Sunday 11 March 2012

Patrimony...

Two photos, each representing two sides of the Anglican Patrimony. And a petition in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, excised by our late Sovereign Blessed Queen Elizabeth I in A.D 1559, whose assassination ''saint'' Pius V promised would gain that reprobate heathen safe passage into the Kingdom of God. Fortunately it never came to pass, and the legacy of Queen Elizabeth I is that much the greater. Pius V left us with impoverished liturgical books, paved the way for a new kalendar, and the impression that successive popes could (and would) do whatever they liked with the Liturgy. Elizabeth I, very catholic at heart, made an already great nation very great indeed.



Lenten Array at Westminster Abbey, symbolising the austerity of Lente by the absence of colour. Very simple, very old, ordered to the inspiration of godly piety and the holy fast in imitation of the Lord. Passiontide veiling, a later continental custom, doesn't have quite the same effect, does it?

From all sedicion and pryvie conspiracie, from the tyrannye of the Bysshop of Rome, and al hys detestable enormities, from al false doctryne and heresy, from hardnes of hearte, and contempte of thy worde and commaundement. Goode Lorde, deliver us.

You may ask wherefore this petition forms part of the patrimony, since it was only in use briefly, but the same may later be said of the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, the QuiƱones breviary (which inspired the structure of the Prayer Book services), or the liturgical books of 1962 when, on the Day of Judgement, the Lord brings every work into judgement, with every hidden thing, whether it be good or ill. Such reprobate practices as Mass facing the people, irrespective of an eastward facing Altar, rainbow stoles, polyester cassock-albs and other liturgical abuses might be said to form part of the Roman tradition one day, not to mention new and old ICEL, and all 20th century liturgical books; all the stuff sanctioned for use from on high. The Syllabus of Modern Errors and the Oath against Modernity can one day be seen side-by-side with their later revision or abolition by the popes. The fact that popes Leo III and John VIII rejected the Filioque, and the fact that the Filioque now forms part of Roman doctrine; the fact that some of the more distinguished among the papal theologians, such as St Thomas Aquinas (and the Dominican Order, even into the 19th century), rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and that this doctrine (distorted by Rome) is now, like the Filioque, set in stone, presents a communion with much less a consistent system of concordant teachings, depending upon and resonating one to another; but rather a mutable, relativistic fudge defended and symbolised by the bishop of Rome, the dispenser of grace and teacher of all Christians. So what shall we say of Leo III and John VIII, defenders of the ancient orthodoxy of Rome? Are they heretics because they did not view the procession of the Holy Ghost through the prism of later innovation? What of St Thomas Aquinas, the most highly influential theologian of the Middle Ages, with his reasoning on the Conception of St Mary the Virgin? Yea more, what of Thomas Cranmer and his Prayer Book? What of all the English Martyrs of the Reformation, such as Ridley and Latimer, who set a candle to burn at the heart of England? Such men as these, remembered by the Church of England, rejected Rome. Will Rome one day accept the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, integrate them into her tradition?



Another example of Patrimony. Notice the Christmass Tree, which the Papists adore and worship; whilst the truly liberated English Church, that has been set free from nonsensical, non-Scriptural superstitions, looks on aghast at such pagan totemism!

Ahhh, the problems of ecumenism and the integration of a tradition utterly at variance with Rome into the Roman communion. Are the Romanizing Anglicans, destined for this Ordinariate, expected to anathematize their fathers and their tradition? What of the tradition itself? Taken of itself, the Prayer Book of the Church of England (which one?) is a masterpiece of English literature, a watered down, protestant compendium of services (although there is room for an interpretation of the Eucharist in an orthodox sense if one reads the words aright - at least that is my opinion). The Collects of the Prayer Book are by no means found in the Sarum Missal, although there are many other elements. Forgive me, but were the Prayer Book the product of 20th century papal reform, instead of 16th century Cranmerian reform, I daresay the Traddies would be less enthusiastic about the Patrimony than they let on. How much do any of them know about it?

Rome isn't interested in the Anglican tradition in any meaningful sense, it just wants converts by means of veiled aggressive proselytism, hence all the ''formation,'' the appalling treatment of the great Fr Hunwicke, and the fact that Mgr Keith Newton now dresses like a Roman prelate. If you saw him, and knew not who or what he was, could even the wisest man tell him apart from anyone else in the Roman hierarchy? Why does he not wear the English cassock, with the Canterbury cap? I could well imagine Rome saying not so much, come to me and I will preserve your tradition, but rather come to me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will swallow you up. It is true, though. Soon to forget, and be forgotten, forever lost in the papal system.

Just some musings on a Sunday afternoon.

17 comments:

  1. I agree with everything you have said and the ability of Roman Catholics to ignore the obvious baffles me. When an RC uses the word Tradition what he really means is "what the current pope teaches today." If the same pope teaches something else completely different tomorrow, then that will be Tradition tomorrow. No objective substance or content. Michael Davies once wrote about the priest who received him into the Roman Church praising the traditional rite for its antiquity and universality. When the Novus Ordo was introduced the same priest told him, "Well, thank God all that old rubbish is gone." That is the attitude one has to cultivate to be an RC, and pardon me for finding it more than a trifle batty. What would they do if a pope went mad and announced from the balcony of St. Peter's that there was no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Starting buying prayer rugs, that is what they would do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must say I was bemused to read the enthusiasm on some blogs for the Ordinariate's calendar. It appears to be a hybrid between the 1962 calendar for the Temporal cycle - although the September Ember days will fall on their traditional days and be a week out with the 1962 people in some years (has any one in Rome realized that?) - and the 1969 Roman calendar for the Sanctoral cycle with the addition of St. John before the Latin Gate being allowed back in on May 6th. What 'patrimony' is this? What about the BCP Kalendar which, as Fr. Hunwicke was always pointing out when he able to blog, was essentially the same patrimony as the Roman and Sarum rites with some tweakings? Quite disgraceful IMHO to see SS Philip and James stuck on May 3rd rather than the Kalends which they had been celebrated on for a millenium or thereabouts. The Anglican Patrimony to have Joe the Worker? Spare us please!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When an RC uses the word Tradition what he really means is 'what the current pope teaches today.' "
    And when an Anglican uses the word Tradition, what he really means is 'the antependium I like today'. Every single member of Bloody Bess' Chaplaincy Corps is completely free to embrace every one of the Catholic teachings cited above, and completely free to reject every one of the 39 Articles and every basic doctrine of Christianity. So Catholics are to be reproached for their excessive servility to the whims of the Pope, and Anglicans are to be praised for their excessive servility to the whims of the entire world.

    The beam in your collective eye is about the same size as the Tyburn Tree.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alex, do I know you? You remind me of someone I met at the London Oratory a few years ago...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alex, I'm Orthodox, not Anglican. The beam won't fit into my eye so I suggest you put it somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Speaking of patrimony, you forgot to mention Pope St. Gregory I's rejection of the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" in favor of "Servant of the Servants of God" because he believed that the former might imply some sort of claim to supremacy over other bishops. Can a Pope then infallibly reject Vatican I?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patricius, we have never met. Please understand that I think that all of the things that you consider important about our liturgical patrimony are also important, and I cringe at what has been done to the liturgy by recent and not so recent Popes and lots of other people (including many Anglicans and basically all protestants). Nevertheless, the Keys of the Fisherman are in his hands; God will put this all right in His time, and we may not protest that He has put us in this era to do our part for His Church.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tawser, I don't which of the quarrels-with-borders among the many Orthodox churches you belong to, but this blog is written by an Englishman; you and your kith and kin would have been no more welcome in England under Bloody Bess' penal laws than Catholics were. Do you have icons in your church? Not so many of those left over from the Merry Old England of Sarum days, are there?

    So in your case, Catholics are to be reproached for their excessive servility to the whims of the Pope, and Orthodox are to be praised for their excessive servility to the whims of Caesar (Kaiser, Tsar, Valdimir Putin, whatever.) Why exactly was there no Patriarch in Moscow between 1721 and 1917?

    ReplyDelete
  9. In what sense was Queen Elisabeth II ''Blessed""? Which ecclesisastical Authority has bequeatehd this title upon her? As for the christmas tree, i have never seen it worhsipped in a Catholic church. It is a German Lutheran invention, and spread firstly in protestant lands, and only very recently has begun to take root even in catholic lands, such as Italy. When i was growing up in Rome, there was no Christmas tree in homes or churches, nor anywhere else. The ITalians set up a Presepio (or Presepe)- that is, a Creche with the figures of the Blessed Virgin , Saint Joseph and the newborn God Jesus - in their churches, piazze, and sometimes homes. In Italy the flower called ''stella di natale'' is often used to decorate churches and homes at christmastide. But no christmas tree, until quite recnetly: an oecumenical import.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bone Patricii,
    in your posting you mention Father Hunwicke. What has become of him? Do you know? At his weblog for the past couple weeks there is this old posting regarding his rejection at that time for priestly ordination in the Catholic CHurch: 9 June 2011 - June 9 1968
    I think I had better share with my friends the distressing news that my ordination within the Catholic Church has been "deferred".
    But had'nt his situation changed for the better? Please inform me of his present-day status, if you know.
    Thanking you in advance,
    Albertus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What has become of him?"
      Nothing has; he has been hung out to dry. And the fact that this situation has been allowed to continue is evidence of either a pathetic powerlessness or a disgraceful unwillingness on the part of the Ordinariate to put matters right.

      Delete
  11. Tawser,

    "I agree with everything you have said and the ability of Roman Catholics to ignore the obvious baffles me. When an RC uses the word Tradition what he really means is "what the current pope teaches today." If the same pope teaches something else completely different tomorrow, then that will be Tradition tomorrow. No objective substance or content. Michael Davies once wrote about the priest who received him into the Roman Church praising the traditional rite for its antiquity and universality. When the Novus Ordo was introduced the same priest told him, "Well, thank God all that old rubbish is gone." That is the attitude one has to cultivate to be an RC, and pardon me for finding it more than a trifle batty. What would they do if a pope went mad and announced from the balcony of St. Peter's that there was no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. Starting buying prayer rugs, that is what they would do."

    Nice job with the idiotic strawman. Methinks we are not the batty ones here. You're sounding like a good Protestant these days. Better to be a good *something*, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr Ferrara must have been around since the Council of the same name but visibly missed the cab.

    ReplyDelete
  13. James C., I don't know straw man you are referring to. Perhaps if you would engage in actual argument instead of glib meaningless bon mots it might help. So everyone who isn't an ultramontane Roman Catholic is a Protestant? Is that your actual argument? So St. Photius was a Lutheran avant le lettre? And you accuse ME of constructing straw men? And Alex, how does the so-called servility of the Orthodox church to the state (another threadbare caricature) effect the substance of the Faith? Can Putin alter the creed? Could Tsar Nicholas II scrap the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and replace it with the Liturgy of St. Grigorii Rasputin? The only time the Russian state ever interfered with the Tradition of the church was during during the time of Patriarch Nikhon, and that only effected rubrics, not dogma. Apples and oranges, friend, apples and oranges.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not nor have I ever been ultramontane, and I'm no Protestant.

    And no, Tawser, "I don't understand why so many people are so stupid to realize how ridiculous their so-called church is" is not an argument nor an effective evangelization tool. Isn't that what you want to do? Evangelize us? Or do you think God will be happy with snark?

    You don't have to become a Protestant to be a protestant. Not all ex-Catholic Eastern Orthodox are protestant; I've met a good number who did not bring their baggage with them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did you even read my original post? Let me put it in the form of a question. What can't the pope do?

    ReplyDelete
  16. ah, if old Popey had offered 72 virgins aswell, for the murder of the queen; perhaps he'd have had more takers.

    ReplyDelete