28 November 2019

DILEMMA

I need your help with this ... A little while ago, a kind friend gave me a full-size Sarum Missal. I'd better not tell you who it was because you might all start banging on his door demanding a copy for your greedy selves.

I have now embellished it with tabs and ribbons extracted ('harvested' is the term the Organ Transplant Community would use) from a quaint old 1970s volume called "The Sacramentary". So it is now (what that strange and really rather sinister Mr Johnson, our equivalent of Trump, would call) "oven-ready".

But is it OK for me to use it? I would like to do so this week because it would give me a chance to say those ancient Propers for the Sunday Next Before Advent which I explained to you last Saturday and Sunday. (You must remember, Austin Ivereigh, that I am only a convert, so I am a bit vague about all this sort of stuff.)

Accordingly, I turned to the Missal I currently normally use each morning, because in the front it has a perfectly splendid Bull of S Pius V, the Hero of Lepanto. It is called Quo primum and dated 1570. I read it carefully and discovered that the Pontiff strictly ordered that those possessing a Use more than two centuries old should, must, continue to use that. The only exception he allowed was if a Bishop, with the consent of his entire Chapter, desired to convert to the 1570 book.

Now, this is where I need your assistance.
(1) Which English diocesan bishops, who canonically held their sees in January 1559, were still alive in 1570 and had not formally resigned those sees?
(2) Which of those bishops did summon their entire Chapters and secure from them a unanimous vote to abandon Sarum (or York or Hereford ...) and to change over to the 1570 book?
(3) Since 1850, have any bishops of the Pio Nono hierarchy, cum universo Capitulo, performed these necessary formalities?
[(4) Purely out of curiosity, I wonder if the Old Chapter of the English Secular Clergy ever had this on its Agenda.]

Of course, I need to have this large body of information back from you (as I once heard one of our delightful Oxford Pakistani taxi-drivers say) "pretty damn' quick" (very Huree Jamset, don't you think?).

27 comments:

Patrick Sheridan said...

Just use it! All this legal positivism gets on my nerves. Unless I am being obtuse and this is another joke?

Stephen v.B. said...

As far as I can see - having skimmed lightly through the relevant lists of bishops - the only candidates are Archbishop Heath of York (died 1578) and Bishops Watson of Lincoln (died 1584) and Goldwell of St. Asaph (nominated to the See of Oxford by Mary, but not installed, died 1585). But since Watson was kept under close guard for the last 25 years of his life, and Goldwell had fled to Italy, it doesn't seem likely that they managed (or even tried) to convoke a full chapter at any point; I assume the same goes for Heath. Thirlby of Ely died in August of 1570, Turberville of Exeter (perhaps) sometime in the same year; a bit too soon to have responded to Quo Primum, one suspects. (Quite a lot of bishops seem to have expired in the years 1558-1560; stressful times, after all ...)

I think one might - tentatively - give Sarum the benefit of the doubt!

Fr PJM said...

In dubiis, libertas, dear Father, libertas.

Fr PJM said...

Father, I ask with trepidation, if this is a reprint which someone has made, maybe we could have the pdf file and print our own? Could a case be made that since 1763, when Wolfe defeated Montcalm at Qu├ębec, Canada was an extension of England and so...

pj said...

"What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." (http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi.html) Sarum was sacred for earlier generations, so it cannot be forbidden to use the Sarum Missal, regardless of what the English bishops have done.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

Dear Father. One wonders just how many deplotables voted for Mr. Johnson because the "acceptable" establishment in England has ruint the country.

Those who voted for Trump are seeing the American establishment/ Deep State trying to overturn the election which will lead ineluctably to civil war for if the establishment won't let ballots count, then bullets will follow.

Mr. Johnson is not the problem. The English establishment is and it has run the country into the ground. It is they who are despicable and sinister.

The excellent Jewish historian, Martin von Creveld, notes that Diversity + Proximity = war but our establishments are o so much wiser...

He is ignored by the establishment but he has noted how mass immigration is war by other means.

Marc said...

This is one of those circumstances in which I'd judge it best to ask for forgiveness after the fact (from whom, in your case, am not sure).

The question of whether it's licit to use the Sarum Missal on occasion hasn't already been discussed in Ordinariate circles? Indeed, I have a vague recollection that it's happened here-- my memory is increasingly unreliable, however, and in any case 'discussion' doesn't settle the question, does it.

PseudonymousposterJohn said...

Dear FR.,
Notwithstanding the comments I just left on your 'Death of' post of the 15th., to the effect that clergy using the Sarum version must have abandoned it mostly just for ease, I think your opinion is entirely right. Until every diocesan has formally abrogated it, it lives on. Unless we say that, what? the English dioceses of the Church of Cardinal Pole have receded into history and those of the present catholic Church are a new establishment of the Roman See with its current rite(s) and so know nothing of the Sarum rite?

So that would effect what? The modern Church knows so little of it, it won't abolish it; it remains unabolished because the dioceses that DID know it are not available to perform the abolition. So it still lives. Would it then become a question whether it was illicit in dioceses of the modern establishment, or available at will or in fact, binding and mandatory?

Fr Edward said...

1. Ely – Thirlby – d. 1570
2. Lincoln – Watson – d.1584
3. York – Heath – d.1579
4a. St Asaph – Goldwell – d.1581
[Wood – temporalities granted 5th November 1558 but custody of temporalities insufficient by themselves without confirmation by the Spiritual authorities.]
4b. and very nearly Oxford – Goldwell (trans.) – d.1581
“Thomae Goldwell modo Episcopo Asaphensi, et nunc nominato per translationem dicto Episcopatui Oxoniesi” (temporalities granted 25th October 1558 but custody of temporalities insufficient by themselves without confirmation by the Spiritual authorities.)

No meetings of Chapters with Marian bishops re. the matter in hand

That’s as far as I’ve got before dinner

E sapelion said...

But does Quo Primum allow for the prohibition of the 200+y-o rites? In the translation I have looked at, it permits the use of the 1570 Missal, with the permission of either the ordinary or the whole chapter, but does not ban continued use of the older missal.

neilmac said...

Hagan lio - You know it makes sense!

E sapelion said...

This new rite alone is to be used unless ... , or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

Matthew F Kluk said...

Happy Thanksgiving Father.

Geraldine Lamont said...

I would say yes, Quo Primum clearly permits it. I make the reservation that I do not know which version you are using. Queen Mary produced a prayer book for all England and Wales in I think 1557 - I was able to examine a copy in Australia. That book should eventually be made not only permitted but compulsory for all masses in England and Wales except for monastic rites - in fact for all I know it still is legally compulsory. All the more reason to start using it.

Joshua said...

I recall reading of Sarum Rite Masses offered by Catholics in England in the nineteen eighties, or was it the nineties...

All went well till some overly scrupulous person timorously wrote to Rome for permission, which drew down on them pressure from the Powers that Be to play nicely and use the Roman Rite; how sad.

Matt said...

What about Dr Maurice Clenock (Bangor)? His election was confirmed to the See in 1548 but he fled to the continent before his consecration - likely making it hard to convene His Chapter! Died 1581.

Did the current Anglican rule that the man becomes Bishop of the Diocese upon his confirmation of election (regardless of whether in Episcopal Orders) apply at this time?

neilmac said...

A message for Geraldine Lamont or anyone else who may have the information:

I am very interested to learn of the prayer of Queen Mary that you mention. Is there anywhere where one may be able easily to find a copy? I am afraid that a trip to Australia is not possible.

Fr. David Evans said...

Am I being obtuse ? But is the Rite to which you refer one of the authorised Rites available to Priests of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham ?

Society of St. Bede said...

Dear Father,

I have in my possession a scan of a letter from the PCED dated 10th December 2013, and signed by +Guido Pozzo.

"In relation to your first question, this Dicastery confirms that the Use of Sarum, whilst no longer in regular use, has never been formally abrogated.

"In relation to your second question, it is the judgement of this Pontifical Commission that any celebration of the Liturgy according to the Use of Sarum is to be carried out under the responsibility and supervision of the Ordinary"

I can send this scan via e-mail if needed.

J.S. Ahmad said...

As an acquaintance on the commission formerly known as Ecclesia Dei remarked (when I asked a battery of similar questions): "Just do it!"

The Saint Bede Studio said...

As another acquaintance on the commission formerly known as advised when I discussed similar matters with him in a phone conversation : "Don't ask too many questions" ....

PseudonymousposterJohn said...

I think the quote by E Sapelion of Quo Primum is conclusive. It would require a positive act of abolition to prohibit it.

But there is the question of performance. I believe that in the past we have had some discussion about the exact ceremonial. Things mentioned in texts are easy to spot, but one of the new features of Trent was that it supplied complete instructions in the book that used to be supplied by knowledge and tradition. Sarum is silent about some things and when it was current, everybody knew what to do. (My views on the Nestorian rite are even more trenchant...)

So as I said in the post about Dr Rock, what have people meant when they said, Sarum rite?
And I wondered if a nineteenth century priest would really have omitted for instance the genuflections by then usual.
- I assumed any gaps in knowledge would be supplied by the usual Roman practice;
But that certain things about the exact performance of the Sarum use remain obscure; including the time of making the chalice. This is from memory. I made the lazy assumption of,
At the gradual when there is music, and before mass when there is not. But I believe scholars are not certain. There was known to be variation.

John Patrick said...

Well said Mr. ABS.

One minor correction. The English Establishment turned over all important decision making to the un-elected bureaucrats at the EU to they could run Europe, and Britain with it, into the ground, thus allowing the English Establishment to evade any responsibility for it.

Nick said...

If it is an ancient liturgical use of England, which it is,then how could it ever be forbidden? No Pope can forbid an ancient liturgical Tradition, regardless of any claim to the contrary. Why do we overcomplicate everything? Use it Father! :)

Geraldine Lamont said...

The Australian copy of Queen Mary's Prayer Book was brought out to Australia by the Benedictines. There will certainly be copies in the Bodleian and the British Library; the only copies are original ones as it has never been reprinted. The versions of the Sarum rite that were reprinted are earlier missals, and the reprinting and editing was done by Anglican scholars. High time Queen Mary's book was reprinted,

Joshua said...

Consider the parallel with the Mozarabic Rite in Spain: omitting a long description of its decline, near extinction and happy preservation in a select few places, it must be noted that it is celebrated nowadays by permission of the relevant Ordinary, if I have understood it aright.

Prayerful said...

Fr, could you share the details of the Sarum Missal. While online texts are common (eg https://archive.org/details/theancientliturg00maskuoft/ which has York Bangor and Sarum in parallel), something printed and bound to the standard of a proper altar missal, would be a good thing to have.