Sunday, 23 November 2014
"However much I may be absorbed or employed in other duties; however much I may succeed in them, yet my labour will be lost time and my success a failure if it does not include the Mass devoutly offered and the Divine office devoutly recited." Mgr John Moyes, the second Canon Administrator of Westminster Cathedral.
Saturday, 22 November 2014
I rather doubt Fellay is at all interested in Ordinariate Use liturgy, pater dilecte. As traditionalists used to think before the days of pope Benedict XVI, the Church of England has nothing worthwhile to offer the Roman church and to them the Prayer Book is a bastardised and heretical book, worthy of a thousand anathemas, and even worse is some inferior mixture of two parts Novus Ordo, one part Prayer Book, such as the Ordinariate Use.
"So, Monsignor, what reservations do you have about liturgy inspired by Anglican patrimony for use in the Ordinariates?"
"The Council of Trent condemned vernacular liturgy [indeed I have read tracts on $$PX websites condemning the very notion of a vernacular liturgy]; St Pius V condemned the Anglican Prayer Book in Regnans in Excelsis, Roma locuta; Leo XIII condemned Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae, causa est finita. The Prayer Book may indeed contain orthodox texts not dissimilar to our Roman missal but their worth is set at naught by their being in that very book, and for neo-Modernist Rome to go about constructing a new liturgy in a vernacular language based on this compendium of heresies to accommodate closet-Protestants who do not wish to become true Roman Catholicks, it's like Nostra Aetate by the back door! Why, even to utter an orthodox collect in Cranmerian English is to commit a mortal sin. English churchmanship died in 1559 only to live on in recusant houses and the hierarchy was not re-established until 1850. What happened among most Englishmen, in all English churches (which really belong to us anyway), between was of no consequence. Anglicans are not real Christians. And we really cannot understand pope Benedict's mentality. We thought he was one of us!"
"But, Monsignor, have you ever read The Book of Common Prayer?"
"I'M NOT READING THAT RUBBISH!!!"
You may be surprised to learn that my opinion of Fellay would actually go up if he maintained Ghislieri's view of any aspect of the "impious mysteries," and "manifestly heretical" content of the Prayer Book and its use as an instrument by Rome to easily lure disillusioned Anglicans into her bosom. These, I am sorry to say, were pretty much my own views as little as 8 to 10 years ago. After all, what does some nebulous understanding of Anglican patrimony have against such grave abuses as Mass in English or using a surplice and tippet at "Evensong?" We have Low Mass!
What astounds me is how the whole mentality has changed. And why? Simply because the pope reverses Pius V's condemnation and instead says that Anglican patrimony contains many "treasures worthy to be shared." You may ask why it irritates me so much. Well, not because I recognise any sudden enlightenment on the part of Rome's attitude towards Anglicanism but the sudden change itself. I honestly don't know what Fellay's views are on the Ordinariates but it would actually be encouraging if the $$PX shewed some constancy.
Thursday, 20 November 2014
A "metrosexual" young man. 80 years ago, with hair like that, he'd have been strung up...
Quoth the enemy.
Some have accused me of having my feet in both camps. That is incidentally true but it is nonetheless an oversimplification. I would have said that the convictions that I have, while fast, are not fully worked out yet because I am ignorant, and lonely. I do not hold that one particular hermeneutic of tradition, of culture, of politics or of society contains all wisdom and goodness. I am an avowed monarchist, for example, a position inspired by my Christian beliefs. At the same time I greatly admire the writings of George Orwell, a man whose sense of justice and moral righteousness was very keen and whose works are an indispensable instrument for understanding the quagmire of 20th century politics. I am a terrible snob (aren't all social climbers, though?) but I also enjoy the society of the local old dears and their custard creams. Politically, I suppose you might call me broadly "conservative," again bethought of my Christian beliefs, although I do not have much sympathy for the Conservative Party or for Mr Cameron. I tend to prefer the terms "defiant" or "sullen" to succinctly describe my political sympathies: the world and I in a constant passive-aggressive struggle for mastery (no prizes for guessing which of us is losing). I am queer but I find the ostentatious and distasteful nature of the gay community very off-putting and I cannot really say that I believe in rights for anyone, let alone "equal" rights. "Equal" is a dead word! Even so, I have some very effeminate tastes. Hinge and Bracket anyone? When I am not depressed I even take care over my appearance (but still less than the average "metrosexual" young man, in love with his own reflection and, therefore, the idea of the erect phallus)! In terms of the legal status of homosexuality, sin or crime, I would say: keep the sin behind closed curtains, but go ahead and sin. Neither confirm nor deny; but never be seen at the tail end of a "gay pride" march.
So what of the Church? I said some months ago that I intended on being received into the Greek Orthodox Church. As you might expect, I have done nothing about it. I am just lazy. Maybe I just need some quiet months to reflect, or something? I would say "let the LORD look to it," but at the risk of putting Him to the test I'll promise to at least try to incline myself to do something.
Monday, 17 November 2014
I got a swift reminder this evening from the New Liturgical Movement that I am officially barred from commenting there. I wouldn't have minded but when I saw what my comment was replaced with I have to say I became rather angry. There are people who comment there with absolutely no knowledge of liturgy whatever, spouting nonsense like "who is allowed to wear a cope at pontifical mass at the throne," and "I don't have my Fortescue handy so I don't know." Amateurs, nasty, wretched little amateurs. If you're that interested, why not go out and buy a Caeremoniale like I did? Have you never looked at the reference sections in Fortescue? Or maybe you can't read Latin?
These people make me sick. Traditionalists are either opinionated louts like John Zuhlsdorf or ignorant enthusiasts with no interest in liturgical accuracy who suck up to the former. No taste, no discerning, no souls. Decent people don't really like them. And what did Fortescue himself say of such people?
"I neither know nor care one straw whether the celebrant should or should not have a hassock to kneel on, nor which sort of Monsignore may use a Bugia [sic]..." (Letter to Edward Myers, 27th May 1918).
"...you cannot conceive how I loathe the idea of going into all that horrid business of the minutiae of tomfool modern ceremonies once again." (Letter to S. Morrison, 20th May 1920).
In other words, I am supremely confident that were Fortescue alive to-day he would have the same contempt for modern Traddies as I do.
Wednesday, 12 November 2014
When I was sixteen years old my parents had a mind to move house. One morning we went to view an house in Bexleyheath, a large four bedroom semi-detached house with a sloping roof of the kind built in the 1930's. The owners of the house were unabashed elderly Calvinists. I had decided that they were Christians before they opened the porch door. There was a notice just above the letter box which read: "No mail on the LORD's Day, thank you." My mother detected that they were Protestants upon seeing a framed photograph of the old gentleman with the Lord Bannside. I never saw this. The old man brought me into his study because I told him that I liked books and he shewed me his modest albeit rather impressive library. He had very handsome volumes of Calvin and Baxter; he took one down and read a favourite passage therefrom. At this point I said "we're Roman Catholicks." I'll never forget the look he gave me.
It has been years since I undertook an inventory of my own books. The few that I have has taken me a life time to assemble (well, at least my life time). But they are too eclectic so far. They are enough to fill three large bookcases on subjects as different as Church history is from Vogue models. The only "complete" subject is Tolkien; even so, my Tolkien books are primary sources and exhibit few studies, although this has more to do with my contempt for most people who presume to study him. I have a small collection of liturgical books. It's a while since I studied them. If I want anything in life it is to assemble the rarest and choicest liturgical books for my very own study. The lore of liturgy is no longer comfortable; in fact it's almost as disturbing as the scientific study of psychopaths, but I enjoy it nonetheless. You may ask why. I would say that to look into an antient liturgical book is like stepping into the House of Elrond, a place where tradition, regal history and the truth is enshrined forever and kept in reverent memory. Close the book and go to your church and the opposite is the case. We may piously hope for a change of days but hopes have a tendency to bear fruit in want.
Monday, 10 November 2014
I rather like this blog. It's called What does the Priest do all day? in which the witty author satirises the pedantic liturgical translations and Delia Smith cooking of that fat sponge John Zuhlsdorf, the man whom no reasonable person takes seriously. Do see the next-to-latest post on Cardinal Burke, the man who epitomises Roman Catholick hypocrisy. I too congratulate His Eminence. How old is he? 66 years old? That's my age in Vatican years. It is a tremendous achievement and a testament to all that whinging, all that downright suffering under the great pope Francis that he has been put out to dry so soon. But I must say that it's very telling about the traditionalist mindset that they have unanimously shewn unwavering support for Burke; some even declaring that his new position is less a demotion as a promotion. I mean their holy father has proven to be a patsy who likes nothing more than to smile to the camera and cater to modern fancies (who am I to judge?); I doubt he's even queer (which gives him the distinction of being the first "straight" pope in recent times), and so they have to flock to a bitter old queen to feel valid in their twisted religious life. I can think of no other reason to have liked the pope-emeritus. When Francis kicks the ecclesiastical bucket I'm sure the Traddies will all flock to Burke for the next pope.
UPDATE: See here for an excellent and succinct article on, among other things, why Cardinal Burke will never (God willing) be pope.
UPDATE: See here for an excellent and succinct article on, among other things, why Cardinal Burke will never (God willing) be pope.
Sunday, 9 November 2014
Among the more lamentable innovations in liturgical praxis brought about by the Papacy in the 20th century was Benedict XV's indult of 6th October 1919 (pp 420-421 in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) which allowed the celebration of a Mass of Requiem, whether sung or not, on Sunday 2nd November (being the twenty-first after Pentecost) of that year. The decree states quite clearly that this departure from the liturgical norm was tantum hoc anno...attentis lacrimabilis belli conditionibus. These stipulations notwithstanding it is now customary to see in many Roman (and Anglican) churches the celebration of Masses of Requiem on Remembrance Sundays annually.
I do not wish to dishonour, in any way, the memory of the ultimate sacrifice that our grandsires made in defence of our country but can I just point out that it is grossly uncanonical to have any votive office on Sundays? Indeed, the peculiar nature of the Requiem Mass makes it entirely unsuitable for Sunday celebration. This is the Day which the LORD hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it! The Eucharistic Liturgy must conform to the Office of the Day and the Sunday propers are older by far than the Office of the Dead. The pastoral motives of departing from liturgical law were at least intelligible in 1919 but the Great War has passed out of living memory. To what purpose do you continue holding these illicit Requiems to-day? Why not devote other Sundays to Culloden or Agincourt or Hastings and forget entirely all liturgical decency in a sentimentalist fudge? The Byzantines have a similar problem with the incorporation of the Litany of the Departed into the Sunday Liturgy.
One reason, among so many others, that I fell out with the Traddies.
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
O Lord, who didst this day discover the snares of death that were laid for us, and dist wonderfully deliver us from the same; Be thou still our mighty Protector, and scatter our enemies that delight in blood. Infatuate and defeat their counsels, abate their pride, asswage their malice, and confound their devices. Strengthen the hands of our gracious Lady Elizabeth, and all that are put in authority under her, with Judgement and Justice, to cut off all such workers of iniquity, as turn religion into rebellion, and faith into faction; that they may never prevail against us, or triumph in the ruine of thy Church among us; But that our gracious Sovereign and her Realms, being preserved in thy true Religion, and by thy merciful goodness protected in the same, we may all duly serve thee, and give thee thanks in thy holy congregation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Not that it's quite the fifth day of November yet but, I expect, vast numbers of you are celebrating our deliverance from the tyranny of evil men to-day rather than on the day appointed in the Prayer Book. This is the second collect appointed to be read at Mattins. I chose it because of its obvious reference to the Gunpowder conspiracy ("workers of iniquity, as turn religion into rebellion," etc). But the language is exquisite. Almost it reminds me of the excellence of the new ICEL!
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
Fr Hunwicke has foretold a fierce conflict betwixt the chivalrous sons of Ultramontane tradition and the knavish rabel of Liberalism. He offers the literary works of C.S Lewis as a comfort and a solace amidst the grief that is to come in which vile old queens, who have probably never read C.S Lewis, are denied their right guaranteed by the pope-emeritus to celebrate defective liturgy in whatever church they choose. We have already seen the devastation (!) caused by Fr Fisher in Blackfen and who wants a repetition of such injustice as this? As to C.S Lewis, I would have proffered Letters to Malcolm rather than That Hideous Strength. Malcolm is full of barbed comments about the Papal communion and Lewis even admits his contempt for John Henry Newman therein so I hardly imagine how Lewis can be seen as "Patrimony" that compliments theologians like Ratzinger (he who knows as much about liturgy as a pig).
I hope the inexorable tide of Liberalism drowns them all. I look forward with hope and anticipation for many more such stories as Blackfen. I mean if the cause of "tradition" is represented and epitomised by men like John Zuhlsdorf then it must be wrong!
There's a silver lining,
Through the dark clouds shining,
Turn the dark cloud inside out,
Till the boys come home.
Sunday, 2 November 2014
More years ago than I care to remember I was an Irish Dancing champion. One of my dancing teachers was a man called Anthony O'Shea. One morning my mother took me to his house for a private tuition session. I went into his living room and noticed a pair of "old dear" glasses on the mantelpiece and I said, "are these your wife's glasses?" And my mother said, "he's not married, Patrick."
It seems that I have been surrounded by queers my entire life...
Friday, 31 October 2014
...the Sure Foundation or "From Mount Olympus" as Urban VIII reckoned it. One of my favourite hymns, sung beautifully by the choir of Westminster Abbey, and traditionally sung at Lauds for the Dedication of a Church. This was, for me, the highlight of the papal visit; the moment it dawned on pope Betty that the Church of England, making so little effort, can really do liturgy well. I spoke to the Dean about this toned-down Evensong shortly afterwards and he informed me that, yes they could have done more, but it was really a compromise between Lambeth Palace and the Papal retinue. I've no doubt that cuddling up to Mgr Swine that night he said "why can't we do that in St Peter's?"
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Have you ever thought about the "social kingship of Christ" in terms of the Prisoner of the Vatican? The cult of "Christ the King" was posited during an era of increasing faithlessness, much like the feast of Joe the Worker, so one might well question its value even for this reason alone. Why look to a devotion wholly shallow and alien to Tradition when the mystery of Christ's Kingship is best seen from a Rood on Good Friday or read in the Invitatory of Paschal Mattins? But there is another, more sinister, aspect to this cult. In mediaeval times, when the popes claimed feudal lordship over all the kings of Europe, they really were, in a sense, "king of the world." With the gradual loss of their secular influence during the Reformation and Counter Reformation periods, the Napoleonic Wars and finally the Unification of Italy, the popes sought ever to claw back their waning power by whatever means necessary. Then Pius IX, a complete megalomaniac, shews up; uses the French against his own people; loses; finds that his dominion is circumscribed to a space no bigger than Hyde Park; then summons an "Œcumenical Council" to proclaim himself incapable of the possibility of error! With sour grapes and the hubris of a defeated imperialist he confines himself to the Vatican, excommunicates the entire Italian peninsula and died bitter, a vast bloated bag of a man and despised by the people of Rome. Half a century later pope Pius XI proclaims a new doctrine with the encyclical Quas Primas on the "social kingship of Christ," in which he laments:
The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. (24).
Which is but to say, "my right to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern...was denied; then gradually the religion of popery came to be seen as a false religion and was rejected." As I understand the tendency of popes, they themselves are the subject. The pope, then still Prisoner of the Vatican, can hardly posit himself as the subject of this new devotion. Who would take him seriously? Why not then become the high priest of a new cult and claim the kingship of men's lives? Thus did Sauron ensnare the King of Númenor and brought about the downfall of that realm! So do not trouble to ascribe this "social kingship" to Our Lord, whose Kingdom is not of this world, but to your master, the old man in white, who bides his time, secure in his pride and exalting himself in his pagan basilica in Rome.
And years ago I just thought the feast was tacky and modern!