Thursday, 19 August 2010

Annoyed, very annoyed...

I was quite disgusted with Sunday celebrations of the Assumption in ''tradworld'', although I expected as much so it didn't come as quite a shock as May 1st. I only thank God that I can tell the difference between the Old Rite and innovation - I mean Heaven help the vast majority of people in the pews, who come in all sincerity expecting the Old Rite. I have said so before and I shall say so again - my two dogs have a more acute sense of Liturgy than Catholic Traditionalists. The thing I find most annoying (apart from the mixing and matching in strong evidence in some churches - commemorations of the Sunday, for example, whilst using the inferior Signum Magnum propers - if such churches were being so ''obedient'' to Mother Rome why do they not, in deference to Summorum Pontificum, just stick to the '62 Rite for the whole year if they can't even get a major feast such as the Assumption right?) is that I, and a few other erudite friends, seem to be the only one who cares. So I must ask - why am I being forced to find better Liturgy in other churches, not in communion with Rome?

It seems to me that only in ''schismatic'' and ''heretical'' churches is the Sacred Liturgy done properly, and consistently. Why is this I wonder? Is it because they all see the errors of Rome, and are free from the yolk of any Romish influence? Yes, yes and yes (in most cases). Unfortunately very few Catholic Traditionalists are interested in historical liturgical accuracy at all, and are demonstrably not traditional in any meaningful sense. And so I am giving very serious thought to repudiating the Church of Rome utterly as irretrievably lost from Tradition. If the Church of Rome were the One True Church there would be no such thing as the liturgical books of 1962. In my days as a Traditionalist I was very unhappy, and I am unhappier still now, so is this really the way to live life as a Christian? At any rate I have long ceased to take any notice of modern Rome. The Sacred Liturgy is the yardstick of orthodoxy, not the latest innovation emanating from Rome. If justification for using Signum Magnum is deference to Munificentissimus Deus then I repudiate that bull as superfluous to the tradition of the Church and reject it utterly as fraught with lies and contempt for the Sacred Liturgy. I believe in the doctrine of St Mary's Assumption - but because the Sacred Liturgy bears witness to this Truth across the ages, not because the Pope said so when my grandfather was my age...
Still, I'm going clothes shopping now - I need a new Ralph Lauren polo shirt, and may buy a new pair of chinos to go with it...apart from Liturgy, Tolkien and Latin another favourite hobby of mine is shopping for myself...


  1. If you truly believe the Catholic Church to have been founded by Jesus Christ, and yet you reject her because the Liturgy is not to your personal taste, you are in serious danger of losing your soul through the sin of Pride.

    Many of us have put up with awful Liturgy over the years and we offered up any "suffering."

    Not so very long ago, Patrick, you were grateful to get the Extraordinary Form of Mass ofered in a local parish.

    If through the advice of your erudite friends you are failing to obey one of the commandments of the Church - which is to attend Mass, not to consider it liturgically correct or aesthetically pleasing, then, for all their erudition, they are false friends who will lead you to hell.

  2. Please furnish me with a Scriptural or Patristic text telling me that we are to ''offer up'' scandals such as Joe the Worker or Signum Magnum.

    As for the so-called ''Extraordinary Form'', I have never in my life said I was grateful for it, and I certainly don't use that term. ''Extraordinary Form'' = liturgical books of 1962. Liturgical books of 1962 = nadir in the Roman Rite. I shall not elaborate here my profound theological misgivings about Summorum Pontificum though. What Fr Finigan is doing in Blackfen has nothing to do with SP. The way I see it, he has just wisely introduced the Old Rite into mainstream parish life. My grievance lies not in the fact that you all use lace cottas, despite my remonstrance about their demonstrable novelty (similarly the idea of erecting gradines upon an already suitable altar), since this is a matter of ''personal taste,'' but that you don't follow the St Lawrence Press Ordo consistently. Why, for example, on 1st May did you not have the traditional feast of Sts Philip and James? St Joseph the Worker is a made up feast - made up by Pius XII to appease Communists. Similarly on Maundy Thursday the Mandatum was artificially inserted into a liturgically inappropriate time - after the Gospel. If I had had my way there would have been no Mandatum at all if the Mass were offered at this inappropriate time (8:00pm - for ''pastoral reasons'') rather than another example of mixing and matching, which only makes a travesty of the Sacred Liturgy.

    This is not to say that I have ''gone off'' Blackfen - I was very-well pleased that we have had Old Rite Palm Sunday for two consecutive years, for example, but I am not overly impressed when things like May 1st or Signum Magnum happen. There is no cause for it. I'd have come to Blackfen on Sunday if only Gaudeamus were the order of the day - even for a Low Mass, since not even the church I had desired on visiting used Gaudeamus. But you can't expect me to pay dividends to the liturgical heresy of the most monstrous Pope in history by putting up with Signum Magnum. I have already explained in a previous post the inadequacies of these Propers.

    My decision not to attend Sunday Low Mass during the month of August was not about personal taste. It was a conscious decision, taken with nobody's counsel but my own, to live Liturgy and worship ''in spirit and in truth,'' according to the dictum of the Gospel. I cannot do that at Low Mass. I have no objection to the choir taking a break, but I don't see why they can't do it on alternate weeks. The divine cult is infinitely more important, and ought to be done with every possible means and decorum. Low Mass, in my opinion, falls short of this.

    As for my ''erudite friends'' I don't know whom you have in mind, but none of them would wilfully lead anyone to Hell.

  3. Patricius,
    A couple of quick words on this interesting post. First liturgy, though certainly important, is not the begin all and end all. If you are contemplating leaving the Roman Church (I left a number of years ago) it should be because you have concluded it is in grave error.

    Secondly, while finding grave error (heresy) is a good reason to leave a church it is not necessarily a good reason for joining one. Where would you go? Reading between the lines of many of your posts I have sensed you looking Eastward. Far be it from me to try and turn anyone away from Holy Orthodoxy. But I will caution that conversion is a very very serious matter. It should never be done in haste but only after a period of prayerful reflection.

    If you are indeed thinking of Orthodoxy you should know that this is not just the Catholic Church sans the Pope and Vatican II or even Vatican I. Our entire spiritual ethos is different from Western Christianity and it can be quite maddening to Western Christians who like everything neat and compartmentalized, when in answer to a question about some issue of doctrinal minutia they are told "who cares? Does it affect your salvation?" Getting used to the idea that much is left unanswered or simply accepted as a mystery of the faith takes getting used to.

    Scholastic theology is not held in high regard in Orthodoxy. And this often creates problems for converts, especially those coming from Trad Catholic backgrounds. (I speak from experience.) Orthodoxy also generally rejects much of what has been added to the Deposit of the Faith by the West especially post 1054 (although that date is more symbolic than of true historical significance).

    I have seen my share of Trad Catholics enter Orthodoxy out of disgust for what Rome has become over the last half century without understanding that to us the problem of Roman modernism dates back at least a thousand years. Many eventually apostatized and some fell into schism, joining the Old Calendarists in a never ending quest for doctrinal and liturgical purity.

    Speaking of which; if purity is what is sought, stay well clear of the Orthodox Church. It is infested with the worst sinners, too many of whom seem to wear miters. The liturgical variances between Greek, Russian and Arab jurisdictions can be infuriating to those who are used to uniformity and any sort of centralized authority. And then there are the issues of church discipline. How should converts be received? Do we baptize them or simply confess and Chrismate them? The answer of course is whatever your bishop tells you to do. Never mind if the Serbian parish two blocks over does it differently.

    Whatever you are thinking of doing my advice (poor as it is) is to do nothing rashly unless you have a fatal illness. Spend a couple of months praying and fasting to the best of your ability and have some serious discussions with a good spiritual adviser (not your friends and not online). If after a suitable period of reflection you are resolved that it is time to go, then and only then, should you start thinking about where to go.

    Just be very sure you that whatever you do, it is done for the right reasons.

    Please be assured of my prayers.

    Yours in ICXC

  4. John, your contribution here is most welcome, and thanks for your kind offer of prayers.

    I'm going to be honest, there is no short answer to my feelings here. I have no real interest in converting to Orthodoxy (as yet mind you), I would just rather have a Catholic church where the Sacred Liturgy was done properly. A nice Medieval church with a great number of monks to sing the Office, with High Mass. I only thrive spiritually in the Sacred Liturgy, and then only when Liturgy is done according to the Tradition of the Church. Liturgy moves me like nothing else, and I am well-aware of the magnitude of the Most High, and through Liturgy He is with us. I never was so moved when, on Palm Sunday 2009, I listened to, and followed in my Missal, the complete Passion narrative according to St Matthew. It was indescribable - I felt as though I had been transported back to some beautiful church 1000 years before and was experiencing High Mass in all its splendour. I was reminded of ancientry and blessedness, and recalled all my heroes - Tolkien, Wilde, Michalangelo, Dante, and thought that these men similarly were so moved by the same words, the Word of God, expounded and chanted as an act of divine worship by the ministry of the Church. I felt as though the hand of God had reached into my heart.

    Compare this feeling with emotive feelings of another sort, where I am fighting back a rising wrath, and the only thing that keeps me from storming off is decorum and respect for Liturgy itself. Sometimes when I think about the violence Pius XII inflicted upon Liturgy I think about Tolkien, a man who ought to be accounted among the Great, who as an old man wept one Sunday morning during Liturgy of the most appalling kind, hobbled to the end of his pew, took three profound bows and walked out. I am angered on behalf of Tolkien who had to live through it, especially because a man of his great erudition did not deserve this kind of treatment, and as he himself said in 1957 ''God is not dictated to by self-important ecclesiastics whom He Himself has appointed.''

  5. What is Pacelli doing in the photograph? Did he do a party trick of balancing a plate on his head?

  6. Rubricarius, perhaps, his evil mission having come to an end, he is looking up at the mother ship?

  7. Hi Patricius,

    I won't say to you "Leave this church and join that church". However, I will say that we know that Christ is the truth. If we see that the truth does not dwell somewhere then neither is Christ there. This means we must look for him elsewhere. Where that "elsewhere" is, you must come to your own conclusion, but if you find the truth elsewhere then you must go there for your own salvation. How long can we go on seeing one thing but believeing another? Eventually it turns into a form of deliberate selfdeception.

    As for myself, I have already come to the conclusion that Rome is not the Church, that it is in error. Looking east I believe I have found the truth there and have decided to set sail, so to speak, hoping not to be shipwrecked on the way. It may take some time before I get there. It's not going to be something I'll rush in to, like I did when I converted to the Catholic Church.

  8. "...that I, and a few other erudite friends, seem to be the only one who cares.

    Those are the erudite friends to whom I referred. I didn't say that they were deliberately leading you to Hell... you know the old saying about the way to Hell and good intentions.

    Oh, and BTW, you did comment favourably on the Extraordinary Form to me in conversation, very early on in our acquaintance.

    Missing Sunday Mass because you disagree with "Low Mass" is a mortal sin. It's a mortal sin whatever the reason, but especially as you have appointed yourself the arbiter of liturgical correctness. I can only hope and pray that you went to Mass elsewhere.

  9. What John said (and Paul).

    To amplify his last paragraph a little: as I mentioned before, you need to be certain above all that it really is Christ you're looking for, and not a vehicle for your ideological constructs or a dispenser of emotional highs.

    Only Christ is the end - everything else is a means. Possibly you're a "religion addict", in which case you'll simply run into yourself again wherever you go, and the dissatisfaction, frustration and anger with human imperfection will re-emerge before too long. The only way to discover the truth about your intentions is through renewed ascetical struggle: you must try harder than ever to make sure you're keeping the commmandments - all of them - as the absolute basic condition of realistic discernment. You must forgive absolutely everybody, fully, freely and without let or hindrance, starting with those under your own roof. You must pray, you must fast and you must try to be silent - really silent - for a reasonable time every day. You must stop theologising. You must give stuff away. You must go to Church. You must read the Gospels, over and over - not the fathers, not the canons, not the liturgical commentaries. You must be prepared to be stripped of everything but Christ Himself. You must, in other words, be prepared to die. If you're not doing this, you're simply not going to get anywhere.

    On the other hand, the dissatisfaction, frustration and anger (which are certainly absolutely inimical to living and growing in Christ and which you certainly have to escape) are the inevitable consequence of having to maintain the belief that Roman Catholicism is something it just isn't - "cognitive dissonance" in other words. This is no different from the situation of those Anglo-Catholics who remain in the Church of England in a perpetual state of misery and indignation, insisting their communion is one thing, despite every indication that it's something else entirely. You have to decide about this, and then you have to act, not precipitately but prayerfully, simply and humbly.

    I will certainly keep you in my prayers.

  10. Patricius:

    It seems the liturgical world you want does not exist (yet). You claim that the Holy Father is wrong in a manner of speaking because the Novus Ordo Missal logically abrogated the 1962 Missal. But then, surely, the 1962 Missal abrogated the former ones.

    Your argument falls down. Either we have authorised liturgical books or not. If we do not, then we may as well pick up any book from the last two millenia and just say we're going to use that one, on the basis of personal taste.

    Anyway, I hope you went to Mass too. :D

  11. If you truly believe the Catholic Church to have been founded by Jesus Christ, and yet you reject her because the Liturgy is not to your personal taste, you are in serious danger of losing your soul through the sin of Pride.

    Absolutely right. If, on the other hand, you've come truly to believe that the RCC is not "the Catholic Church" but a dim and distorted echo of it, then you're obliged to seek, and to enter, the real thing.

    The Franco-Latin Popes messed up the Church (in the West), then the dogmas, and finally the liturgies. They smothered progressively the living tradition of the Apostles and substituted themselves. They did so on the basis of an exegesis of Matthew 16:18 of which the Fathers and the Councils knew nothing. It's absurd to single out Pius XII for particular vilification: he acted in accordance with ideas about his office that he and practically every other Catholic on the planet had for centuries taken to be axiomatic.

    From the Missa Paulo Sesto to the hyper-delusional weirdness of Medjugorje, you've had it coming from the day you crocked up the Creed.

  12. P.S. I wrote that before I saw Moretben's comments: most perceptive. Be prepared to die for Christ. Even if that doesn't mean literal martyrdom in this world, it will mean death to self, death to the ego. But he said it more eloquently than I can.

  13. Well of course the problems in the Roman Church go back centuries, I am sure most of us would agree on that. However, the acceleration of the demise has certainly accelerated significantly in the last 150 years.

    It's absurd to single out Pius XII for particular vilification:

    Moretben, for once I find myself not agreeing with you. Pacelli was a real showman, something John Paul II gets the blame for, striking absurd poses like that shown above welcoming adulation from those around him. One only has to think of the parallels between Holy Week in contemporary Byzantine practice and pre-1955 Roman practice and look at what Pacelli did to that to get yet another example of why he was one of the worst, if not the very worst, of modern popes. Breaking the Apostolic Fast before communion was another cataclysmic innovation by him etc etc. Most popes have not managed to do as much damage in a single pontificate as this man.

  14. The Catholic Church is not good at much these days but it still seems to be very good at persuading those inside it that it is the only game in town. I recently had dinner with a dear friend who is a very devout Catholic and who finds my reception into the Orthodox Church incomprehensible. I tried to explain it to her. The whole time she was nodding her head in agreement as I explained why I could no longer remain a Roman Catholic in good conscience. But in the end nothing I said mattered to her because the Roman Church is the "true church" and no evidence could shake that conviction. In the end I've come to the conclusion that there really is not much difference between Catholicism and Calvinism with its "invisible" church. In modern Catholicism, nothing that you can see or hear or hold onto matters. The liturgy is in ruins. Catholic culture has been demolished. The Faith is deeply compromised. In many instances modern Roman teaching cannot be reconciled with what was taught just a couple of generations ago without tortuous logic chopping. But it doesn't matter at all because "Rome is the One True Church." I converted to Orthodoxy because it is real. It is tactile. I can see it and hear it and touch it every time I enter an Orthodox Church. The faith of the modern Roman Catholic is for me just too much like the faith of the mob in the story of the Emperor's new clothes. And there really is point at which faith becomes indistinguishable from gullibility.

  15. "The Franco-Latin Popes messed up the Church (in the West), then the dogmas, and finally the liturgies. They smothered progressively the living tradition of the Apostles and substituted themselves. They did so on the basis of an exegesis of Matthew 16:18 of which the Fathers and the Councils knew nothing." Superb analysis!

    Some interesting comments!

    Patricius, if you'd be so kind I'd appreciate your thoughts...

    1) Since when has it been wrong for a Pope, to alter the Kalendar? Bearing in mind that Saints and feasts etc have been added over the ages...?
    2) Which particular edition and date of the Missal are you advocating for?

  16. Mac McLernon said: "Missing Sunday Mass because you disagree with "Low Mass" is a mortal sin. It's a mortal sin whatever the reason, but especially as you have appointed yourself the arbiter of liturgical correctness. I can only hope and pray that you went to Mass elsewhere."

    Mac, I really hope that you worry about your own salvation as much as you worry about Patrick's. If so, you obviously read your Bible daily and will be very familiar with John 8:7.

    Your friendly school chaplain.

  17. Rubricarius

    I take your point about Pacelli's shameless promotion of the "Pastor Angelicus" personality cult; equally, that so many of those in a rush to condemn JPII's cultivation of the equivalent vice seem blind to the far more excessive histrionics of Pius XII.

    However it's the things believed and taught about the Papacy that have caused the Roman Catholic Church to deconstruct itself, as I'm sure you agree. Leave the dead to bury the dead.

  18. Max: a bit condescending, no?

  19. Mark, ''the liturgical world I want'' would exist if it were not for Catholic Traditionalists - who plainly aren't traditional. My complaints in this post were quite reasonable - why would anyone who cared sincerely about Tradition swap the traditional feast of Sts Philip and James for Joe the Worker for example? And am I going to let this go? Certainly not. As for the abrogation of the liturgical books of 1962, liturgical legislation from the 1960s proves this - Sacram Liturgiam, Inter OEcumenici (1964), the New Order of Mass (1965), Tres Abhinc Annos (1967) etc. This is not to mention the very interesting discussion on Fr Hunwicke's blog recently about the name of St Joseph in the Canon - and the appearance of Missale Romanum itself (1969). I have three problems with Summorum Pontificum - it lies, first of all, because of the ''numquam abrogatam'' nonsense. Traditionalists may like to scoff at liberal liturgists because of their ''hermeneutic of rupture'' in this regard, but they are just propounding demonstrable facts most of the time. The '62 books were juridically abrogated. Secondly SP designates the year 1962 as a cut off year, and taken in the context of the whole ''sacred and great'' lark in the accompanying letter to the Bishops, this just reads like absolute crap - sacred and great for whom? The confused and dismayed faithful, such as Tolkien, who had to live through those years, to their sorrow? My third problem, and this is probably the greatest, is the problems which seem to be fraught with Papal intervention in liturgical matters, and the fact that SP seems to override previous legislation, as though it never happened. So whom are we to believe? Pope Benedict XVI who says that '62 was never abrogated, because he's the Pope and he can say what he wants; or do we use our own judgement based upon the facts of liturgical history? One wonders which legislation is relevant and which isn't in the Roman Church.

    Moretben, whilst I agree with what you say I don't think that you can trace modern-day liturgical heresy to the inclusion of the Filioque in the Creed. There are other heretical churches, such as the Copts, who have no liturgical heresy at all who went into heresy far earlier than Rome. I am loath to pin-point an exact year for Roman, Papal, heresy, but definately 1947 was a black year for the Catholic Church with the reversal of the Lex Orandi. What followed was the rapid collapse of traditional Liturgy in the Church, and the sole cause of this was the Pope...of course Urban VIII's breviary hymns came centuries before 1947, as also Pius X's restructuring of the Psalter arrangement and other reforms came more than 30 years before Mediator Dei. So where does it begin...I don't believe the Orthodox scapegoat about the Filioque though. Certainly the Franks saw it as a liturgical difference rather (in custom)than a doctrinal one.

  20. Rubricarius, it is the speedy, unrestrained and very intelligent deform of the Liturgy under the auspices of this man that genuinely convinces me that he was evil - the whole ''the Pope was bullied into it'' routine people are so fond of is nonsense - in any organisation the blame falls upon the shoulders of the man in charge. In the Catholic Church's case this is the Pope.

    Canon Jerome, thanks for your comment. There is no single year I would go back to (and this often amounts to little more than liturgical archaism), but the Missal of Pius V seems a reasonable year. Most saints of the Counter Reformation and modern period are not worthy of universal veneration in my view, and the Missal of Pius V used the Julian Kalendar - see Rubricarius' blog ''The Tridentine Rite'' for more details.

    For practical reasons in the meantime I would go back to before 1854 - before Ineffabilis Deus (and I am delighted you use the old propers for the Immaculate Conception by the way! I have two photocopies of those Propers from an 1828 Missal - more on this in another post though), and before the Sacred Heart was made a liturgical feast in 1856 - also before Pius X's liturgical reform etc. I would also use pre-Urban VIII Office hymnody.

    Naturally in my ideal world there would be no such thing as a ''missal'' or ''breviary'', which aren't real liturgical books but compendiums.

    As for the Pope altering the Kalendar...there ought to be a fixed Universal Kalendar, with fixed saints for universal veneration, and these should be restricted to the greats among the Great (the Blessed Virgin, Apostles, Fathers etc). What I object to strenuously is Popes swapping traditional, centuries-old feasts, for modern ones. Of course the Julian Kalendar should be brought back...

  21. Patricius: by the way, I don't disagree that "numquam abrogatam" might be nonsense.

    What I was getting at is that if one holds that the '62 books were juridically abrogated, as you appear so to do, then it follows that one must use the latest books - and not resurrect pre'62 feasts.

    If the Church deprecates a feast then you can't resurrect it. That was the point I was trying to make. Do you see what I mean? Sorry if I wasn't clear. God bless.

  22. Well I'm all for things pre-1854! As an Old Roman Catholic of course, I blame the last 150 years on Pio Nonno's reactionary ultramontanism...!

  23. Moretben,

    You are quite right. I wish I could wipe the awful (IMHO) man out of my mind.


    I don't think it is a simple as that. For instance the feast of SS Philip and James has universally been celebrated on May 1st (the dedication anniversary of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles where their relics are in the confessio). Along comes old Pius XII and changes this and moves the feast to May 11th. Fourteen years later Paul VI moves the feast to May 3rd. Surely any reasonable understanding of the term tradition would regard the rightful day of celebration to be the one which for nigh on fifteen centuries was kept by all followers of Western rites? Are pieces of paper from Rome more important than what has been celebrated by everyone, everywhere (in the West), always?

    As to 'deprecat[ing]' and 'resurrect[ing]' feasts surely a classic example of this is twentieth century liturgical reform? We had St. John the Baptist move around between 1911 and 1914; the 1969 Calendar saw many saints returned to their actual dies natalis etc. It makes far more sense to me for calendars to be local affairs with a core of universal feasts of the LORD, His Mother, the Apostles and ancient martyrs and then the local, and relevant, feasts kept by the local church.

    I have a huge issue with making Liturgical worship a branch of Canon Law. Liturgical praxis is surely regulated by custom and orthopraxis, or most certainly should be. Let's not forget the 'Traddies' were arguing that everyone had the right to use Pius V's Missal by force of immemorial custom until very recently; those arguments weakened with acceptance of the 1984 indult and seem to have vanished with SP. Are things really that shallow?

    In the Orthodox Church Liturgy is a living, organic, reality. Developments such as the ceremonies of the 'Nailing' at Good Friday Mattins and corresponding 'Un-nailing' at Vespers on Good Friday morning have appeared and spread over the last century, no laws were passed, the services just grew organically. Likewise in our (those of us 40+) lifetimes the Liturgy of St. James Brother of the LORD had spread from being celebrated in about three places in the world to most parishes, again no laws or decrees. Is that not a far better way of doing things? Why cannot liturgy be like that in Western rites?

  24. Rubricarius:

    It probably isn't as simple as all of that, as you say, but I was trying to (vainly) make a point about consistency. If one believes that things can be abrogated then the most recent Missal and Calendar are all that one can follow, regardless of one's yearning for (often good) changes that would correct the whims of Pontiffs. I like your points about universal and local feasts by the way.

    I can see how the Orthodox system is living and organic as you say, though does it gel with the authoritarian system the Roman Church is used to. Sadly not, and some would say that's the fundamental problem the the Roman Catholic Church has. Yes, there is the primacy of Peter to be considered. Truly, I don't know enough about these things, but I do appreciate your points. I just wish I knew more answers!

    How can one have a more 'organic', living system, without deposing the power of the Popes?

  25. Rubricarius, as ever your contribution is most welcome and elucidates points of Liturgy that the inexperienced blog host passes over lightly or neglects altogether. Don't let us forget Corpus Christi though - Trads may like to blame the inept Bishop's Conference but the transferal of this feast to the Sunday is really a Papal innovation, only put right after a matter of months (am I right) in 1913?

    Mark ''consistency'' was a motive behind the composition of this post. I see your point about the apparent inconsistency in my own logic vis '62 and previous editions of the Roman Missal, but I am not concerned here about which typical edition is in force and which one isn't. My whole point about the abrogation of '62 is that SP passes over this fact without mention and is even dishonest about it. Now when Traditionalists have finished sucking up to the Pope and lambasting Tradition perhaps they'd care to be more consistent themselves in liturgical matters and stick to one Ordo for a change? If they do the Old Rite, fine and better than fine, but stick to it; if they truly wish to be obedient and implement SP then they can have the so-called Extraordinary Form and stick to that. In which case don't expect me to impressed and fall into line - it's their error not my loss.

  26. Max,

    Far from throwing stones, I am warning Patrick of the law of the Church, which he has not (yet) completely rejected.

    Missing Mass is the first step to rejecting all belief in God. I speak from personal experience, knowing myself to be a prey to the sin of pride (many scientists are prone to that one!) and I'd hate anyone to go through the misery I did before I saw the light.

    You might like to check Ezekiel 33:8 for my reasons.

    In the meantime, I shall pray for him. And you.

  27. Mark said...
    Max: a bit condescending, no?

    Condescending? No.
    It's very important that I should teach the importance of humility to the plebeian population.

  28. Mac. Please pray for myself and Patrick, both of us need our prayers.

    Obviously, you haven't had a great deal to do with evangelisation. One of the most important things one can do is learn to trust in the Lord for the individual care of his people. It is not your place to point out other people's little mistakes and sins because you are no better yourself. As soon as you start pointing out other people's sins, you are losing your trust in God that he can save them.

    We do not go to heaven because we are Good.
    We go to heaven because God is Good.
    If you suggest that is not the case, then you do not believe in God's infinite mercy and love, you doubt that he is completely forgiving and you believe that you have greater power than him.

    Be humble, believe in God and the great things he can do for you, pray for Patrick and pray for me.

    In the name of Jesus and Mary
    Your friendly School Chaplain


  29. Mark,

    I agree with you about consistency. I think this is also the point Patricius was making about his own parish: most of the time the old rite celebrations are of a certain vintage but 1962 is used, with pre-62 ceremonial, on two other days.

    Inconsistency drives me mad too. One of the latest fashions, recently reported, is that certain aspects of Canon Law 'apply as they were in 1962'. So in that case, I would argue, why don't other aspects such as the three hour fast before Communion, the use of the mantelletum by auxilliary bishops etc - it strikes me as making it up as one goes, a sort of highly selective legalism.

    The consensus of canonists, as I understand it, is that books are not abrogated but the right to use them. There is certainly a mentality about wanting to be "in accordance with the latest decrees" which one can see very much in evidence from the 1950s onwards and no doubt we will see this re-played with the controversies over the new English translation of the 2002MR when it appears.

    I think the wider issues of authority verus orthopraxis are brilliantly dealt with by Dr. Geoffrey Hull in his book 'The Banished Heart'. Originally published in the mid-1990s a thoroughly revised edition has just been published by Continuum (yours truly kindly being named in the acknowledgments). I cannot recommend the book too highly; I think you, Patricius and many of his readers will find the study both fascinating and enlightening.

  30. P

    You've mistaken my point. I'm not proposing a causal connection between the filioque and the collapse of the liturgy - I'm saying that that deformation of the Church, deformation of the dogmas and deformation of the liturgy are all equally and inevitably a consequence of the Roman Church's gross misappropriation of Matthew 16:18.

  31. Thank you for the book recommendation, Rubricarius!

    Max: touché. Is it your place to point out it is not Mac's place?

  32. To clarify (again!), with a nod to Rubricarius:

    I'm not proposing a direct causal connection from the filioque to the NOM, here, for the purposes of the present discussion. However, that's not to dismiss what a great many others have long maintained - that ALL of the distortions characteristic of Roman Catholicism have their roots in Trinitarian heterodoxy; as St Gregory of Nyssa observed, when it comes to theologia properly so called, to the "Dogma of Dogmas", we had better get it right, because if we don't it will skew absolutely everything else.

    My point here is more limited, more pedestrian and more amenable to those of us necessarily confined to the foothills of these matters: if the Pope can change the Creed and distort the constitution of the Church, it's wildly unreasonable to suppose that the Liturgy should be somehow immune.

  33. Btw: I remember saying that you wished to acquire a tweed like Tolkien. Do check out the clearance sale of Gieves & Hawkes at the Old Truman Brewery, Brick Lane. Runs until 1st November.