Monday 27 January 2014

Am I not, or am I?



I recently discovered Opus Publicum by the blogger Modestinus. Modestinus is one of those difficult-to-understand types who seems to have converted from holy Orthodoxy to the Roman communion and makes somewhat of a fuss about it. He says that Liturgiae Causa is a fine source of liturgical information; and I daresay it is, though I hasten to add that none of that information comes from my own mind but rather the contribution of my readers whose expertise in matters liturgical far outstretches the reaches of my imagination. One thing he claims about me on his blog is that I have been a disaffected Anglo-Catholic in good standing with the Elves of Mirkwood. If by "disaffected Anglo-Catholic" he means lapsed Roman Catholic and by "Elves of Mirkwood" he means the Gnomes of Beleriand...no actually I prefer the Grey Elves under the lordship of Thingol...then he'd be closer to the truth. I was never an Anglo-Catholic. While for a brief period I attended a prominent Anglo-Catholic church in London I never once accepted the holy Sacrament there and my deference to the Church of England is, and was, merely a polite nod to the fact that it is the Church Established of this nation under the sovereignty and protection of Her Majesty The Queen, who is really the last Christian symbol of national life. The fact is that the Church of England is apostate from the Faith though I would say that this came about in the last century and not due to the schism of Henry VIII or the Elizabethan reform. I am a lapsed Roman Catholic in the sense that I have stopped attending Roman Catholic services. I suppose I am in the same (or a similar) boat to most people who would say that they are Roman Catholics. However my objections to the Roman Catholic faith (and hence my refusal to attend or countenance their religious rites) are more profound and thoughtful than: "yeah, but the pope says we can't use condoms." I expect in the eyes of the Roman church, however, I am something more dangerous than a lapsed Catholic; I am apostate from "the" faith because I openly reject many core Roman Catholic teachings, such as the infallibility and primacy of the pope, the Romish doctrine concerning purgatory (notice my choice of words), indulgences, the doctrine of the Eucharist, etc.

I do not currently practice any religion whatever. I left the Roman church three years ago, after being publicly expelled from a sacristy on account of being homosexual, and have so far shewn no demonstrable interest in joining any other church. I go to Westminster Abbey sometimes to hear Evensong and I shew solidarity with my friends by attending certain commemorations in London and elsewhere, such as the martyrdom of St Charles Stuart, but I am a long way away from even undertaking a new search for a new faith. I am simply not interested. You may ask wherefore I keep the blog going, then? With a title as compelling as liturgiae causa and hardly any discourse on liturgy, does this not present somewhat of a dichotomy? In all honesty, I've forgotten everything I once knew about liturgy (and that wasn't much). I understand its importance relative to the life of faith and one's sense of doctrinal right and wrong for, unlike the erroneous Papists, I haven't succumbed to the profound error wherein they reverse that antient maxim legem credendi lex statuat lex supplicandi (under the dominion of which came some of the most pernicious liturgical reforms of the 20th century). But I have come to the conclusion, after months of apathy (which, in turn, came after years of earnest, fruitless, research), that you will look in vain to the Sacred Liturgy for any answer; at least unto liturgy of a "Western" manifestation as celebrated...or at least carried out (as one would put a ready meal in the microwave)...by mainstream churches. That, in turn, is not an endorsement of the many weirdos out there who like to do-it-yourself at home. The Holy Ghost is hardly likely to send down the Pentecostal fire onto upside-down trestle tables in a garage for the benefit of a renegade with skeletons in his (or her; we must be politically correct) closet.

There has been a great schism in the West, a schism betwixt Liturgy and the People of God brought about by years of Papal-endorsed violence (under the guise of "reform"), neglect, tampering and the noticeable absence of the spirit of real liturgy; the spirit having gone out with each tradition legislated away by pope X, Y and Z. And it's something that cannot be undone by any means within the power or lifetime of churchmen. It's a grim reality to have to face but the truth is seldom comforting, and the truth is simply this: the Roman Liturgy, which enshrined the hallowed traditions of our Western fathers of old, is now only to be found in far-sundered books, or pages in manuscript, in places like the British Library or the writings of men like Dr John Wickham-Legg. Go to any church, even (or especially) to "traditionalist" churches (whether in good standing with Rome or not) and you will find only falsehood or, if you prefer, 1955 all over again. Go to the Ordinariates and you'll find something more recent than that! And that's not to mention the abominable hypocrisy so rife in such places. The more (to this world) unacceptable teachings of the Roman church, where they are enforced, provide the comfort and stability for people with emotional problems to have a sense of triumphalism, of being in a safe little clique, and these people don't give a damn about liturgy! Liturgy, to them is the suspicious by-product of some other pursuit and a mark of identification (the mark of the Beast?) rather than a channel of the love of God and a genuine connexion to the Fathers. Favour the 1962 liturgy and you're traditional; you're in the club. And you have to favour it under the guidelines of Summorum Pontificum! Viva il Papa, and all that! Anything else and you pose a threat, you have to be cut away like an unclean piece of flesh. All this makes me wonder upon what foundation the traditionalists build their sense of "tradition," if they always and everywhere must make recourse to a papal pronouncement of six years ago. I was in a pub adjacent to the Savoy Hotel once and someone suggested to me that on every subsequent Holyrood Day they ought to sing the Te Deum. I looked aghast at him though nobody understood why. What happens when pope Francis abrogates Summorum Pontificum, as (to me) seems highly likely? To what motu proprio or canon will they look then? Maybe they'll once again start crying out for "immemorial custom," and Quo Primum! Or worse, maybe they'll begin undermining the pope's authority (ever so subtly!) and take a quasi-sedevacantist position, saying that pope Francis doesn't have the authority to abrogate Summorum Pontificum and that its precepts still carry the weight of auctoritas and its decisions still bind on liturgical tradition? And so on and so forth in an endless cycle of contradictions and doublethink that have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.

Well, you'll excuse me if I wish to have no association with such base, ignorant rabble. These people don't practice Christianity, they are the Pharisees of whom the Lord spoke, rendering lip service to the Scriptures whilst upholding various monstrous doctrines in the name of Tradition (of which they know absolutely nothing), and being so very apt to evil. So let them count their beads and visit their modern places of pilgrimage. I'm sure that on Doomsday, when the magnitude of their own ignorance is revealed to them, they'll find that they aren't that dissimilar to fanatics in other religions, like Islam. Woe unto them!

I'm sorry, I forgot to answer the question I posed earlier: why continue with this blog? Erm, well I suppose it just drowns out the ticking of the clock. People have long ceased to take much notice of me. Perhaps I keep it up in the hope that one day I'll get my enthusiasm back? Who knows.

18 comments:

  1. Some of us do still take notice of you. And sympathetically at that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are only partially right on my background. I was baptized a Catholic and grew up in the Catholic East (Ukrainian and Melkite). I have half-descended from Eastern (Galician) Poles. I fell away from the Catholic Church for a number of years and when I came back, some of my immediately family had converted to the Orthodox Church. Since Orthodoxy provided a liturgical-spiritual haven more aligned with what I had experienced growing up, I took the bait and went there, too -- for seven years. Then I came back, and my reasons why have been well-documented before.

    With that said, I don't make a fuss about it. I've been back in the Catholic fold for almost 3 years now. The difference between me and most bloggers who write on things Catholic and things Orthodox is that I am well-acquainted with both. (Arguably I am still "better acquainted" with Orthodoxy in America, though that's only because it's a very, very small world.)

    As for my comments on you and your blog, don't take them so seriously. I do think you overplay your hand when it comes to Western -- specifically Roman -- liturgy, but you're hardly alone in that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people accuse me of making stereotypes of traditionalists and that the kind of terrible people I describe here don't exist. But they do. I worshipped and socialised with traditionalists for five or six years!

      I have been to various Orthodox churches in London and all I can say about them is that they are very ethnic and, therefore, off-putting. I was at Ennismore Gardens (Moscow Patriarchate) once and walked out when this elderly Russian priest tried chanting in English, a language he clearly didn't understand very well. And they don't even say the Lord's Prayer properly there! How can they be "orthodox" if they can't even get that right?

      As I said, I don't currently worship anywhere, even at home. I am, however, going to the Banqueting House on Thursday for Charlesmass. Conspicuously the January kalendar of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is blank on 30th. I wonder why!

      Delete
  3. Those "terrible people" do exist indeed; I can vouch for you there. Though we should all be careful of turning into our own versions of terrible people, for it is easily done. Obsession, rigidity and brittleness are among the ingredients.

    Your point about needing to understand the language one is worshipping in is a well-made one. There are plenty 'traddies' who would equally-well mangle Latin, though a sacral language is something important, even if only from the purely psychological perspective of not being so easily able to approach it so perfunctorialy as one's own vernacular.

    Patricius, you must enlighten me, though: in what jurisdiction would one celebrate Charlesmass? I do not mean that as divisively as it sounds: never canonised by Rome, is he in the CofE calendar? I don't know, you see.

    It's a pity you don't worship at all, but having experienced similar rejections I quite understand. Doesn't the Office even attract you? (Or maybe I am just odd in having had that always 'call' me.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark, a language understanded of the people is simply an evangelical principle. Reason is one of the pillars of the Church of England (or was).

      The annual commemorations at the Banqueting House are under the auspices of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, an Anglo-Catholic devotional society founded in the 19th century in response to Queen Victoria's decision to remove the martyrdom from the Prayer Book kalendar. One of its patrons is Fr Charles-Roux, some time rector of St Etheldreda's, Ely Place.

      St Charles was the last saint canonized by the Church of England. When the Provinces of Canterbury and York came together in 1660 after the tumultuous years of the Civil War and Protectorate they immediately added his name to the sanctorale at the revision of the Prayer Book. I think that St Charles forms an essential part of Anglican patrimony and identity and find it scandalous that the Ordinariate does nothing to perpetuate his legacy.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the explanation, Patricius! Although baptised an Anglican, I'm not English and so my history of England and knowledge of the (English) Prayer Book is hazy. From what you say, it does seem amiss that the Ordinariate 'does nothing' as you put it.

      Regarding the people understanding the language of worship, I can agree mostly, provided that language is at least reverent (i.e. it has become sacralised) and not the nauseatingly gauche vernacular of some modern 'liturgical' texts!

      Delete
    3. Patricius,

      A little point of detail, if I may: Fr. Charles-Roux was never the Rector at St. Etheldreda's but a priest in residence there. The less said about the Rector when Fr. Charles-Roux was resident, Kit Cunningham, the better after the disgrace of his 'kiddy fiddling' in Africa years ago coming to light and him returning his OBE to our most Gracious Sovereign Lady. Fr. Charles-Roux was always enigmatic, and absolutely charming. Back in the early '90s I used to often serve his Mass on Sundays. He did not follow the 1962MR but a curious mixture of pre- and post-Pacelli - e.g. he would celebrate Octaves 'on request'. I understand he is still living in Rome, now in his late nineties. I last met him at a party and he was in excellent form.

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Rubricarius, for your correction and I defer, of course, to your superior knowledge. I had quite forgotten about Cunningham.

      I never met Fr Charles-Roux.

      Delete
  4. Patricius, Your namesake, whom we have discussed, Paddy (Patrick) Hassett of blessed memory, used to serve Fr. Charles-Roux on weekdays - often having spent many hours with the Rector and lots of whisky. Paddy, whose self-confessed apotheois was concelebrating with his hero Paul VI, used to have two images in the grubby, study missal he always carried: one of Paul VI and one of the Emperor Hirohito (sp.?). On one feast of the Transfiguration he approached Fr. Charles-Roux and said 'Today is the anniversary of the death of the great Paul VI. Paddy was, unusually, rather shocked when Fr. Charles-Roux responded 'Good.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should like to have met Paddy; from what you have told me of him he strikes me as having been a thoroughly decent man, and quite a character! I'm sure he had many interesting stories to tell.

      Paul VI strikes me as having been a rather weak, uninteresting man. I don't dislike him; in fact I actually quite like the popes of the period 1958-2005, but I get the impression that he'd have been blown down by a stiff breeze. I'm afraid that on that point I would have disagreed with Paddy as I don't think that Paul VI was "great" by any stretch of the imagination.

      Delete
    2. It was my blessed good fortune to have met both Paddy Hassett and Fr Charles-Roux, but I didn't know that story. It's a good one!

      Delete
  5. I suppose, in the end, I don't follow all of the liturgical nitpicking, but maybe one gets tired of it after spending so many years around the Byzantine Rite (Catholic or Orthodox). Byzantine liturgy is a mess, but that doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The problem is that the mess is obscured from the eyes of most beholders because of the sheer complexity of the rite, to say nothing of the language barrier. (When I didn't worship in an English-language environment, the dominant tongue was Church Slavonic, though the Ukrainian Catholic Church has pretty much moved away from that now.) I have been to Vigils (Vespers, Matins, First Hour) where entire sections of the Psalter were omitted, the canons were abbreviated, a litany or two was squeezed out, etc., and the people around me thought it was the most ornate, complete, and indefectible thing they've ever seen. My view? It was a hasty chop-shop approach to the service and if we're going to stand there for 2 1/2 hours, we might as well be there for the full 3.

    Thankfully I have moved on a bit from that view, not because I don't think these things shouldn't matter, but because making them matter too much can become, well, an idol. I agree with you and Rubricarius that the 1962 liturgical books are inferior to, say, the 1954 books. That is why, when I pray the Breviary, I pray out of my 1945 Benziger Brothers edition (with the Vulgate!). Thanks to Rubricarius' Ordo, which I received in the mail today, the matter is made much simpler. With that said, I go to Mass according to the 1962 books because, well, that's what is in play at the moment, and I will take the 1962 Mass over no Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass. (Similarly, I would take an abbreviated vernacular Divine Liturgy over the Novus Ordo as well.) Is it perfect? Naw. But then again, Polish clergy mumbling Church Slavonic under their breath so the congregation couldn't hear in the decades following the Union of Brest wasn't perfect either, but still there was Grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Modestinus, I think I understand your position better now. I think it's hard to strike a true evangelical balance when it comes to taking liturgical dispositions. Is it, for example, morally superior to use which version of which Breviary? There is a danger there of losing sight of our need for God's Grace as sinners just like everybody else.

      Why not use a pre-1911 Breviary? Or, preferably, a pre-Clementine edition. That's if you want the Roman Rite. There's always Sarum!

      Delete
  6. I, too, feel a similar ongoing exile from Christianity, even though I am an Episcopalian in the US. Religion. Why do we have to make it so hard for each other?

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my view matters such as what sticheri, tropar and the like to omit or otherwise; and the degree of fullness of the odes of the canon at Mattins etc is a different issue to the matter raised in this post. Has not the principle of Byzantine rite parish worship always been to do the best one can with the available resources? Whilst I am firmly opposed to the idea of the arbitrary shortening of services, in any rite, I would wager that even the worst Byzantine rite parish celebration is going to be far superior to all but very best Western traditionalists can offer.

    Patricius’ comment about using a pre-1911 or pre-Clementine Breviary is a good one. Those who would accuse some of us of being ‘extreme’ or of ‘nitpicking’ argue that the differences between the pre-Conciliar books are but trifles and matters of detail and don’t really matter. If that is the case one might reasonably ask what then is wrong with using, for example, a pre-1911 Breviary if is – according to promoters of the ‘but details’ view’ – essentially the same as the 1961BR? Of course, the real reason is nothing to do with details but the on-going revisionism of the Traddieland script. Simply put if the changes were before the SVC they must be OK and if they came after the same then they are wicked, nasty, Protestant etc. The sorry story of how the 'liturgical books of 1962' have come to such unhappy prominence has been told elsewhere but, ultimately, that process has been about deciding that the SVC is the problem and exonerating the pre-Conciliar popes of any responsibility for their actions and in the process enriching the myth that the high Ultramontanist model of late nineteenth century and twentieth century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference, I think, is in terms of legitimate use of authority, whether at parish level or papal level. If a parish priest takes it upon himself to arbitrarily cut out bits of the service he thinks is not pastorally expedient (or some other reason), that's his sin and the deprivation of a salvific mystery inherent to the liturgy for his congregation. If, on the other hand, the pope says "this tradition is no longer lawful," and then goes so far as to threaten with excommunication anybody who doesn't believe him, then there is a very serious problem. The questions I would ask are: 1, is such (mis)use of authority for the good of the Church and of souls and 2, does that authority come from on high in the first place?

      Delete
    2. As the SRC, of unhappy memory, used to respond:

      Ad (1) Negative;
      Ad 2) Negative.

      Delete