was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.
You are quite right: so far as I can see from my limited reading of the rubrics and approved authors, the priest celebrant should hear himself, but not even the server when he comes to kneel close by at the consecration (to help lift the chasuble) should be able to hear him.
However, it is hard to do this: in my experience, even when kneeling on the first step, most priests reading Mass make their words audible enough for an alert server to pick up where they're up to - and when kneeling close by at the consecration, quite a deal of the Qui pridie is audible.
I know a priest whose audibility fluctuates somewhat during the Canon. I remember when I was Master of Ceremonies for the first time, I sort of ''expected'' to be able to hear the Canon, being right next to him, but not so, one has to read it oneself, and especially be attentive to the Rubrics. Another priest I know raises his voice to an audible whisper towards the end of a particular part of the Canon so that a younger and less experienced MC or Server knows when to turn the page, or ring the bell.
Yes, Joshua, your point is good. But there is a difference between intending to be heard and intending not to be heard. Some hearers might have very acute hearing, however, and hear what they're not intended to hear! And some clergy might well speak quite loudly in order to be audible to themselves! What is unacceptable about Fr Zed's repetition of his error is (1) he says that one ought to INTEND to be heard, while the rubrics say diametrically the opposite; and (2) he is a man who makes a great song and dance about Doing the Red; so that people might easily assume that he is the bees' knees when it comes to accurate information about rubrical law.
Ministers ought to be instructed to *KEEP THEIR EYES OPEN* and on the celebrant *AT ALL TIMES* this is the only way for them to get their cues. The celebrant's hand gestures, which can be seen by the ministers, inspire their actions. The only exception, is the Nobis quoque peccatoribus which is said just loud enough for the deacon and MC (who have slightly turned away from the celebrant) to hear and thus return to the celebrant's side following the commemoratio pro defunctis.
The point is that we all know this: so why does Z (the "expert") get it wrong?
Z's problem is *perhaps* only in the company he keeps. The company being the ICRSS. The Institute are, among other things, famous provincialists. After years of observation, it is obvious that WDTPRS, like NLM, are propaganda agencies of the Institute - caveat emptor. Some might think this baseless detraction - I assure you, it is not (may Psalm 7 be my lot if it is) - but their leadership's goals are to promote hyper-clericalism and that in order to feed the belly that is their god. They glom onto the Old Mass, sumptuous vestments, tridentine buildings, affected Latin diction and precious devotions only in nefarious cause celeb.
I don't disagree with "rev'd up" in terms of his characterization of the Institute, but I'm not sure what the connection is between that and Fr Z's rubrical error?
But whatever the ulterior motives of the Institute might actually be, I suppose I'd attach myself to them if they had a parish nearby, things being as they are. That is, if I were permitted to do so; I once gave some thought to spending Holy Week at Gricigliano, but from the photographs it looks like you have to send in your 8x10 glossy first, and I'd never make the cut.
why all the hostility to the ICRSP here? they do excellent work in many a liturgical and spiritual wasteland. I hope Father Hunwicke puts a stop to this as it is in poor taste and quite unedifying.
To an Australian eye, the aesthetics of the ICKSP can seem a little over the top, but on my one encounter with them (during WYD in Sydney) they seemed dignified and priestly, hearing confessions (giving kindly advice), assisting at Mass in choir, offering the Sacrifice, etc.
As another commenter wrote, even if they are a bit outre and like a good feed (as nearly all clergy do!), I'd far rather have that to put up with rather than Novus Ordo philistines of dodgy views...
In any case, what has this to do with Fr Z?
Perhaps someone ought simply email him and draw his attention to this point: even Homer nods.
Michael: I have a great dislike of censorship. Also, since I start off each subject by spouting all my own stuff, I think it would savour of control-freakery if I replied to, commented on, or passed judgement on the views of readers.
In general terms, I do believe in spotting the Enemy, whom I consider to be the illiberal Liberal ascendancy which, inspired by the Father of all lies is trying to destroy what is left of Christendom, and my instinct is to whack them; and to go easy on what I might consider the failings of those who, in my view, are basically on the right side ... which is my current assumption about the Institute.
In the main, Father, I support your liberality in comment posting; but, as an RC reader who checks your blog nearly every day, encouraged by your thoughtful and respectful ruminations about the primacy, unity, and the Holy Father, my newly founded hope is nearly always dashed by the vituperations of 'certain' commenters (e.g. under the canon law: the question enry-RC priests "under the tyrannical authority of the pope, be he heretic or not," along with constant denigrations of Roman celibacy, and many others) with nary even a mild rebuttal from you.
I don't say you support these snide jabs, but, as I for the first time in my life entertain the possibility of real unity down the pike, it would be heartening to see some of the harsher voices, who in their pride and folly perpetuate divided Christianity, checked every once in a while.
I understand your point Father. Thank you.
Father Hunwicke is exceeding patient and kind to allow for the free exchange of ideas on his blog. Most of his fellow Catholic traditionalist bloggers do not have free and open discussions. I deeply appreciate his liberality and respectfully engage in, as one fellow put it, my "pride and folly" with all circumspection and care - yet I suppose it is "pride and folly" only because they have no better defense of their position. While I am interested in Roman and Anglican unity, I believe that many issues Roman tradies hold dogmatically are open for argument. Understanding that the Roman Church does have a penchant for crushing dissenters, good Roman partisans do their part to suffer no insult. Unfortunately in the end, their argument is nothing more than blind faith in their institution and is all too often opposed to the Faith of Christ. They differ precious little from sola fide Protestants with the exception that Jesus is a bigger part of the Protestant fide.
I take delight in some ancient Catholic squabbles and slights:
-SS Jerome vs Augustine
-S Thomas Aquinas originally condemned the Popes.
-S Benedict not seeking papal mandate for his order.
-The condemnation of Pope Honorius by Pope Leo II!
-S Catherine of Siena's rebuke of the Avignon popes!
-Boniface VIII's suffering in Dante's Inferno!
-The Cadaver Synod of Pope Formosus.
My jabs at the Institute and Z are of such relative inconsequence; what's the fuss? If I may venture a guess; it is because I'm in pay dirt and the complainers know it. In all charity, unless one is ignorant of the origins and early history of the Institute (FYI, Z was there and he still lives off the fat of that land), to (with eyes wide open) defend them is to take up the defense of the damned. They are a ruthless and shallow organization. I recognize that they have extremely powerful lieutenants in the Vatican who would squash me like a bug if they could - Deus, in adjutorium meum intende. Regardless, the truth will win out; the truth will be known.
Yes, I may be a crank, still I reiterate, caveat emptor.
I take it from your tone that you're not some dreadful liberal modernist - what issues, for example, are in fact not determined dogmatically, but are still open questions? I'm intrigued by your allusion.
Further, are you alleging immoral behaviour against the ICKSP's members, or just saying they like to eat and prance around in natty outfits?
... he is a man who makes a great song and dance about Doing the Red; so that people might easily assume that he is the bees' knees when it comes to accurate information about rubrical law.
And that is the porblem. A lot of priestly bloggers (like Fr. Ray Blake) give whatever Fr. Zzzz says far too much credence and have come to believe him as a fountain of all things traditional (liturgically).
Joshua, you are correct (and thanks for noticing) I am not a liberal modernist but rather a rock-ribbed traditionalist with the bruises, cuts, scrapes, missing teeth and broken bones to prove it...
Issue 1) The word "dogma" and its forms can prove dodgy. I don't here apply it to elements of the Faith that are common to all Catholics, ie. the 7 Sacraments, Creeds (more or less), Creation, Trinity, Virgin Birth, Theotokos, end of the world, etc. For me, specifically (and here's the dodgy part) the controversy of dogma involves the few issues the modern Roman Church has dogmatized: these are primarily - Papal Infallibility and Universality, and secondarily the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of BVM. Transubstantiation, however it may be defined today (wink, wink), is another dodgy dogma. I don't need to bore you or anyone else with my blathering on on these subjects: Yet! I must emphasize that simply because I may reject the RCC's dogmatic notions on these things it should not be taken to mean that I completely reject these pious beliefs as articles to be held and treasured. For example in the case of Transubstantiation, I'm content to know - I don't need to know how.
Issue 2) The problems with the Institute are of a moral, or should I say immoral, nature. This is not to indict all members of the Institute (some of whom are ignorant and innocent) but only those responsible or knowledgeable of such immorality. I will not in this venue go into specifics - those can be fleshed out by a reasonably skilled detective - suffice it to say, in simpler, more sincere times many of them would not have fared better than the Baron of Hungerford. The origins of this group in Wisconsin, USA involve felonious, immoral behavior, the violation of the confessional, lying with intent to cause great peril and episcopal non-chalance.
Sorry this is somewhat incomplete, I hope this is of help - I needs go lead the family in Compline.
With regard to what you write of the Institute, I should think that, given how the scandal of Fr Marcial Maciel has come out into the open, and resulted in a very serious investigation of the Legionaries of Christ, it would be strange if the much smaller Institute would not cop it sweet very soon (allowing your statements to be accurate).
With regard to the dogmas - well, obviously if you're not in unimpaired communion with Rome you're not so likely to hold to all Roman dogma (this blog's owner excepted), and unlikely in particular to accept infallibility and all that; it surprises me that the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are seen as dodgy, but I expect you mean this in the sense the Orthodox would - they certainly hold the Virgin to be All-Holy and to have been taken to heaven after her Dormition, but don't like Rome's having unilaterally defined both as required beliefs (yet surely all Western Christians of Catholic thoughts would see that Rome's actions in regards these Marian doctrines is simply the culmination of centuries of theologizing on these points, showing an evident organic development?).
Transsubstantiation - complete with dare I say it a catty Anglican dig at heterodoxy on this side of the Tiber - seems a funny one to be not so sound on: I am personally a Thomist by preference, but as a philosopher put it to me, what the doctrine means is "before it's bread, afterward it's not bread in any sense, it's the Body of Christ", and that I would assume would be the Western and indeed the Eastern view in a nutshell. It is only since Luther et al. that all manner of odd Proddy views proliferated.
Apropos that you bring up the Legionaries. I think that they, the Neo-Catechumenal Way, Distributivists (which oddity is very common in SSPX), the Paulists, Notre Dame University, the Society of S John and the like are all types of what the Institute will become. It is only natural to want to trust and promote a group whose raison d'etre is the Old Mass. Unfortunately, they have covered egregious sins rather than confessed them and made restitution; people suffer as a result. Men of good will can not abide their perfidy.
I see the RCC dogmatic statements on the IC and Assumption as dodgy because these pious hopes, beliefs are denigrated by dogmatic statements and definitions, by which the veneration of our Lady is manipulated to the point of mutilation. Maybe "dodgy" isn't the best word; I use it because it seems the tighter one tries to hold onto the IC and Assumption the more easily they slip through ones fingers. Still, I hold them to be real events, God be praised, despite papal meddling. Same with transubstantiation which, after all, is merely an intellectual construction. Transubstantiation is to the Body and Blood what the Ontological argument are to God - bottom line is that without Faith it is impossible to please Him. Most often what men mean when they use the word Transubstantiation is not how it is defined by either Thomas or other theologians but their belief is, nevertheless, orthodox. Even Thomas was alluding to this in his masterpiece Adoro devote: "Taste, and touch, and vision, to discern thee fail; Faith, that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil I believe whate're the Son of God hath told; What the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I hold."
Please pray for the Fraternity of S Peter which is the most solid of the Old Mass organizations. I believe it may be the object of a takeover attempt by the Institute in the coming year - the Institute is not interested in working with the Fraternity. Archbishop Burke is in the Institutes back pocket and I suspect he will work in their favor against the Fraternity in Rome. The Fraternity are having great difficulty attracting men who are neither sodomites nor Jansenist that give 30+ minuet homilies. To be sure though, the only absolute means by which the Old Mass will survive is if, as Fr. Hunwicke is encouraging through his blog, ordinary parochial priests say it.
What is sad of course is that liturgy always has to play (a poor) second fiddle to ecclesiological models.
Rev'd Up - if you have not already read it you will, I am sure, be interested in this link a colleague sent me:
Thank you for the link Rubricarius - it is new to me, highly provocative and entertaining.
Kennedy really blows his stack (no slight against the Irish (my wife's some Irish), but he's a typical Mic!) I suppose he should have just wagged his arse toward the Heavens trumpeting, "I will not have This Man's vis dominativa over me!" And despite his domineering anti-domination rhetoric and chronic case of diarrhea-of-the-mouth, Kennedy does highlight the (from anyones perspective) maddening dissonance within the church today. He is like the demonic Professor Weston in Lewis' Perelandra.
Oh! Lord, send a Dr. Ransom to pound the crap out of him and cast his corpse headlong into the fires!
Dear Rev'd up,
far be it from me to spurn healthy debate, and certainly the examples you listed show that it has always continued in the Church, even before the Reformation freed the Christain mind from the suffocating groupthink of that "triple tiered tyrant" in Babylon, err...I mean Rome. Certainly Father Newman seemed to be able to engage in it and remain respected in our ranks through posterity.
But you don't debate, nor offer cogent argumentation, but simply cast nasty denigrations and condescending insults, in a callous and self assured manner worthy of Kingsley. You can't be ignorant of the tradition of celibacy that has run through Christianity from the beginning. Certainly our Lord lived it, both Saint Johns, with it being a constant principle in the monastic tradition, East and West. Yet you regard it with an unfounded suspician worthy of a Victorian dowager. Who are all these heretical popes. There are plenty of dodgy ones, probably a good number in hell, and I criticize some of the decisions and characters of recent pontiffs as much as the next, but when you deliberately refer constantly to heretical popes, as a direct attack against your Roman brethren, without ever arguing your claim, what can one infer except you simply mean to offend?
It is not hard to liken you to clerics I have met my whole life. I imagine you think you're quite a martyr for the cause of Tradition, you refer to your bruises, broken bones and missing teeth, and I have no doubt that your ministry has been frought with trial and ill will against you; won't so many of us be surprised however, when we stand before the throne of Grace, to find that so many of the confrontations and tribulations of our lives were due not to our deeply-held beliefs but our grating and belligerent personalities.
Fair enough about me, I am a bit of a G&S caricature. A couple of things though.
1) Jesus was not a "celibate." Likewise neither the Johns(?). Celibacy implies a vow to be made; so when did Jesus, the Johns, make this vow? Why do RCs become so ruffled when the imposed discipline of RCC priestly celibacy is maligned? You should not confuse parochial priestly celibacy with monastic community celibacy. Zut, RCs get so bent out of shape when celibacy comes up. Get with the Scriptures! RCC celibacy "proof texts" withstanding, it is not Scriptural (c.f. 1 Tim. iii.2 & Titus i.6). And yeah, yeah I've been through Virtus training and they said celibacy has nothing to do with sodomy, but they also said that I'm the man in the moon...
2) Come, come let us be reasonable adults - no heretical Popes!?! Tsk, tsk someone's been into the kool-aid!
3) Father Newman, who? If you mean John Cardianl Newman, I think you need to do a little reading. He wasn't as well adjusted as you might hope.
Here's a fun little primer on Newman.
I am no Feeneyite, but what he has to say about Newman bears consideration. Newman was a tormented soul. This is the primary reason his official beatification will *never* take place. The reality is that he was so heavily scrutinized during life(as are the Popes) that if he (and they) were truly *holy* there would be no need for an investigation; sainthood would be a foregone conclusion.
surely you don't feel that that rant which cast aspersions on Newman because he might have Jewish blood means anything. That was ridiculous; Was it written by Feeney or Goebbels? When are you going to present something substantive? Who are the heretical popes, that is which ones? What heresies did they fall into? Plese, be specific. And please, better sources than Feeney, otherwise, I am going to have to stop taking you as anything remotely connected with seriousness. Chortle! Feeney or Newman's subversive Judaism, your too funny....
I take it I was substantive regarding celibacy, no?
As to heretic Popes, the list is extensive (see my post from Aug. 31 for a partial list). You even admit many Popes into hell - though never for heresy!?! Did they go to hell for harboring impure thoughts towards a fair maid's heaving bosom? Ah yes, for such there is fire down below! I am reminded by Purcell: "As the hook is for the jade...as the liquor for the can...queen, slut or harridan, So man, man, man is for the woman made and the woman made for man." Or shall I sing of Barnacle Bill the Sailor? Nothing is worse than a Pope with infant children, nothing!
I can only guess that you are *ready and willing* to nix any and all heretical charges against any and all heretical Popes. Alas, you are undone! Too late! The apologies are as well know (though far less believed) as the heresies. Look up the details yourself, Buck-o, I've got hay to mow.
P.S. I'm glad you got a kick out of the Feeney article, so did I.
And yet I am still left wanting. The list you refer to mentions a few popes, yes, but where is the heresy? You know I am not arguing that all popes are angelic; certainly Boniface isn't to be condemned a heretic for a little simony? Formosus was not put on trial for heresy but corruption, again, a vice I believe, but not as far as I know an heretical one.
Honorius, if anything, proves the doctrine of infallibility, which should always be understood in its negative effect: namely, that the Good Lord will not allow a pope to commit the Church to heresy. Case in point, Honorius was taken in death before he could commit the Church officially to monothelitism, which was an attempt at compromise to begin with. Beyond that, I don't think living in Avignon is a heretical position, at least not in the Middle Ages. Probably any modern prelate living in any part of France will have a goodly number of heresies under his belt.
I wonder if you are in fact a rabid ultramontane, and are trying to prove infallibility through irony?
Post a Comment