EXIT DAYS

What on earth are we to call it when we lisp to our great grandchildren about this Day of Days?
 
Taking the long view, I look back to the Anglexits of the sixteenth century; under Henry Tudor in 1533 and Bloody Bess in 1559, which, precursors of today's Brexit, freed England from tyrannical foreigners (not to mention their Detestable Enormities) and led us into Broad Sunlit Uplands.

We Took Back Control!!!! Today, under our great Leader Boris, we are simply completing what the Tudors so magnificently began.

Both Anglexits involved Anne Boleyn alias Bullen ... the first, in 1533, because Tudor rather fancied getting inside her farthingale; the latter, in 1559, because Boleyn's daughter, proclaimed a bastard by her father, had taken possession of the English and Irish thrones.

So let's call it BULLENDAY! 

You know it makes sense!!

Private Masses and Side Altars

I have just seen this sentence quoted in New Liturgical Movement: "I'm not sure if there's something online that defends not only private Masses for priests but also the  archetectural [sic] phenomenon of side altars and why it is okay for different Masses to be happening simultaneously in one church".

The writer of this has a big problem. It is that he clearly does not read my blog.

Below is a piece*** by Eric Mascall which I have several times printed on my blog explaining exactly all that. The most recent showing I gave it was last March 10. Here it is again: --

Chiron's biography of Bugnini, which I reviewd recently and is necessary reading for those who desire to be on-the-ball with regard to scholarly discussion of the post-Concilar 'reforms', reminds us that S Paul VI, as disorder spread like wild fire in the Latin Church, wrote in 1965 an encyclical Mysterium Fidei. Among the Pontiff's "concerns and anxieties", he condemns the idea that a "Community Mass" has greater value than mere private Masses, with these words:

"Every Mass, even though a priest may offer it in private, is not a private matter; it is an act of Christ and of the Church".

This truth was unpacked very neatly by the great Anglican Thomist and dogmatic theologian, the Reverend Professor Canon Doctor Eric Mascall, OGS MA: (Very Germanic of me to pile up all the titles, yes?)

***"What makes the mass one and corporate is not the fact that a lot of people are together at the same service, but the fact that it is the act of the one Christ in his Body (corpus) the Church. And I can think of no better way of making anyone understand wherein the unity and corporateness of the mass really consists than to take him into a church in which a number of priests are simultaneously celebrating private masses and to say: "Look at those men at their various altars all round the church, each of them apparently muttering away on his own and having nothing to do with the others. In fact they are all of them doing the same thing - the same essentially, the same numerically - not just a lot of things of the same kind, but the very same identical thing; each of them is taking part as a priest in the one redemptive act which Christ, who died for our sins and rose again for our justification, perpetuates in the Church which is his Body through the sacrament of his body and blood."

Mascall used to say his own mass before breakfast every morning, usually privately in the Oxford church where I went for daily mass as an undergraduate, at the altar under the picture of blessed Charles* the Martyr. How wonderful it would be if the scene he describes came back to the life of our churches ... just imagine the Rosary Basilica at Lourdes every morning with a constant coming and going of priest pilgrims to the altars of the Fifteen Mysteries, altars so sadly unused and neglected when I was there with Archbishop Rowan.

Given a return of the culture of Private Masses, even the marbled refrigeration of Westminster Cathedral ... so much like a really classy but slightly chilly seraglio ... might wake up to warm and vibrant new life!

blessed Charles Stuart* and Blessed Maria Christina

A decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Dicipline of the Sacraments, 21 May 1999, provides as follows.

"As far as Blesseds who are neither written in the Roman Martyrology nor enjoy a public cult decreed by the Apostolic See or confirmed by it, the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 28 April 1914 is in force; according to which, if in particular places from immemorial custom certain Blesseds are honoured with a public and religious cult, it is permitted to keep them in a particular Calendar, with an asterisk or some other sign placed by his name. By this notation, therefore, it is signified that an explicit decree is lacking by which they are declared formally to be blessed."

Ah, the blessedness of an asterisk. Asterisk me, Father, for I have sinned.


I add a paragraph from a recent paper (Studies in Religion and the Enlightenment 1, no 2) by the Revd Dr Andrew Starkie of the Ordinariate.

"The House of Stuart spent several decades of the eighteenth century and considerable resources pursuing the beatification of James II without success. In more recent years one offspring of that dynasty has, however, been beatified. On 25 January 2014 the pope recognized Blessed Maria Cristina of Savoy (1812-36) among the Blessed. She was a direct descendaent of James II's sister, Henrietta. Her feast day, 31 January, falls the day after the Anglican commemoration of Charles I."

Have I got this right ... she was a daughter of Victor Emmanuel I, de jure King of England, Scotland, France, Ireland, and Sardinia. She was mother of the last de facto King of the Two Sicilies (No; don't you mention Garibaldi to me). As we face 'exiting' the European Union in sixty hours' time, I find these legitimist and pan-European musings quite comforting. Perhaps Blessed Maria Christina will be adopted as Patroness of a New Catholic Europe Movement? Axia, axia!!

I will print her Collect on the 31st, Brexit Day, her feast day. 

I will publish that post at 6 in the morning for all those clergy who may wish to transcribe and use that Collect.

Mr Pompeo and his nasty finger

" ... the past week ... ended with the Trump administration delivering an outrageous one-fingered salute to Britain."

Whinge ... Whinge ...

The Times newspaper's First Leader was commenting on the refusal of the North American regime to extradite one of its citizens who killed a Briton on a British country road, allegedly by dangerous driving.

Whinge! Whinge!

After listing examples of American habitual double standards in such matters, the Leader Writer, who is usually not a million miles from British Establishment thinking, went on to complain about the vast sums owed by American 'diplomats' who refuse to pay their fines for their illegal parking on our streets.

Anti-Americanism is the one factor which currently unites much of the Right, the Left, and the Centre of our politics. But I call it whinging.

Of course it isn't very nice to be humiliated so publicly and shown up to be a despised and impotent colonial appendage of the Yankie Imperium. But if we don't like it we should do something about it.

I suggest that we create a new part of our Security Service, perhaps to be called MI7. Its methods would be inspired by those of our very effective friends in Mossad. Its remit would be to hunt down homicidal American fugitives from British justice; to kidnap and sedate them; then to package them up and ship them back to Blighty in crates labelled "Chlorinated Chicken".

Getting Soaked on Bible

I remarked yesterday that we all need to become better Jews ... and as I wrote that, I thought of a common worry among clergy and devout laity seeking direction ... "I fall asleep while I'm saying the Office ... I get to the end of a psalm and I can't remember a word in it ..."

Perhaps I ought to waggle an admonitory finger and emphasise the importance of every word in every psalm. But perhaps, on the other hand, I ought not.

I think what really matters is letting those often-repeated words sink in; making them part of my being; giving them a vivid life in my subconscious as well as in my conscious.

S Augustine made the point that in the psalms we may address the Lord; he may pray in us and with us and for us. But as well as such profound things, there is the quintessential Jewish mind-set. I mean, the sometimes slightly querulous insistence on my own adherence to the Law combined with a nervous admission that I sometimes have not been terribly adherent. The essence of Covenant is God's faithfulness even when I am unfaithful, and the appropriation of this truth both by the community and by the individual. Misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabo (Ps 88/89) was a favourite phrase among late medieval clerics, coming as the psalmus in the Introit of the Mass of the Five Wounds. Perhaps alone among the clergy, I love all those 'long' psalms in which we make our way through Israelite History, enumerating the 'Mercies' of the LORD.

I do, however, think it unfortunate that English translations from Coverdale onwards begin with 'I' or 'My', pushing forward human agency, while the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin begin with the Mercies. "The Mercies of the LORD for ever shall be my song" ... would that really be so incomprehensible? Incidentally, the Bea psalter, that great symbol of all that is wrong in the concept of' 'reform' which started up under Pius XII, renders the Chesedim as 'Gratias'. Plura non dicam.

Misericordias Domini ... remember that DOMINUS in the psalms nearly always stands for the unutterable Tetragrammaton; the Name revealed to Moses; the Name which was accessed in the Temple. "Our help is in the Name of the LORD ..." ... this is no meaningless catchphrase. It lifts us up into that People as they travelled and repented and fled through the Sea and entered the Land flowing with milk and honey. It takes us back to Moses as he stood by a burning bush ... which was a typos of our Lady. And to the People as they made Hag to the Temple, a typos of our Redeemer Himself.

I sometimes think that we should have a custom of bowing the head at the Name LORD. I am glad that, at least when offering Sacrifice, I am directed to bow my head at Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro; "Let us make berakoth to YHWH our God"

Yippee!!!

Wonderful news! After all these years, the ambition of S John Henry Newman that there be an Oratory in Dublin will be realised.

Visitors to Dublin will not need to be told about S Kevin's Harrington Street, the home of fine liturgy and superb preaching and Dublin's Latin Mass community. The Administrator, Fr Gerard Deighan, a Classicist, will be the Superior of the Oratory-in-formation, together with Fr Nevin and two (fairly advanced) seminarians. The Oratorian leitmotif of Sung Sunday Vespers will mark the change. And Candlemass day will be when it all becomes official.

I am told that the Latin Mass community at  S Kevin's continues to grow. I was there a few years ago on my way to read a paper to the Irish Confraternity of Catholic Clergy at Knock; despite the worst onslaughts of the Celtic Tiger, I think Dublin is my favourite European Capital City ... unless it ties with Copenhagen ...

Sometimes people do me the honour of sharing with me their despondency at the state of the whole Catholic Church. And of the Irish Church. But there are the same signs of growth and vigorous renewal as in so many other places. And the fact that most of these are generated from below, by faithful laity and devout presbyters, is all to the good.

Mighty are the prayers of the great Abbot of Glendalough! And of S John Henry! And of S Philip!!

Is it true yet?

Readers will remember the scandalous occasion a few years ago when the CBCEW endorsed a resolution of the German bishops, attacking the Prayer for the Jews which Pope Benedict had himself very recently composed sua manu for the Good Friday Solemn Prayers in the Extraordinary Form. Today, the festival of the Conversion of S Paul, I find myself wondering if their Lordships and their Graces have yet agreed to something like the following. If not, I humbly offer my draft for their use.

Paragraph 5. The Conference supports the demand of the German Bishops that reconsideration be given to the existence on the calendar of a commemoration called The Conversion of S Paul.

We understand that this commemoration is gravely offensive to our Jewish bretheren, and we share their hurt and their pain. So soon after the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it is particularly inappropriate that our liturgical life should retain within it any suggestion of the propriety of 'converting' any member of the Jewish People, whether by a 'voice' purporting to be from 'heaven' or by any other means. We remember the teaching of Pope Francis that our Jewish brethren already possess a Covenant which is both sufficient and irreplaceable. And we associate ourselves wholeheartedly with the Holy Father's frequent and decisive repudiations of proselytism.

Accordingly, this Conference calls upon the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to reconsider the appropriateness of this liturgical anomaly.


We believe that such reconsideration should take into account the Spirit of the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aestate) as well as the current Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Chuch; together with the sensitivities of our beloved Elder Brethren, the People of Israel.

A big problem about the current life of the Church is that reality so often outstrips any attempts at satire. I am probably already behind the news! If so, I apologise for being such a bore.

If not, remember: you read it first here!

Charles John Klyberg ...

... emeritus Bishop of Fulham, and, after his entry into Full Communion, Mgr Klyberg, has recently died. Cuius animae propitietur Deus.

Waugh, Pope Francis, and the Pachamama

In Brideshead, Waugh describes his disillusionment with the Army in terms of a husband's disillusionment with a wife:
"I caught the false notes in her voice and learned to listen for them apprehensively ... I learned ... her jealousy and self-seeking, and her nervous trick with the fingers when she was lying ...".

I wonder if I am the only one to have followed this process with PF: "The nervous trick with the fingers when she was lying".

I had precisely this experience again with regard to PF's Declaration of about a year ago which advocated syncretistic relativism. We might sensibly regard it as his Praeparatio Evangelii for his Amazonian Synod, his Pachamama Moment, and the events which occurred when PF, like every traditional seducer, Led his victims Up The (Vatican's) Garden Path.

That Declaration now seems so long ago; things move so thick and fast in this pontificate (I wonder if PF's GP has given him bad news). But you may recall his statement that the Declaration did not "go an inch beyond" the teaching of Vatican II.

Instantly ... I knew ... I had certainty ... that it was going to go, in fact, distinctly more than an inch.

"The nervous trick with the fingers when he is lying".

Perhaps some of you, during these dark days, have recalled Chesterton's words Naught for your comfort, Yea, naught for your desire, save that the sky grows darker yet and the sea rises higher. But at least PF's propensity to resort to mendacity like a duck to water makes him that bit easier to read and, to such a degree, perhaps a trifle less dangerous.

Just imagine the trouble we shall be in if his successor is in the same mould, but cleverer.

Derek Allen, priest

Today, I think, is the Year's Mind (or "Anniversary", if you are a cradle Catholic) of Fr Derek Allen, Principal of St Stephen's House, the once great Anglican Catholic Seminary in Oxford.

Derek took over as princial in 1962, upon the retirement after three decades of the legendary Canon Arthur Couratin, who had himself spanned the peiod between the exuberant, triumphalist Anglican Catholicism of the 1930s, and the reduced but still cheerful Catholicism of the post-War period. Derek maintained the ultramontane traditions of "SSH".

A product of "the House" was guaranteed to prospective incumbents as having been taught strictly according to the liturgical books of O'Connell; a "Staggers Man", so people were wont to say, would know exactly how to extract a fly from a consecrated chalice. I think, incidentally, I was one of the last group to have been so trained before the dismal days which followed 1968. I remember being asked, at a Mass Practice, to say aloud the Offertory Prayers, which we had been required to learn by heart. Most seminarians learned them in English; I launched into Suscipe sancte Pater  ... "Oh, all right" said Derek. My Staggers training then has stood me in very good stead since Pope Benedict unloaded Summorum Pontificum ... and me ... upon the Universal Church.

Stalinist Commissars ("Inspectors") used to visit the House in order to catch it inculcating Extreme Illegalities. On one occasion, clutching their notebooks, they dropped eagerly in upon "Mass Practices". They found one young man being trained to offer the Holy Sacrifice according to the Usages of the UMCA dioceses in Africa ... in Swahili. Another student (I think he was a Hiberno-Catholic Chavasse) was learning the Eucharistic Order of the Church of Ireland, with the liturgical manners so precisely codified by O'Connell, but strictly within the Irish canons and rubrics.

The poor simple proddies had, of course, been set up. It's the only sort of language they understand ...

I recall hearing a story about Derek's own First Mass ... that he elevated the Chalice with such joyous enthusiasm that some of the Precious Blood spilled over the lip. I wonder if any reader is able to corroborate that.

Fr Allen resigned in 1974 and served as pp of S Saviour's Eastbourne until his sudden death in 1991.

May he rest in peace.

HRH

Holy Scripture correctly records that there is nothing new under the sun. It currently seems to be a matter of considerable moment at the Court of St James's that a Harry and a Megan should no longer be styled 'Royal Highnesses'.

A very similar question caused great acrimony when 'Edward VIII' discovered that his American divorcee would be denied the title of Her Royal Highness. He never stopped nagging about this restriction. Happily, an admirable woman, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, saw to it that there was no weakening. Wallis Simpson died with all the shame of being a mere duchess.

But there is something odd here. In the Middle Ages, the upper crust of the political class ... Kings, Dukes, Archbishops ... all were addressed as "Your Grace". The sharp distinction between a Monarch ruling in Majesty, and the slightly inferior Mighty, was not so acutely felt; just as the word 'Prince' was employed differently.

And Ms Markle is still the Duchess of Sussex. If she and her husband, as we have been informed, will "not be using" the style HRH, well, that leaves them as "Their Graces". I am not sure how easy it is to suppress a dukedom ... Acts of Attainder have not been much heard of since Mr Churchill floated the jolly idea of hanging German War Criminals simply by virtue of a British Act of Attainder.

I have no doubt I shall be dead when ... if ever ... the archives of the 1930s are made fully public. I am pruriently curious to know how close we may have been in the 1940s to having 'King Edward VIII' and 'Queen Wallis' crowned in Westminster Abbey under the affectionate eye of Herr von (seventeen carnations) Ribbentrop, or whoever else might have been the Fuehrer's High Representative in a ruined Britain reduced to de facto vassal status by a dominant Nazi Germany. (I suppose another candidate for that role might have been His Royal Highness SS Gruppenfuehrer Prince Charles Edward of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, but for the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, and Baron Arklow.)

It really doesn't bear thinking about what might have happened if Pearl Harbour had never saved our bacon by bringing the US of A into the European War. But quite possibly it might have included 'Edward VIII's' constitutional experts taking a leaf out of Henry VI's book, and proclaiming his "readeption" of the Crown.

Now that we have an Etonian First Lord of the Treasury, when will Henry VI be canonised?

Homo Vagans (corrected)

"'Unlike the Jews, the Irish, and the Germans, the English are pleased to be thought even more mongrel and exotic than they are. It appeals to the streak of romantic sensibility in the English temperament. Tell an Englishman that he is pure-bred Anglo-Saxon or a hundred per cent Aryan, and he will laugh in your face; tell him that his remote ancestry contains a blend of French, Russian, Chinese or even Arab or Hindu, and he will listen with polite gratification. The remoter, of course, the better; it is more picturesque, and less socially ambiguous.'

"'Socially ambiguous? Ah! you admit, then, that the Englishman in fact despises all other races but his own.'

"' Until he has had time to assimilate them. What he despises is not other races but other civilisations. He does not wish to be called a dago; but if he is born with dark eyes and an olive complexion, he is pleased to trace those features back to a Spanish hidalgo, cast away upon the English coast in the wreck of the Great Armada. Everything with us is a matter of sentiment and association'".
D L Sayers, circa 1936

In recent weeks, there have been allegations of racism in some comments about the Ms Markle who married, a couple of years ago, into the House of Battenberg. You have to be careful, nowadays, how you express racism; you might get away with more by using crafty periphrasis ... and rumour has it that somebody referred to Ms M as bringing some 'exotic DNA' into the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Some years ago, a paparazzo came up with a neat retort. Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark had just advised this camera-wielding foreigner to "Go back home". Backing deftly away, the man, tugging his hellenic forelock, cried Efaristo! Efaristo!

Surely, racial miscegenation is the main activity of 'Royalty' and of the international upper classes. It always has been. Alliances have had to be cemented; heiresses have had to be hoovered up. For such people, racial intermarriage has always been an everyday reality. 'Prince Henry of Wales, Duke of Sussex', chose his bride in strict conformity with these ancient traditions of aristocratic life. The genealogists inevitably discovered that Ms M is in fact descended from the ancient family of the Earls of Northumberland, the Percies. No surprise to me! (On the other hand, I've not heard that anybody has made interesting discoveries about the antecedents of poor ordinary Ms Middleton. Black mark there.)

The hypothesis has been plausibly advanced that Queen Elizabeth is herself descended ... via the South of Spain ... from a grandchild of the Prophet Mohammed.

More than likely. Perhaps the Security Services should watch out for signs that she has been 'radicalised'.