestha ... Papa Franciscus, Beate Pater, dic mihi cur contraria semper dicere videatur?"
"Qualia quibus contraria?"
"Ferream videtur habere mentem qua omnia quaelibet velit propriae suae subicere voluntati. Sed ut omnes sibi cedant eadem voce postulat qua per alios disseminat fore ut episcopi seu eorum conferentiae dispositiones varias faciant quinimmo contrarias et dissonas quibus fidem seu saltem praxim Christianam ad cultus et mores populorum suorum accomodent, repugnantibus aliis aliorum locorum episcopis. Nonne contraria proferre invenitur?"
Pope Benedict looked quizzically down at me. "Quae vos hodierni subsidiaritatem seu decentralisationem vocatis?" He smiled as if inviting me to show my appreciation of his witty descent into trendy barbarisms, rather like a pre-war British judge asking defense counsel And what, pray, Mr Woggins, is a camisole?
"Acu, sancte Pater ... "
"... rem tetigi", he completed the sentence. He cast his eyes around the gallery as if wondering what his fellow Roman Pontiffs in the room thought of the question. "Pusille, audi me. Callide iste meus successor rem gerit. Quae vos Anglicani gessistis ille bene novit. In regione quadam rerum novarum auctores nescioquid agunt quod, si statim per totum orbem terrarum agatur, omnia in ruinam cogat. Quod autem in angulo quodam agitur nonnunquam non animadvertitur. Similem agendi rationem in Ecclesiam Catholicam illi trahere placet, quomodo episcopi Romani permissu Pontificis id agere possint suis in hortulis quod nullo modo in omnibus passim regionibus licitum fuisset. Sed aliud habetis verbum ... "
"Hairesim, Holy Father?"
"Graecismum illudst ... gradualismum volui dicere!"
I must have looked puzzled. He explained.
"Haereses morbi sunt qui gradatim repere affirmarem si gradus ponere possent. Quod uno in loco natum est scelus in alia loca spargitur et deinde in plurima disseminatur. Ut dicam flaminicas digamiam pseudogamiam foeticidium. Haec omnia tu timuisti vidisti nosti."
I must have looked very woeful.
"Tharseite pantes! Nescitis an ille cras moriturus sit seu gubernacula depositurus! Nescitis an successorem habiturus sit Pium quemdam XIII qui pietate Petrina omnia in Christo instauraturus sit! Quid vestra fides valet?"
And lo! I woke up, gallo canente but far from Cockerell's galleries, to find that I was still in my bed. Phantasmata fugite! Omnia optima in omnibus quibusvis optimis mundis!
"Ek Dios archomestha ... Papa Franciscus, Beate Pater, dic mihi cur contraria semper dicere videatur?"
"Qualia quibus contraria?"
"Ferream videtur habere mentem qua omnia quaelibet velit propriae suae subicere voluntati. Sed ut omnes sibi cedant eadem voce postulat qua per alios disseminat fore ut episcopi seu eorum conferentiae dispositiones varias faciant quinimmo contrarias et dissonas quibus fidem seu saltem praxim Christianam ad cultus et mores populorum suorum accomodent, repugnantibus aliis aliorum locorum episcopis. Nonne contraria proferre invenitur?"
Pope Benedict looked quizzically down at me. "Quae vos hodierni subsidiaritatem seu decentralisationem vocatis?" He smiled as if inviting me to show my appreciation of his witty descent into trendy barbarisms, rather like a pre-war British judge asking defense counsel And what, pray, Mr Woggins, is a camisole?
"Acu, sancte Pater ... "
"... rem tetigi", he completed the sentence. He cast his eyes around the gallery as if wondering what his fellow Roman Pontiffs in the room thought of the question. "Pusille, audi me. Callide iste meus successor rem gerit. Quae vos Anglicani gessistis ille bene novit. In regione quadam rerum novarum auctores nescioquid agunt quod, si statim per totum orbem terrarum agatur, omnia in ruinam cogat. Quod autem in angulo quodam agitur nonnunquam non animadvertitur. Similem agendi rationem in Ecclesiam Catholicam illi trahere placet, quomodo episcopi Romani permissu Pontificis id agere possint suis in hortulis quod nullo modo in omnibus passim regionibus licitum fuisset. Sed aliud habetis verbum ... "
"Hairesim, Holy Father?"
"Graecismum illudst ... gradualismum volui dicere!"
I must have looked puzzled. He explained.
"Haereses morbi sunt qui gradatim repere affirmarem si gradus ponere possent. Quod uno in loco natum est scelus in alia loca spargitur et deinde in plurima disseminatur. Ut dicam flaminicas digamiam pseudogamiam foeticidium. Haec omnia tu timuisti vidisti nosti."
I must have looked very woeful.
"Tharseite pantes! Nescitis an ille cras moriturus sit seu gubernacula depositurus! Nescitis an successorem habiturus sit Pium quemdam XIII qui pietate Petrina omnia in Christo instauraturus sit! Quid vestra fides valet?"
And lo! I woke up, gallo canente but far from Cockerell's galleries, to find that I was still in my bed. Phantasmata fugite! Omnia optima in omnibus quibusvis optimis mundis!
9 July 2015
Signing things
Some admirable American clergymen have got rolling a Letter to the Synod Fathers in which they express their support for what the English Clergy said in our letter. Despite some alleged intimidation, nearly 500 English Clergy signed it; considering how large the American church is, surely they will get thousands? Last time I looked, 775 and four bishops.
And where is the rest of the world?
This is the sort of matter in which bulk breeds bulk. It needs to roll and roll. We have an intransitive verb 'to snowball'.
Perhaps in America also there may be pressure or intimidation. I have been told that Catholic clergy generally are more nervous about getting on the wrong side of their bishop than we of the Anglican Patrimony have grown up to be. Our great Patrimonial Dom Gregory Dix deftly said that "the historian grows accustomed to the idea that even the best and most energetic of bishops will one day have rest from his labours and that the lance of his successor often delivers the diocese from the menace of some different windmill." You will remember his quip that, heraldically, the symbol of a Bishop is a crook; of an Archbishop, a double cross.
But, of course, that was in the Church of England, where there were deeply held conscientious differences, often between bishops and the Inferior Clergy, about 'what the Church teaches'. In the Catholic Church, however, things are of course totally different. Mercifully, it is clear what the Church teaches; and, helpfully, dear Pope Benedict laid down that, for the Ordinariates, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is our doctrinal standard. As long as we simply stick to asserting, "in season and out of season", its lucid teaching, Catholic bishops will only applaud us and thank us for doing so.
The Holy Father himself expects us to do this with Parrhesia. Nowadays, scarcely a day seems to go past without him praising Parrhesia!
And where is the rest of the world?
This is the sort of matter in which bulk breeds bulk. It needs to roll and roll. We have an intransitive verb 'to snowball'.
Perhaps in America also there may be pressure or intimidation. I have been told that Catholic clergy generally are more nervous about getting on the wrong side of their bishop than we of the Anglican Patrimony have grown up to be. Our great Patrimonial Dom Gregory Dix deftly said that "the historian grows accustomed to the idea that even the best and most energetic of bishops will one day have rest from his labours and that the lance of his successor often delivers the diocese from the menace of some different windmill." You will remember his quip that, heraldically, the symbol of a Bishop is a crook; of an Archbishop, a double cross.
But, of course, that was in the Church of England, where there were deeply held conscientious differences, often between bishops and the Inferior Clergy, about 'what the Church teaches'. In the Catholic Church, however, things are of course totally different. Mercifully, it is clear what the Church teaches; and, helpfully, dear Pope Benedict laid down that, for the Ordinariates, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is our doctrinal standard. As long as we simply stick to asserting, "in season and out of season", its lucid teaching, Catholic bishops will only applaud us and thank us for doing so.
The Holy Father himself expects us to do this with Parrhesia. Nowadays, scarcely a day seems to go past without him praising Parrhesia!
8 July 2015
The Next Pontificate
I will be honest about this: there are elements of Pope Francis' public manner which are not as much to my personal taste as were the (two very different) styles of his two predecessors.
But my tastes are an irrelevance. No pope is ever equally to the taste of everybody; and Catholics are under no obligation to go around pretending otherwise. The Catholic Church is not a Stalinist tyranny in which whoever is currently the Party's General Secretary has to be unconditionally idolised and all the old photographs have been airbrushed and Clio herself has had a face-transplant.
What worries me is something rather more substantial.
Remember what happened after Vatican II. An idea of the Council grew up, sometimes called the Spirit of the Council. This idea bore little .... correction, it bore no ... relationship to what the Council had actually taught and mandated. But there are people, there are journalists, who, never having read the acta of the Council, believe otherwise. Recently, the Wall Street Journal informed us that the Council had taught that the Old Covenant had not been superseded in Christ. Ordinary Catholics will tell you that the Council ordered worship to be in the the vernacular, and sanctuaries to be reordered. All that.
All of that is the purest moonshine. But it is that moonshine which holds centre-stage, so that post-Conciliar popes (from Blessed Paul VI onwards) have been criticised for "trying to reverse the Council", when their actions have simply been directed to maintaining the Council, to securing a rereading (or first reading!) of its texts, and to elucidating the hermeneutic according to which it should be understood. Enemies of the Faith have no interest in understanding this, and stoutly maintain that false and lying image of Vatican II which they themselves, upon instructions from their Masters Below, created and have so sedulously fostered.
When our present Holy Father abdicates or dies, it is my fear that something very similar will happen. Pope Francis has been thoroughly open about the fact that he is a "loyal Son of the Church"; he has notably upheld her teaching in areas in which the World most virulently detests her, such as Abortion and Marriage and the relationship between the Sacrament of Order and Women. Indeed: his expression of the Tradition is ignored by the Media. And this is partly because he has a deft manner of not being 'in-your-face' in dealing with the World. I suspect he feels that a vision of prelates wagging disappoving fingers at the World conforms to an image and expectation which the World has of the Church, so that it acts as an immediate turn-off. That, probably, is why his expressions of orthodoxy so rarely coincide with some major 'news-story' about the World rejecting the Christian Way. Some Catholics criticise him for this: but it seems to me at least prudentially arguable that he is right. Condemnations, indeed, seem to have done little to turn back the tide; Francis may be sensible in adopting his rather more wily approach. But, whether he is or is not, it remains true that he has staunchly maintained the Church's moral teaching, over and over again, and without ambiguities.
My greatest worry is this. After the present pontificate, the Wolves, the Christ-hating journalists, the unfaithful priests, will forget, suppress, Pope Francis' actual record of impeccable ecclesial fidelity and orthodoxy. Just as the Evil One promoted a false image of the Council, so he will present a false image of Pope Francis as someone who "refused to condemn", someone who "had no problems" with divorce and homosexuality and the other aberrances of the Zeitgeist; a "soft" and "humble" and "loving" and "merciful" pope.
And just as the false image of Vatican II has dogged and hampered the life of the Church for more than half a century, so the false image of Pope Francis will dog the footsteps of his successors. They will, whatever they do, be accused of "trying to put the clock back to before good Pope Francis". A totally falsified picture, a completely unhistorical "Pope Francis", will unceasingly be brandished to harrass future popes and to impede their ministry and to hold at bay the sweet breath of the Holy Spirit. The Ecclesia Militans will struggle on in via weighed down by yet another foul hobgoblin upon her back.
I do not know what you and I can do about this problem. But I think a starting point must be an awareness of it.
Do you think that it may soon perhaps be the time for a black African pope? Either that, or someone who knows his way around curial Rome?
But my tastes are an irrelevance. No pope is ever equally to the taste of everybody; and Catholics are under no obligation to go around pretending otherwise. The Catholic Church is not a Stalinist tyranny in which whoever is currently the Party's General Secretary has to be unconditionally idolised and all the old photographs have been airbrushed and Clio herself has had a face-transplant.
What worries me is something rather more substantial.
Remember what happened after Vatican II. An idea of the Council grew up, sometimes called the Spirit of the Council. This idea bore little .... correction, it bore no ... relationship to what the Council had actually taught and mandated. But there are people, there are journalists, who, never having read the acta of the Council, believe otherwise. Recently, the Wall Street Journal informed us that the Council had taught that the Old Covenant had not been superseded in Christ. Ordinary Catholics will tell you that the Council ordered worship to be in the the vernacular, and sanctuaries to be reordered. All that.
All of that is the purest moonshine. But it is that moonshine which holds centre-stage, so that post-Conciliar popes (from Blessed Paul VI onwards) have been criticised for "trying to reverse the Council", when their actions have simply been directed to maintaining the Council, to securing a rereading (or first reading!) of its texts, and to elucidating the hermeneutic according to which it should be understood. Enemies of the Faith have no interest in understanding this, and stoutly maintain that false and lying image of Vatican II which they themselves, upon instructions from their Masters Below, created and have so sedulously fostered.
When our present Holy Father abdicates or dies, it is my fear that something very similar will happen. Pope Francis has been thoroughly open about the fact that he is a "loyal Son of the Church"; he has notably upheld her teaching in areas in which the World most virulently detests her, such as Abortion and Marriage and the relationship between the Sacrament of Order and Women. Indeed: his expression of the Tradition is ignored by the Media. And this is partly because he has a deft manner of not being 'in-your-face' in dealing with the World. I suspect he feels that a vision of prelates wagging disappoving fingers at the World conforms to an image and expectation which the World has of the Church, so that it acts as an immediate turn-off. That, probably, is why his expressions of orthodoxy so rarely coincide with some major 'news-story' about the World rejecting the Christian Way. Some Catholics criticise him for this: but it seems to me at least prudentially arguable that he is right. Condemnations, indeed, seem to have done little to turn back the tide; Francis may be sensible in adopting his rather more wily approach. But, whether he is or is not, it remains true that he has staunchly maintained the Church's moral teaching, over and over again, and without ambiguities.
My greatest worry is this. After the present pontificate, the Wolves, the Christ-hating journalists, the unfaithful priests, will forget, suppress, Pope Francis' actual record of impeccable ecclesial fidelity and orthodoxy. Just as the Evil One promoted a false image of the Council, so he will present a false image of Pope Francis as someone who "refused to condemn", someone who "had no problems" with divorce and homosexuality and the other aberrances of the Zeitgeist; a "soft" and "humble" and "loving" and "merciful" pope.
And just as the false image of Vatican II has dogged and hampered the life of the Church for more than half a century, so the false image of Pope Francis will dog the footsteps of his successors. They will, whatever they do, be accused of "trying to put the clock back to before good Pope Francis". A totally falsified picture, a completely unhistorical "Pope Francis", will unceasingly be brandished to harrass future popes and to impede their ministry and to hold at bay the sweet breath of the Holy Spirit. The Ecclesia Militans will struggle on in via weighed down by yet another foul hobgoblin upon her back.
I do not know what you and I can do about this problem. But I think a starting point must be an awareness of it.
Do you think that it may soon perhaps be the time for a black African pope? Either that, or someone who knows his way around curial Rome?
7 July 2015
Varus me meus (2)
Placing people within social structures can be so very difficult. Catullus belonged to the 'establishment' classes; somebody had got him onto the cohors of a proconsular governor. But, at least in his poetic persona, he scarcely has a quadrans to bless himself with. Yet in the world that he describes, it is plausible that he should have a lectica in which he could be carried through the streets of Rome, carried loftily above the polloi ... and also apparently plausible that even a pushy little demi-mondaine might be able at least to borrow somebody else's litter (and eight Men) in which to be carried to one of the fashionable Hellenised-Egyptian cult centres. Litters, apparently, were ...
Di immortales! It has suddenly occurred to me! I bet you haven't thought of this! S Peter, when he was in Rome and starting to become a little frail, must pretty certainly have had pressed upon him for his use, by an enthusiastic member of the congregation, a litter, a lectica. I'd call that a moral total certainty ...
When I am elected Pope, I shall restore this beautiful Apostolic and Evangelical custom. I shall be carried around upon a litter, which I shall call the Sedia Petrina. It will be so much more Ecological and Green than those beastly fuel-guzzling Popemobiles used by earlier resource-prodigal Pontiffs. Entirely Fossil Fuel Free, it will be lifted by eight noblemen from remotest Northern Turkey who will be called the Nobili della periferia, in deference to a homiletic commonplace of Decessor noster Franciscus. (Their nobiliary status will be guaranteed by the Seize quartiers principle.) To encourage the humble ostrich farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa, I shall be fanned as I progress with ostrich feather flabella. In order to promote actuosa participatio, the people will kneel and cross themselves as I pass scattering blessings, and, as an Ecumenical Gesture towards Greek Orthodoxy, they will shout Eis polla ete Despota! In deference to Health and Safety (mine), babies will not be thrust up for me to kiss. Security will be in the hands of huge Australians, who will have been trained to recognise and, without any question or second thought, to destroy Jihadists, Sede-vacantists, and Liturgists, even if they're not very good at winning Test Matches. They will be known popularly as the Matildas. The very sound of their simple but uplifting vernacular song will be enough to strike terror into the hearts of any surviving German Liberal Theologians whose names begin with K. Instead of handling News Conferences, Fathers Lombardi and Rosica will be usefully redeployed to conducting a daily auto da Fe. Furthermore, I shall inexorably ... Oh dear, am I getting carried away?
Aurea Saecula! Redeat magnus ille Genius Britanniae!!
Di immortales! It has suddenly occurred to me! I bet you haven't thought of this! S Peter, when he was in Rome and starting to become a little frail, must pretty certainly have had pressed upon him for his use, by an enthusiastic member of the congregation, a litter, a lectica. I'd call that a moral total certainty ...
When I am elected Pope, I shall restore this beautiful Apostolic and Evangelical custom. I shall be carried around upon a litter, which I shall call the Sedia Petrina. It will be so much more Ecological and Green than those beastly fuel-guzzling Popemobiles used by earlier resource-prodigal Pontiffs. Entirely Fossil Fuel Free, it will be lifted by eight noblemen from remotest Northern Turkey who will be called the Nobili della periferia, in deference to a homiletic commonplace of Decessor noster Franciscus. (Their nobiliary status will be guaranteed by the Seize quartiers principle.) To encourage the humble ostrich farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa, I shall be fanned as I progress with ostrich feather flabella. In order to promote actuosa participatio, the people will kneel and cross themselves as I pass scattering blessings, and, as an Ecumenical Gesture towards Greek Orthodoxy, they will shout Eis polla ete Despota! In deference to Health and Safety (mine), babies will not be thrust up for me to kiss. Security will be in the hands of huge Australians, who will have been trained to recognise and, without any question or second thought, to destroy Jihadists, Sede-vacantists, and Liturgists, even if they're not very good at winning Test Matches. They will be known popularly as the Matildas. The very sound of their simple but uplifting vernacular song will be enough to strike terror into the hearts of any surviving German Liberal Theologians whose names begin with K. Instead of handling News Conferences, Fathers Lombardi and Rosica will be usefully redeployed to conducting a daily auto da Fe. Furthermore, I shall inexorably ... Oh dear, am I getting carried away?
Aurea Saecula! Redeat magnus ille Genius Britanniae!!
6 July 2015
Varus me meus ... (1)
"This is how it happened. Me in the Forum. Totally at a loose end. My chum Varus carted me off to see his Significant Other; a dear little bimbo - it stuck out a mile - amusing, sexy, fashionable. She steered the conversation round to Bithynia. 'What's it like there? I bet you made lots of like money while you were on the governor's like staff there.' I told her the truth: that the Governor was an absolute ** ** ** **; so that not one of us had made brass quadrans. 'But' says she, 'you must have got hold of some like slaves to carry your litter. Everybody knows that Bithynia's the like place they come from'. I wanted to look good ... it's the sort of effect a girl has on a chap ... so I said: 'Well, obviously it wasn't so terrible that I couldn't at least get hold of eight upright blokes.' (Fact is, neither there nor here could I lay my hands on a single bloke to put a single stick of broken bedstead anywhere near his shoulder.)
"The dirty depraved little bitch! Her true character showed up in what she said next! 'Darling Catullus, please ... dearest Catullus', says she, 'just for a teensy weensy moment, please lend them to me ... I want to go down to the Temple of Serapis just like so badly ...'"
I will leave you to find out for yourselves, if you don't already know, how Catullus struggled to wriggle out of that social dilemma. Incidentally; a recent commenter on this blog listed Catullus as one of the Roman poets who did absolutely nothing for him when he was being dragged through Latin at school. I find that totally bewildering. As an inquisitive adolescent, in the still heavily censored 1950s, pre-Lady-Chatterley, I found it absolutely fascinating to read about all those things one wasn't supposed to know about ... ... censorship seemed only to apply to the English language books in the School Library. The Latin and Greek sections: no holds barred there; I mean, no holds ... everything was sitting there on the open shelves, available to any third former who had bothered, as I had, to learn his declensions and his conjugations ... even if it did mean acquiring some vocabulary which wasn't on the official O-Level wordlist.
But we digress. I should make clear, by the way, that the above rendering is my attempt to translate Catullus following ad litteram the principles of the infamous Vatican document Comme le prevoit which enjoined 'dynamic equivalence' upon 1960s translators of liturgical books. Didn't I like do well?
Back to Catullus, and 'his' litter, Dv, tomorrow. Believe me, this is important stuff.
"The dirty depraved little bitch! Her true character showed up in what she said next! 'Darling Catullus, please ... dearest Catullus', says she, 'just for a teensy weensy moment, please lend them to me ... I want to go down to the Temple of Serapis just like so badly ...'"
I will leave you to find out for yourselves, if you don't already know, how Catullus struggled to wriggle out of that social dilemma. Incidentally; a recent commenter on this blog listed Catullus as one of the Roman poets who did absolutely nothing for him when he was being dragged through Latin at school. I find that totally bewildering. As an inquisitive adolescent, in the still heavily censored 1950s, pre-Lady-Chatterley, I found it absolutely fascinating to read about all those things one wasn't supposed to know about ... ... censorship seemed only to apply to the English language books in the School Library. The Latin and Greek sections: no holds barred there; I mean, no holds ... everything was sitting there on the open shelves, available to any third former who had bothered, as I had, to learn his declensions and his conjugations ... even if it did mean acquiring some vocabulary which wasn't on the official O-Level wordlist.
But we digress. I should make clear, by the way, that the above rendering is my attempt to translate Catullus following ad litteram the principles of the infamous Vatican document Comme le prevoit which enjoined 'dynamic equivalence' upon 1960s translators of liturgical books. Didn't I like do well?
Back to Catullus, and 'his' litter, Dv, tomorrow. Believe me, this is important stuff.
5 July 2015
The English Missal (5)
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 Ordinary Form. Certainly, in England, the Anglo-Papalist movement which is our own much loved ecclesial background did use the Tridentine Rite, used it and loved it, and suffered persecution for that use and that love. The Missale Romanum was the gold standard, 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. Anglicanorum coetibus makes clear (Paragraph III) that Ordinariate clergy may use the Roman Rite as well as using their own liturgical books, and the Apostolic Constitution makes no distinction here between the two forms of the Roman Rite which exist by law in the Latin Church. And Summorum Pontificum establishes that, in principle, every 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 Rome incorporates the Preparation, the Offertory Prayers, the Libera nos, the Last Gospel, from the Tridentine Rite. These things are seen by Rome as part of the Anglican Patrimony. Roma locuta est.
This series is now complete.
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 Ordinary Form. Certainly, in England, the Anglo-Papalist movement which is our own much loved ecclesial background did use the Tridentine Rite, used it and loved it, and suffered persecution for that use and that love. The Missale Romanum was the gold standard, 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. Anglicanorum coetibus makes clear (Paragraph III) that Ordinariate clergy may use the Roman Rite as well as using their own liturgical books, and the Apostolic Constitution makes no distinction here between the two forms of the Roman Rite which exist by law in the Latin Church. And Summorum Pontificum establishes that, in principle, every 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 Rome incorporates the Preparation, the Offertory Prayers, the Libera nos, the Last Gospel, from the Tridentine Rite. These things are seen by Rome as part of the Anglican Patrimony. Roma locuta est.
This series is now complete.
4 July 2015
The English Missal (4)
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 Jones, Vicar of Wrawby (New Rites ... Right or Wrong?) acknowledged that "the desirability of revising the Roman Mass ... is evident, though haste should be, and probably will be, avoided. Eventually, 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 relevant carefully considered, 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 permissibly interpolated), 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 used 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 Canon, but led the Western Church to the practice of quiet at that part of the Holy Mysteries and that 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-Papalists 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, simply because they believed that Rome had abolished the old rites. We now know that this is not so. Summorum Pontificum 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 out 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.
To be concluded.
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 used 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 Canon, but led the Western Church to the practice of quiet at that part of the Holy Mysteries and that 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-Papalists 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, simply because they believed that Rome had abolished the old rites. We now know that this is not so. Summorum Pontificum 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 out 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.
To be concluded.
3 July 2015
Catholic Ecumenism ... practicalities ...
Fr Aidan Nichols expressed an opinion that the "Declaration on Religious Freedom" of Vatican II "occasions a genuine difficulty for orthodox Catholics"; and he went on to deplore the "withdrawal from theo-politics on the part of the hierarchy", which he considered a "dereliction of duty", concluding "I do not think we can wholly exculpate the fathers of the Council".
Readers will be aware that the Conciliar document Dignitatis humanae, which affirmed the previous teaching of the Church on this subject and then promptly went on to appear to contradict it, is one of the main theological problems advanced by the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre vigorously supported, for all his life, the Rule, the Kingdom of Christ, and regarded this Decree of Vatican II as the main disaster of that Council.
This autumn, at Norcia, the newly formed Dialogos Institute is to take up this subject at a conference October 29-November 1. It will take place in the presence of Cardinal Burke, and include such luminaries as Roberto de Mattei, John Rao, Thomas Pink, Christopher Ferrara ...
Sorting out this problem is one of the real necessities for the reintegration of the traditionalist movement in the Latin Church. Do your bit by supporting this initiative!!
Readers will be aware that the Conciliar document Dignitatis humanae, which affirmed the previous teaching of the Church on this subject and then promptly went on to appear to contradict it, is one of the main theological problems advanced by the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre vigorously supported, for all his life, the Rule, the Kingdom of Christ, and regarded this Decree of Vatican II as the main disaster of that Council.
This autumn, at Norcia, the newly formed Dialogos Institute is to take up this subject at a conference October 29-November 1. It will take place in the presence of Cardinal Burke, and include such luminaries as Roberto de Mattei, John Rao, Thomas Pink, Christopher Ferrara ...
Sorting out this problem is one of the real necessities for the reintegration of the traditionalist movement in the Latin Church. Do your bit by supporting this initiative!!
2 July 2015
The English Missal (3)
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 "Anyone here?", and if the answer were negative, would reply "Good. Latin Mass". Mr Kensit's inventory of the enormities he found in Cury church concluded "But yet more, the Vicar dares to use A ROMAN MISSAL"! At Walsingham, no longer in the Sacristy but since 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 Yelton Anglican Papalism).
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 bother 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 controversies centred round the Presence and the Sacrifice: the extra-liturgical 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 the 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 their 'High Church' Vicar; the Bishop would promise to do something about it when he came 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 Morning 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 Canon 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 see 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 prayers, gummed together, replaced 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 the 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 become 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 worship in S Luke's remained completely 'Romish'; little did they understand the subtleties of whether the "Western Rite" or the "Interim Rite" was in use. All they saw was complex ritual. One old Anglo-Catholic shrine church, All Saints Margaret Street, fell into the hands of such a priest, Fr Kenneth Ross; he 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".
For 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; Anglican 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. The Canon is something we have fought and suffered for.
To be continued.
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 bother 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 controversies centred round the Presence and the Sacrifice: the extra-liturgical 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 the 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 their 'High Church' Vicar; the Bishop would promise to do something about it when he came 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 Morning 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 Canon 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 see 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 prayers, gummed together, replaced 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 the 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 become 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 worship in S Luke's remained completely 'Romish'; little did they understand the subtleties of whether the "Western Rite" or the "Interim Rite" was in use. All they saw was complex ritual. One old Anglo-Catholic shrine church, All Saints Margaret Street, fell into the hands of such a priest, Fr Kenneth Ross; he 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".
For 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; Anglican 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. The Canon is something we have fought and suffered for.
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
