What a privilege! The Copenhagen Latin Mass Group invited me to visit ... for the third time ... their exquisite city in order to offer the Holy Sacrifice with them. So I sang Masses on the Vigil (in the Bishop's Chapel), on the Feast of Pentecost (in the Sacred Heart; I think it's on the Internet), and on Whitmonday (in the Church of S Andrew, at an Altar over a major relic of S Andrew, installed there by the Bishop).
And with what kindness I was entertained!
With immense generosity, the diocesan, Bishop Kozon, invited me to stay in his house. As an outsider, and so at the risk of putting my foot in it, I have to say, not only that his Lordship practises to a xi the New Testament and Patristic virtue of xenia, but that his relationship with those who worship according to the Extraordinary Form is vere episcopalis. I was shown videos ... maybe they are somewhere on the internet ... of liturgical events in the diocese ... including pontifical Vespers at the Throne, and the first High Mass, EF, of Fr Jan, recently ordained, who gave me a First Blessing and with whom I dined very satisfactorily in a vibrant piazza in that mediterranean warmth which seems, by a happy if Extraordinary dispensation of Providence, to extend to Zealand.
Things do move on. Alexander has grown up into a most efficient Altar Server. Theresa is now a charming and patient young woman, placid beyond her years, who joined in a lengthy expedition to Roskilde Cathedral ... her brother Vincent (recently baptised, EF, by the Bishop) made his own essential contribution by sleeping throughout the entire event ...
... but the questions I want to ask about Roskilde Cathedral can await another post.
23 May 2016
21 May 2016
The authority of Apostolic Exhortations
There is a Catch 321 Situation involved in the question of the authority of Apostolic Exhortations. It arises from the fact that no Apostolic Exhortation has any more (or any less) 'authority' than any other Apostolic Exhortation. This 'Catch' can be invoked to embarrass both 'sides'. Thus: -
Trendies can be told "Your enthusiasm for Amoris Laetitia is undercut by the fact that it has no more authority than Familiaris consortio".
Traddies can be told "Your enthusiasm for Familiaris consortio is undercut by the fact that it is cancelled out by Amoris laetitia".
Both of these documents are Apostolic Exhortations.
And Apostolic Exhortations are neither doctrinally constitutive nor canonically legislative.
The principle that public adulterers, even when repackaged as "remarried divorcees", ought not to receive Holy Communion, does not rest upon the authority of Familiaris consortio or Sacramentum caritatis. It is a principle based upon some of the most explicit words that the Incarnate Torah is known to have uttered, combined with a very blunt statement by S Paul, who was even more Apostolic than the authors of Apostolic Exhortations. It is a principle to which the daily praxis of the bimillennial Church, and many of its official documents, bear witness.
Familiaris consortio and Sacramentum caritatis did not constitute, set up, create, the principle concerned. They (very laudably and eloquently) bore witness to it.
In Apostolic Exhortations the Roman Pontiff exhorts the Faithful to abide by what is already the authentic teaching and praxis of the Church.
Trendies can be told "Your enthusiasm for Amoris Laetitia is undercut by the fact that it has no more authority than Familiaris consortio".
Traddies can be told "Your enthusiasm for Familiaris consortio is undercut by the fact that it is cancelled out by Amoris laetitia".
Both of these documents are Apostolic Exhortations.
And Apostolic Exhortations are neither doctrinally constitutive nor canonically legislative.
The principle that public adulterers, even when repackaged as "remarried divorcees", ought not to receive Holy Communion, does not rest upon the authority of Familiaris consortio or Sacramentum caritatis. It is a principle based upon some of the most explicit words that the Incarnate Torah is known to have uttered, combined with a very blunt statement by S Paul, who was even more Apostolic than the authors of Apostolic Exhortations. It is a principle to which the daily praxis of the bimillennial Church, and many of its official documents, bear witness.
Familiaris consortio and Sacramentum caritatis did not constitute, set up, create, the principle concerned. They (very laudably and eloquently) bore witness to it.
In Apostolic Exhortations the Roman Pontiff exhorts the Faithful to abide by what is already the authentic teaching and praxis of the Church.
20 May 2016
Amoris Laetitia and the Magisterium
Cardinal Burke has made himself quite unpopular in some Traddy circles by not denouncing AL ut Leo rugiens from his Maltese housetops. There are fierce people around who feel that, for a top lawyer simply to say that the document has no Magisterial authority, is just not nearly angry enough. Spluttering expletives, apparently, are called for. Raymond Leo Burke, they say, should put a lot more work into his spluttering techniques.
I must declare an interest here. When AL emerged, my own first comment (April 9) was to observe immediately that an Apostolic Exhortation is "not doctrinally constitutive nor juridically legislative". Burke ... and I! ... are exactly right. That is why we do not splutter.
Some critics have claimed that AL must be magisterial because Bergoglio is on record as saying "I wrote an encyclical ... and an Apostolic Exhortation, I'm constantly making statements, giving homilies. That's magisterium."
If this Pope really does imagine that his Petrine Magisterium extends to Apostolic Exhortations, to 'statements', and even to his endless homilies, then this is quite a serious and worrying misunderstanding on his part of his own office (it reminds me of Fr Eric Mascall's wise observation that a man, even a pope, can misdescribe his own actions).
But however much this apparent claim may impress the hyperultrapapalists who surround the Holy Father but have never read Pastor aeternus of Vatican I, it should be an irrelevance to those of us who know better.
Apostolic Constitutions are way above the pay grade of Apostolic Exhortations. And the principle that "remarried" divorcees should not receive Holy Communion is embodied in the Catechism, which rests upon the authority of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of S John Paul II. Moreover, it was given to the Ordinariates as our doctrinal norm in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus of Benedict XVI.
This is the Catholic Faith which we have received.
It is the duty of every Catholic, high and low, to guard and hand on the Deposit of Faith which we have received, sancte et fideliter. Vatican I, unsurprisingly, took the view that this is especially the duty of the successor of S Peter (Denzinger 3070).
I still share that view, even if some of Bergoglio's closest associates do not.
I must declare an interest here. When AL emerged, my own first comment (April 9) was to observe immediately that an Apostolic Exhortation is "not doctrinally constitutive nor juridically legislative". Burke ... and I! ... are exactly right. That is why we do not splutter.
Some critics have claimed that AL must be magisterial because Bergoglio is on record as saying "I wrote an encyclical ... and an Apostolic Exhortation, I'm constantly making statements, giving homilies. That's magisterium."
If this Pope really does imagine that his Petrine Magisterium extends to Apostolic Exhortations, to 'statements', and even to his endless homilies, then this is quite a serious and worrying misunderstanding on his part of his own office (it reminds me of Fr Eric Mascall's wise observation that a man, even a pope, can misdescribe his own actions).
But however much this apparent claim may impress the hyperultrapapalists who surround the Holy Father but have never read Pastor aeternus of Vatican I, it should be an irrelevance to those of us who know better.
Apostolic Constitutions are way above the pay grade of Apostolic Exhortations. And the principle that "remarried" divorcees should not receive Holy Communion is embodied in the Catechism, which rests upon the authority of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum of S John Paul II. Moreover, it was given to the Ordinariates as our doctrinal norm in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus of Benedict XVI.
This is the Catholic Faith which we have received.
It is the duty of every Catholic, high and low, to guard and hand on the Deposit of Faith which we have received, sancte et fideliter. Vatican I, unsurprisingly, took the view that this is especially the duty of the successor of S Peter (Denzinger 3070).
I still share that view, even if some of Bergoglio's closest associates do not.
19 May 2016
More on Amoris laetitia footnote 329
The dodgy doctrinal assumptions behind this footnote ... that you can't expect people to live in celibacy ... that God's grace is insufficient to enable Christians to live according to His will ... are they going to be extended to paedophiles? And especially to that particular 'marginalised' and 'peripheral' group, clerical paedophiles? And if not, why not?
Come to think of it, we don't seem to have heard much about this group during all the 'Mercy' stuff. But perhaps this is unfair. Probably, the Special Confessors are absolving them in droves.
Come to think of it, we don't seem to have heard much about this group during all the 'Mercy' stuff. But perhaps this is unfair. Probably, the Special Confessors are absolving them in droves.
17 May 2016
Nasty and Dirty
Many people very much more holy and learned than I am have spoken of the great riches and beauties which are to be found in Amoris laetitia. Since, we are told, portions of it were added at the request of the CDF, I see no reason why this should not be true. But I think footnote 329 is thoroughly Nasty and Dirty. It is dealing with the idea that "remarried" divorcees might live together as brother and sister. But, in the course of doing this, it quotes Gaudium et Spes. Since the Conciliar Document is referring ad locum to the spacing of families by married couples, this misrepresents the Council. It is always Nasty and Dirty to tell lies, particularly when it is a case of radically misrepresenting the teaching of an ecclesiastical organ ... an Ecumenical Council ... to which Christian people might feel they owed a duty of respect.
And, finally, this footnote appears to accept by implication the proposition that the Grace of God is not able to give Christian people the strength to live in accordance with His will. That is Nasty and Dirty. The Church has always taught that Chastity is within the reach of those who live in God's grace. Millions of Christians have found this to be true.
Indeed, this repulsive little footnote really does draw back the lace curtain on the Nastiness and the Dirt to be found inside the Holy Father's House of 'Mercy'. Some people, we are informed, point out that if "remarried" divorcees live together without sex, one or both of them will be in danger of cheating on their new quasi-spouse. Surprise, surprise! One, at least, and perhaps both, have almost certainly already cheated on another and lawful spouse; is there really any reason why they should not cheat on a new and unlawful "spouse"? Go on: be realistic! Isn't it what we should expect? And this footnote does not even put into the mouths of the "couple" the sentiment If we try to live as brother and sister we shall probably fall, and end up in bed together. That, at least, would be human and honest. And it could be given a gentle and understanding pastoral answer. But No! Footnote 329 says it is the 'fidelity' of the new quasi-marriage which will be endangered. In other words, Cardinal Marx's "remarried" divorcees are making the threat You've got to let us have sex together because if you don't we'll have sex anyway ... BUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE!! So there !!! A seedy lot, both the Cardinal and the adulterers he so enthusiastically sponsors.
However, since a new relationship has, by producing children, created new obligations, this situation should, we are often told, be accepted. If it is true that quasi-union II can do this, why should quasi-union III not do the same? The idea that Adultery can, as it were, be regularised by the emergence of a new economic unit, a second family, has endless ramifications!
Paradoxically, we should, I think, thank God for the very open Nastiness and Dirtiness of Footnote 329. At least we know where we are, and the sort of people we are dealing with.
And, finally, this footnote appears to accept by implication the proposition that the Grace of God is not able to give Christian people the strength to live in accordance with His will. That is Nasty and Dirty. The Church has always taught that Chastity is within the reach of those who live in God's grace. Millions of Christians have found this to be true.
Indeed, this repulsive little footnote really does draw back the lace curtain on the Nastiness and the Dirt to be found inside the Holy Father's House of 'Mercy'. Some people, we are informed, point out that if "remarried" divorcees live together without sex, one or both of them will be in danger of cheating on their new quasi-spouse. Surprise, surprise! One, at least, and perhaps both, have almost certainly already cheated on another and lawful spouse; is there really any reason why they should not cheat on a new and unlawful "spouse"? Go on: be realistic! Isn't it what we should expect? And this footnote does not even put into the mouths of the "couple" the sentiment If we try to live as brother and sister we shall probably fall, and end up in bed together. That, at least, would be human and honest. And it could be given a gentle and understanding pastoral answer. But No! Footnote 329 says it is the 'fidelity' of the new quasi-marriage which will be endangered. In other words, Cardinal Marx's "remarried" divorcees are making the threat You've got to let us have sex together because if you don't we'll have sex anyway ... BUT WITH OTHER PEOPLE!! So there !!! A seedy lot, both the Cardinal and the adulterers he so enthusiastically sponsors.
However, since a new relationship has, by producing children, created new obligations, this situation should, we are often told, be accepted. If it is true that quasi-union II can do this, why should quasi-union III not do the same? The idea that Adultery can, as it were, be regularised by the emergence of a new economic unit, a second family, has endless ramifications!
Paradoxically, we should, I think, thank God for the very open Nastiness and Dirtiness of Footnote 329. At least we know where we are, and the sort of people we are dealing with.
16 May 2016
OCTAVE OF PENTECOST
The Pentecost Octave was preserved in the Anglican 1662 [see the rubric attached to the Preface] and Roman 1962 books. In 1662 and in the pre-1955 Roman Rite the Monday and Tuesday were especially privileged; in the older Roman books they are doubles of the first class with the rest of the week at only semidouble rank, while 1662 kept the traditional lections on Monday and Tuesday but returned to the Sunday readings for the rest of the week. This Octave is suitable if Pentecost is regarded as one of the times for Christian Initiation, since the neonati appropriately wore their 'whites' until Saturday and were catechised. It had survived even the pruning of the calendar by Pius XII in 1955, who curiously evened out the week by making every day a double of the first class ... fattening them up, as somebody once said to me, for the slaughter. Its abolition in the post-Conciliar period [by Rome and then, in mindless imitation, by Anglican revisers] finally 'forgets' the baptismal associations of Pentecost and abandons the message of Acts 2: 38-41. Is there a way in which someone who uses the Liturgia Horarum and has a canonical obligation to say the Divine Office, can, without breach of liturgical law, observe the Pentecost Octave?
One could invoke the General Instruction of LH paragraph 245 and repeat the Pentecost office every day up to Saturday as a Votive Office being celebrated devotionis causa. Indeed, modern Vatican Press Ordines Recitandi say that " where the Monday after Pentecost is kept as festive, Mass can be said as yesterday, or a Votive of the Holy Spirit, with Gloria and Credo pro opportunitate; likewise Vespers or even other parts of the Office if celebrated with the people". But in six days the priest - and the people - might get a bit tired of its inflexibility. Of course, one could simply follow the permission given in Summorum Pontificum and use the old Breviary during this week. Is there any reason why one should not continue to fulfil one's canonical obligation through the saying of the LH office, but substitute some offices from the Breviary for some from LH? The Apostolic Constitution Laudis Canticum (Paul VI, 1970), does envisage that permission might be given by Ordinaries to particular clergy, in their private recitation, "Breviarium Romanum, quod antea in usu erat, sive ex toto sive ex parte retinere [to retain the R Breviary ... in part]". One would argue that this is still the law, except that Summorum Pontificum has rendered the "consensus sui Ordinarii" unnecessary (and has not confined the permission, as Paul VI did, to the elderly or those with grave difficulties). So a priest could say Mattins, Lauds, and Vespers from the old book.
Incidentally, Pope Benedict XVI authoritatively made clear that the old Missal was never lawfully abrogated. I presume this is on the grounds that the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 contained nothing explicit about the new rite being compulsory and exclusive. But Laudis Canticum does say that, after certain dates, only the reformed office is to be used ( ... tantummodo ... adhibenda erit). Does it follow that the old Breviary, unlike the old Missal, was canonically abrogated until Benedict XVI resurrected it?
One could invoke the General Instruction of LH paragraph 245 and repeat the Pentecost office every day up to Saturday as a Votive Office being celebrated devotionis causa. Indeed, modern Vatican Press Ordines Recitandi say that " where the Monday after Pentecost is kept as festive, Mass can be said as yesterday, or a Votive of the Holy Spirit, with Gloria and Credo pro opportunitate; likewise Vespers or even other parts of the Office if celebrated with the people". But in six days the priest - and the people - might get a bit tired of its inflexibility. Of course, one could simply follow the permission given in Summorum Pontificum and use the old Breviary during this week. Is there any reason why one should not continue to fulfil one's canonical obligation through the saying of the LH office, but substitute some offices from the Breviary for some from LH? The Apostolic Constitution Laudis Canticum (Paul VI, 1970), does envisage that permission might be given by Ordinaries to particular clergy, in their private recitation, "Breviarium Romanum, quod antea in usu erat, sive ex toto sive ex parte retinere [to retain the R Breviary ... in part]". One would argue that this is still the law, except that Summorum Pontificum has rendered the "consensus sui Ordinarii" unnecessary (and has not confined the permission, as Paul VI did, to the elderly or those with grave difficulties). So a priest could say Mattins, Lauds, and Vespers from the old book.
Incidentally, Pope Benedict XVI authoritatively made clear that the old Missal was never lawfully abrogated. I presume this is on the grounds that the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 contained nothing explicit about the new rite being compulsory and exclusive. But Laudis Canticum does say that, after certain dates, only the reformed office is to be used ( ... tantummodo ... adhibenda erit). Does it follow that the old Breviary, unlike the old Missal, was canonically abrogated until Benedict XVI resurrected it?
12 May 2016
To a Nazi? To a paedophile?
All the moral systems which have emerged since the disorders of the 1960s fall under the condemnation of the teaching of Veritatis Splendor. Quite simply, S John Paul II taught that there are some things which are inherently and always wrong. (Para 80; intrinsece malum). The Church has always taught that there are are subjective circumstances in which the subjective guilt of an individual may be attenuated; but the act itself remains always wrong.
People talk about gradualism ... step by step ... or about making the best of a bad situation ... or discerning elements of good in a flawed context ... but I always feel like applying the tests Would you say that to a perpetrator of genocide? Would you say that to a paedophile?
Of course, I very rarely say it, because so few people have the remotest understanding of logic. I would get totally irrelevant but extremely angry replies such as Are you saying that remarried divorcees are as bad as Nazis? Are you saying that homosexuals are all paedophiles?
One isn't. One is simply saying: if you don't agree that adultery, or genital homosexual actions, are always, in themselves, wrong, OK, I won't try to prevent you from having your own views; but who are you then to say that there is any other act which is in itself always wrong?
How does a person distinguish between acts which are generally wrong but might be OK [usually for oneself!] in special circumstances; and acts [usually which other people do!] which really are always wrong?
If I am not entitled to tell you that sex between "remarried" divorcees is, in itself, intrinsically wrong, why are you entitled to tell a paedophile that what he does is, in itself, intrinsically wrong?
If one were able to get this point over to the sort of thick people to whom I refer, they might very well reply [you often hear something along these lines] "Ah, but what they do harms others; what I do doesn't" (another 'consequentialist' approach laudably condemned in Veritatis splendor).
This at least opens up the possibility of suggesting that, for example, the serial habitual adultery ["remarriage after divorce"] of modern societies does harm others; and of arguing that there are, for example, recorded societies, such as aristocratic societies in some Greek cities, where institutionalised paederasty was not perceived to harm its 'victims'.
People talk about gradualism ... step by step ... or about making the best of a bad situation ... or discerning elements of good in a flawed context ... but I always feel like applying the tests Would you say that to a perpetrator of genocide? Would you say that to a paedophile?
Of course, I very rarely say it, because so few people have the remotest understanding of logic. I would get totally irrelevant but extremely angry replies such as Are you saying that remarried divorcees are as bad as Nazis? Are you saying that homosexuals are all paedophiles?
One isn't. One is simply saying: if you don't agree that adultery, or genital homosexual actions, are always, in themselves, wrong, OK, I won't try to prevent you from having your own views; but who are you then to say that there is any other act which is in itself always wrong?
How does a person distinguish between acts which are generally wrong but might be OK [usually for oneself!] in special circumstances; and acts [usually which other people do!] which really are always wrong?
If I am not entitled to tell you that sex between "remarried" divorcees is, in itself, intrinsically wrong, why are you entitled to tell a paedophile that what he does is, in itself, intrinsically wrong?
If one were able to get this point over to the sort of thick people to whom I refer, they might very well reply [you often hear something along these lines] "Ah, but what they do harms others; what I do doesn't" (another 'consequentialist' approach laudably condemned in Veritatis splendor).
This at least opens up the possibility of suggesting that, for example, the serial habitual adultery ["remarriage after divorce"] of modern societies does harm others; and of arguing that there are, for example, recorded societies, such as aristocratic societies in some Greek cities, where institutionalised paederasty was not perceived to harm its 'victims'.
10 May 2016
Lambertini
Will the gentleman who was thinking of doing work on Benedict XIV get in touch with me again?
5 May 2016
COMMENTS
On April 10, I explained, as clearly as I could, that I would not be publishing comments until Ascension Day. My blog would be a comment-free blog.
I return to my computer today to find awaiting me a string of comments, getting ever more abusive, from somebody who clearly did not read that announcement, and feels that I was rudely refusing to answer him. As I made clear on April 10, I did not read his comments until now ... and have now deleted them.
This blog is now again open to comments.
I return to my computer today to find awaiting me a string of comments, getting ever more abusive, from somebody who clearly did not read that announcement, and feels that I was rudely refusing to answer him. As I made clear on April 10, I did not read his comments until now ... and have now deleted them.
This blog is now again open to comments.
Extraordinary Form Local Calendars
I have great admiration for the LMS ORDO (LO hereafter) and often look at it. I have never found a misprint or any sort of mistake; I am myself the compiler of an ORDO and find the LMS accuracy well nigh miraculous!
So I am not criticising it; and most certainly not by snide implication. I am simply hoping to open up to the learned among my readers a question which is logically diverting but also has practical implications.
(a) LO thinks it is right to give the local calendars "as they were or should have been" on January 1 1961. I am unsure about this. Local Calendars have always tended to evolve and mutate organically. This continued to happen after 1961 just as it had before, probably by the old means of a Bishop seeking and receiving a particular grant from the SCR, until the publication of the Novus Ordo calendar in 1970, at which point, of course, the whole game-plan changed radically. Should we not incorporate such changes that appear to have happened 1961-1969? As examples, I would take the following: an ORDO of 1969 which I have (i) gives certain directions for the Christian Unity Octave in January. These mainly involve the use of the admirable Mass for the Removal of Schism. (ii) on March 17, S Patrick is shown as a Class ii feast throughout England and Wales.
Yes, I know Summorum Pontificum privileged the rite of 1962, but it did not address the inherently messy business of Local Calendars. It didn't say "local Calendars are to be held frozen at the point of evolution they had reached by 1961". After all, "1962" Missals are published nowadays which include S Joseph in the Canon, despite the fact he was added after the editio typica had been authorised and published.
(b) As LO says, a problem arises with regard to dioceses which did not exist in 1961. (i) So, e.g., Arundel and Brighton, taken out of the diocese of Southwark, is assigned by LO the Calendar of that diocese. My problem here is that the calendar concerned was not designed for Sussex. It was designed for an area including Canterbury in Kent, and so it includes (for just one example) a number of canonised Archbishops of Canterbury. These are of minimal local concern in Sussex. It also follows, of course, that the Southwark calendar, now that Sussex has left that diocese, should no longer show specifically Sussex Saints. (ii) Hallam was made up of territory taken both from Leeds and from Nottingham; and LO only allows it Feasts "which are common to both". Logically, this could be disastrous, because ... well, just suppose there were some Saint who really did belong specifically to the area included in the present diocese of Hallam ... someone who lived his Christian life there or witnessed to Christ by his death there. I don't know whether there is!! But there could be. In this case, he/she would not appear in LO as to be celebrated in Hallam unless he/she had been on the Calendars of both Leeds and Nottingham. And he/she would almost certainly not have been on both! So Hallam would lose a genuinely indigenous Saint; who would continue to be observed in another diocese which no longer embraced the area of his/her relevance!
(c) I rather wonder about those English Martyrs canonised October 25 1970 or beatified 22 November 1987. It seems a shame ... er ... I do realise that this raises questions of a different order from those in (a) and (b); particularly that of the update of the old calendar in general.
Since it is unlikely that Ecclesia Dei has the manpower or archives to sort out such problems as (a) and (b) for however many dioceses worldwide the Catholic Church has, it is, I feel, arguable that knowledgeable people should use the methodology sensibly laid out in Canon 19 and do it themselves ad interim (it could be a long interim).
I would be interested to hear of readers who happen to have English diocesan ORDOs from the years 1961,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
So I am not criticising it; and most certainly not by snide implication. I am simply hoping to open up to the learned among my readers a question which is logically diverting but also has practical implications.
(a) LO thinks it is right to give the local calendars "as they were or should have been" on January 1 1961. I am unsure about this. Local Calendars have always tended to evolve and mutate organically. This continued to happen after 1961 just as it had before, probably by the old means of a Bishop seeking and receiving a particular grant from the SCR, until the publication of the Novus Ordo calendar in 1970, at which point, of course, the whole game-plan changed radically. Should we not incorporate such changes that appear to have happened 1961-1969? As examples, I would take the following: an ORDO of 1969 which I have (i) gives certain directions for the Christian Unity Octave in January. These mainly involve the use of the admirable Mass for the Removal of Schism. (ii) on March 17, S Patrick is shown as a Class ii feast throughout England and Wales.
Yes, I know Summorum Pontificum privileged the rite of 1962, but it did not address the inherently messy business of Local Calendars. It didn't say "local Calendars are to be held frozen at the point of evolution they had reached by 1961". After all, "1962" Missals are published nowadays which include S Joseph in the Canon, despite the fact he was added after the editio typica had been authorised and published.
(b) As LO says, a problem arises with regard to dioceses which did not exist in 1961. (i) So, e.g., Arundel and Brighton, taken out of the diocese of Southwark, is assigned by LO the Calendar of that diocese. My problem here is that the calendar concerned was not designed for Sussex. It was designed for an area including Canterbury in Kent, and so it includes (for just one example) a number of canonised Archbishops of Canterbury. These are of minimal local concern in Sussex. It also follows, of course, that the Southwark calendar, now that Sussex has left that diocese, should no longer show specifically Sussex Saints. (ii) Hallam was made up of territory taken both from Leeds and from Nottingham; and LO only allows it Feasts "which are common to both". Logically, this could be disastrous, because ... well, just suppose there were some Saint who really did belong specifically to the area included in the present diocese of Hallam ... someone who lived his Christian life there or witnessed to Christ by his death there. I don't know whether there is!! But there could be. In this case, he/she would not appear in LO as to be celebrated in Hallam unless he/she had been on the Calendars of both Leeds and Nottingham. And he/she would almost certainly not have been on both! So Hallam would lose a genuinely indigenous Saint; who would continue to be observed in another diocese which no longer embraced the area of his/her relevance!
(c) I rather wonder about those English Martyrs canonised October 25 1970 or beatified 22 November 1987. It seems a shame ... er ... I do realise that this raises questions of a different order from those in (a) and (b); particularly that of the update of the old calendar in general.
Since it is unlikely that Ecclesia Dei has the manpower or archives to sort out such problems as (a) and (b) for however many dioceses worldwide the Catholic Church has, it is, I feel, arguable that knowledgeable people should use the methodology sensibly laid out in Canon 19 and do it themselves ad interim (it could be a long interim).
I would be interested to hear of readers who happen to have English diocesan ORDOs from the years 1961,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
4 May 2016
Ascensions
So which Collect will be used on Ascension Day in the OF next year?
At the Vigil Mass and at the First Vespers, the Editio tertia Missalis Romani of 2002 offers a new Collect, which will be used this year in the new Translation.
And moreover, for the Day itself, the Third Edition gives the alternative of yet another new Collect: except that in this case it isn't new, it's the ancient Roman Collect preserved in the 1962 Missal and, of course, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (and, I presume, in the Ordinariate formulae). Here is a literal translation of the Latin:
Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we who believe thy only-begotten Son our Redeemer this day to have ascended into the heavens, may also in mind dwell in the heavenly places.
As an example of how Cranmer expanded his Latin originals, I suspect out of a pastoral desire to ensure that the Collect wasn't over before a dozey congregation had cottoned on to what it was saying, I offer his version:
Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens: so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell.
The current Roman Collect uses a beautiful piece of Leonine antithetical rhetoric: literally: for the ascension of Christ thy Son is our provection, and, whither the glory of the Head has gone first, thither also is called the hope of the body. I don't like to say anything that even seems disrespectful towards Pope Leo's latinity, but I wonder whether the thought pattern is bit too tight and rapid for a Collect. Rhetoric suitable for a homily (which is where the compilers of the post-Conciliar Missal found this phrase) is not necessarily appropriate for the terse and brief literary form of the Collects of the Roman Rite. Perhaps that is why the old Collect is now on offer again.
There was a horrible tendency for Twentieth Century Liturgical Committee-persons, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, to be too-clever-by-half in the formulae they dreamed up as they sat around their tables.
At the Vigil Mass and at the First Vespers, the Editio tertia Missalis Romani of 2002 offers a new Collect, which will be used this year in the new Translation.
And moreover, for the Day itself, the Third Edition gives the alternative of yet another new Collect: except that in this case it isn't new, it's the ancient Roman Collect preserved in the 1962 Missal and, of course, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (and, I presume, in the Ordinariate formulae). Here is a literal translation of the Latin:
Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we who believe thy only-begotten Son our Redeemer this day to have ascended into the heavens, may also in mind dwell in the heavenly places.
As an example of how Cranmer expanded his Latin originals, I suspect out of a pastoral desire to ensure that the Collect wasn't over before a dozey congregation had cottoned on to what it was saying, I offer his version:
Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do believe thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have ascended into the heavens: so we may also in heart and mind thither ascend, and with him continually dwell.
The current Roman Collect uses a beautiful piece of Leonine antithetical rhetoric: literally: for the ascension of Christ thy Son is our provection, and, whither the glory of the Head has gone first, thither also is called the hope of the body. I don't like to say anything that even seems disrespectful towards Pope Leo's latinity, but I wonder whether the thought pattern is bit too tight and rapid for a Collect. Rhetoric suitable for a homily (which is where the compilers of the post-Conciliar Missal found this phrase) is not necessarily appropriate for the terse and brief literary form of the Collects of the Roman Rite. Perhaps that is why the old Collect is now on offer again.
There was a horrible tendency for Twentieth Century Liturgical Committee-persons, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, to be too-clever-by-half in the formulae they dreamed up as they sat around their tables.
2 May 2016
'Righteous among the Romans'
Jews laudably and graciously honour as 'Righteous among the Gentiles' those gentiles whom they deem to have defended, even at personal risk, members of the Jewish race during the horrible antijudaic persections of the twentieth century. The instinct is an admirable and a generous one. During this Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity, a thought occurs to me. Just suppose we in the Ordinariates ... assisted, perhaps, by our dear brethren who still linger in Welbiland ... were to form a list of those Roman Catholics who, in the years before Anglicanorum coetibus, dealt justly with Anglicans ... we could even have it engraved on big brass tablets and hung on the walls of Warwick Street ...
Firstly, of course, heading any and every possible list, there stands Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. For us in the Ordinariates, he is our great and admired Benefactor and Founder. Which is why some of us rather dislike the malevolent and spiteful way in which (some of) the German bishops and others are currently campaigning to trash his legacy.
Next, among the distinguished living, Fr Aidan Nichols is head and shoulders above the rest. The hours that man has worked, writing on our behalf, helping, advising, planning, preaching, lecturing.
Among the departed, I will mention a figure who appeared in my blog some time ago: the Cardinal MERCIER, who presided over the Malines Conversations. "The Church of England United but not Absorbed".
And another Cardinal: RAMPOLLA, Secretary of State to Leo XIII, who, in the troubled days of the 1890s, when some English RCs asserted that England would be converted if only they could persuade Rome to condemn Anglican Orders, remained a firm friend of Anglicans and of England. He absented himself from the final meeting of the Holy Office at which the formal vote was taken to condemn Anglican Orders.
For today, just one more Cardinal will suffice: GASPARRI, the great and learned canonist, who brought into being the first Codex Iuris Canonici, who, again in the 1890s (when he was not yet a cardinal), found it difficult to understand why Anglican Orders were invalid. In one of the text books he had written he had taken the view that the words in the Roman Pontifical Accipe Spiritum Sanctum [Take the holy goste was the Anglican Form from 1550 onwards] were, on their own, an adequate Form for episcopal consecration, even if the the old consecratory Prayer in the Roman Sacramentaries were not used. As a member of the Papal Commission set up on the Anglican Question, he found it hard to go further than to agree that, for the avoidance of doubt and scruple, Anglicans should be conditionally reordained.
Happily, those old controversies of the 1890s are now just History. It is far from my intention to revive them. But I hope you agree that it is right to honour the memories of good, honest and principled men who were fair to us in difficult times.
Other nominees?
Firstly, of course, heading any and every possible list, there stands Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. For us in the Ordinariates, he is our great and admired Benefactor and Founder. Which is why some of us rather dislike the malevolent and spiteful way in which (some of) the German bishops and others are currently campaigning to trash his legacy.
Next, among the distinguished living, Fr Aidan Nichols is head and shoulders above the rest. The hours that man has worked, writing on our behalf, helping, advising, planning, preaching, lecturing.
Among the departed, I will mention a figure who appeared in my blog some time ago: the Cardinal MERCIER, who presided over the Malines Conversations. "The Church of England United but not Absorbed".
And another Cardinal: RAMPOLLA, Secretary of State to Leo XIII, who, in the troubled days of the 1890s, when some English RCs asserted that England would be converted if only they could persuade Rome to condemn Anglican Orders, remained a firm friend of Anglicans and of England. He absented himself from the final meeting of the Holy Office at which the formal vote was taken to condemn Anglican Orders.
For today, just one more Cardinal will suffice: GASPARRI, the great and learned canonist, who brought into being the first Codex Iuris Canonici, who, again in the 1890s (when he was not yet a cardinal), found it difficult to understand why Anglican Orders were invalid. In one of the text books he had written he had taken the view that the words in the Roman Pontifical Accipe Spiritum Sanctum [Take the holy goste was the Anglican Form from 1550 onwards] were, on their own, an adequate Form for episcopal consecration, even if the the old consecratory Prayer in the Roman Sacramentaries were not used. As a member of the Papal Commission set up on the Anglican Question, he found it hard to go further than to agree that, for the avoidance of doubt and scruple, Anglicans should be conditionally reordained.
Happily, those old controversies of the 1890s are now just History. It is far from my intention to revive them. But I hope you agree that it is right to honour the memories of good, honest and principled men who were fair to us in difficult times.
Other nominees?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
