12 January 2021

Questions in Father's Postbag

(1) A learned brother priest asks me ... cheeky, yes?! ... whether one may use the Votive Mass pro eligendo pontifice when the Roman See is not vacant. 

Having carefully looked through the texts and the rubrics, my view is that there is absolutely no reason why one should not. How can there be anything wrong in asking the Almighty to give the Roman Church a bishop whose loving care for us might earn God's constant favour and whose good government might glorify God's Name? A pontiff who will teach God's people virtue and fill the souls of the faithful with sweet spiritual fragrance? What can there be objectionable in a Mass proper which, in the Graduale, so neatly evokes the venerable ancient Roman Prayer for consecrating a bishop (not abolished until after Vatican II)?

The Offertorium could be the starting point for lengthy homilies: "Let them not partake of the Holy Things, until a pontiff shall arise for plain speaking and truth (in ostensionem et veritatem)".

(2) A poor layman suffers immensely when the name of Francis is uttered in the Mass. 

(a) Attend only Latin Extraordinary Form Masses. You will be spared hearing those dread three syllables.

(b) Here is a solution from within our Anglican Patrimony, which I mention only lepido cum ioco

In Edinburgh, there is a Pisky church (Old S Paul's) which dates back to the happy days when Piskies were Jacobite. So, in the Liturgy, the Sovereign was not named. (If you simply say the words "Our King", it will not be obvious whether you are praying for King George or King James.) 

But the time came when Farmer George (III) seemed much more like a Jacobite monarch than had his horrible Father or his infamous grandfather; and the Pisky clergy decided to name him liturgically. 

There were long-serving lay members of the congregation, stalwart and valiant loyalists, who, having been 'out' in the '45, naturally found this liturgical innovation distinctly trying.

So, every time, the hated name 'George' was uttered, it was drowned in fits of helpless coughing.

I have no idea how long this continued ...

I only mention it iocandi causa.  

But I suppose, if one were a Rex Mottram, one could do ones coughing silently and 'spiritually'.


Pete said...

God bless the King! (I mean our faith's defender!)
God bless! (No harm in blessing) the Pretender.
But who Pretender is, and who is King,
God bless us all! That's quite another thing!

John Byrom

John Patrick said...

re 2a: I'm confused - doesn't the Roman Canon include "una cum famulo tou Papa nostro Franciscus et Antistite nostro" etc ?

Fr John Hunwicke said...

Dear John Patrick

I think I wrote "You will be spared hearing".

I always feel happier when people bother to take the time to read what I actually WRITE ... it makes me feel more ... sort of ... respected ...

Wynn said...

Dear Father

John Patrick didn’t merit that rebuke. I thought exactly the same as him, and it was only with your response that I realised that the implied emphasis in the original post was upon the word “hearing”.

prince Matecki said...

I guess one of my old professors, at a time when that title was not as easily bestowed , would have remarked concerning the phrase that you actually wrote:
"That goes without saying". Pun probably intended.

Chrysologos said...

John Patrick,
Unless I'm mistaken, I think the Roman Canon would at present read, 'Papa nostro Francisco'- the ablative case following 'cum'.

Grant Milburn said...

Concerning question 2: the patient should avoid the Byzantine rite where one will hear the name of the pontiff uttered aloud three or four times.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

Dear Wynn

I am sorry you consider me harsh ... but comsider. I have celebrated the EF daily for years, even when I was an Anglican ... I have written academically about the Canon and the way the Roman Pontiff is described in it ... is it either kind or sensible to imply that I have no idea what its text contains?

Frank (@txtradcatholic) said...

Concerning the idea of coughing while the unpleasant syllables are uttered...of course, if we were to do that now, we likely would be bum-rushed out the door of the church and ordered into quarantine. :) But when (if) sanity returns to our society, if the gentleman in question is still occupying the See of Peter, the suggestion may prove valuable.

Grant Milburn said...

Interesting behaviour by the Piskies. Reminiscent of synagogue congregations drowning out the name of Haman when the scroll of Esther is read at Purim.

prince Matecki said...

To make it clear to those who seem not to understand:
The priest celebrating is supposed to say the roman canon ( EF form) clearly but in a low voice. Let us take St. Bernhard church in Berlin Dahlem, regularly used by the English Mission in Germany for holy mass.
The main altar is at the east end, about 15 meters from the first row at the benches.
If you humbly sit in the last, you will be more than 30 m away from the main alter, where the celebrant utters the words distinctly but in a low voice.
So you will not hear the Names.
And as a friend who is knowledgable in rubrics, the law of the church etc. has assured me: if a celebrant does not utter the names, be it pope or antistite / bishop, that does not make it invalid.

Wynn said...

Prince Matecki: I imagine that everyone here will be well aware of that. What was not, however, initially clear to me – nor, it would seem, to John Patrick – was that Fr H was specifically referring to levels of audibility. In ordinary parlance, “you will not hear x” (or, “will be spared hearing x”) generally refers neither to the auditory faculty of the hearer nor to the acoustic of the building but to the utterance itself (regardless of volume).

And Father, I think you are reading into John Patrick’s comment an implication which I severely doubt was anywhere near his intention.