For funsies I typed liturgiae causa into Google and came across this traditionalist forum, where my small blog is described as a ''creepy pseudo-Trad blog.'' Quite a lot is made of my tendency to demonize Pius XII, and I think the ''creepy'' part refers to my previous post about homosexuality in art. I'm rather confused by some of the comments there - one seems to confuse Pius X with Pius XII, another seems to confuse the 1962 Missal with the Missal of Pius V, and I can't quite work out what is meant by ''pseudo-Trad.'' Does this refer to my preference for Tradition, perhaps, to Papal innovation (viz last Sunday)? Or something else? I don't know. I would like to know how someone could possibly conceive of themselves as more traditional than me if they accept the liturgical books of 1962. I have been at variance with the Church for at least six years because of liturgical reform. I used to think it was all the fault of liberal modernists subverting the Church, but then I realised it was actually the Popes themselves who were responsible. Traditionalists are at variance with the Church themselves, although they might not care to admit this. As for homosexuality, perhaps people who accept '62 and admire Pius XII (the day this man is canonized is the day I leave the Church for good) might like to get off their high horses before they judge me. A number of my friends are homosexual, and if sodomy is a sin then so is using the liturgical books of 1962.
The wicked shall be turned into hell (Psalm 9:18).
Well, I hope they don't hang you out to dry: (a) that forum is quite ruthless; and (b) I see how some of your posts could be misunderstood. Be careful! :D
ReplyDeleteSodomy is a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance:
ReplyDelete"Dixit itaque Dominus: Clamor Sodomorum et Gomorrhae multiplicatus est nimis. Descendum et videbo, utrum clamorem qui venit ad me, opere compleverint, an non est ita, ut sciam" [Gn viii: 20-21].
The Liturgy, ANY VALID LITURGY, be it that of Rome, of the Dominican, Carmelite or Norbertine Orders, of Milan, Toledo, or any local or personal rite, of Sarum, of the Eastern Churches, Catholic and dissident, of Pius V, of 1962 or of 1970 (and any other valid rite, which I have inadvertently omitted), is BY DEFINITION, the enactment of the very Sacrifice of Calvary - which certainly does cry to Heaven, wholly and completely effectively, FOR OUR SALVATION AND REDEMPTION.
You can never justify condemning a valid Liturgy as sinful.
By all means, it is acceptable to have different preferences for the non-essential details of the Liturgy - this is precisely why we have numerous rites, which have developed in different cultures, with different languages, at different times. The Liturgy is an organically developing thing, in many ways like a person, and some versions have weak points, which, God willing, will, in time be amended or disappear (precisely why a number of Liturgical reforms are taking place at present - thank you, Holy Father).
In a similar way, we should oppose abuses of the Liturgy, which can at the very least detract from the reverence owing to Our Lord, and in the extreme can invalidate a particular celebration of 'Mass' (for example, using invalid matter in place of bread and wine, omitting or rephrasing or essential parts of the consecration, or, of course, attempted 'celebration' by someone not validly ordained, or not able to be validly ordained (as would be the case with a woman 'priest').
Patrick, you are doing nobody any favours by continuing to write these posts - they have gone far beyond being outspoken, far beyond toungue-in-cheek comments, far beyond provoking debate. You are clearly in schism with the Church and seem also to be straying towards outright heresy (some would probably say you are already there). Your posts are upsetting and offending people. Your are endangering your own faith (which you still claim to profess), and possibly also the faith of others.
Bottom line is, I do not want to see your soul lost, just as I do not want to see the loss of any soul, not least the homosexual friends you mention, who may commit particular sins because of human frailty and the effects of their sexuality - this does not justify the sin, but hopefully it will be possible for them to reconciled to Our Lord, to repent and be separated from their sins at some stage (as, hopefully will be the case for all of us, even involving, as it probably will, many of the sufferings of Purgatory). The same would go for those who find it hard not to sin because of special needs, emothional or mental state.
I will pray for you, that you will overcome any problems that you are having at the moment, and that you will quickly be reconciled with Holy Mother Church. I would also ask you to give a bit of thought to what you are writing, and to the feelings of others, many of whom do care about you.
In Christo,
M.
Keeping you in my prayers tonight Patrick.
ReplyDelete"A number of my friends are homosexual, and if sodomy is a sin..."
ReplyDeleteJust because someone has homosexual inclinations, doesn't automatically mean that they are committing sin. Many of them struggle to live chaste lives according to the teachings of the Church. This is a particularly heavy cross for them to bear.
It doesn't make sodomy any less of a sin.
I'm with Matthaeus on this one.
It is also worth noting, on a purely human level, that anything you publish on the internet is public, and any future employer can check it. Most of them do now, as a matter of course. Think before you condemn the rest of the universe as being intellectually inferior to yourself.
Patricius, yours is the one and only Catholic blog I can stomach to read these days! Keep up the good work - keep asking the hard questions, keep thinking and writing courageously!
ReplyDeleteI must echo Judge373's comment (although I regularly read Fr. Hunwicke too).
ReplyDeleteKeep up the lively debate and asking challenging questions.
What about using your Latin for some Patristic posts? Ambrose on the Incarnation?
And the French are watching you as well, O Patrici!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=557594
Bryan, or anyone,
ReplyDeleteCould you please give a coherent gist of what the French says. I am afraid when it comes to French Je suis tres bete!
Thanks all for your comments.
ReplyDeleteJudge373, I am glad you at least appreciate that this is a Catholic blog - yea and more than some. Naturally I shall continue to be a royal pain in the arse for Traditionalists...
Rubricarius, Fr Hunwicke's blog is far superior to this rustic enterprise - although I am flattered that you would mention us both in the same sentence!
Bryan, I haven't checked that one out yet but shall do so presently. Thanks for the link.
Patrici et Rubricari,
ReplyDeleteJust got in from Maiden Lane (and the Coalhole) and seen your message.
I'll try to translate the French tomorrow and send you something then.
Bryan, do I know you from Maiden Lane? I was MC there for about a year. It would be good of you to translate the French.
ReplyDeletePatrici et Rubricari,
ReplyDeleteHere is my rough translation of the first part of the Forum Catholique discussion:
Presbu wrote on 2010-07-08
To Canonists: On the one hand the Usus Antiquior was never abolished according to Benedict XVI but it was well and truly abolished by Paul VI.
Have Tradis really since the 1980’s dropped their basic arguments against the abrogatory effect of “Missale Romanum” (April 3rd, 1969)? (notably since the “Indult anglais” agreed by Paul VI in 1989 (correction 1969) in fact only concerned the Missal of 1967 and never that of 1962).
In my humble view they [the Tradis] only gave up making their argument against abrogation during the time of HH Paul VI, becuase they decided to hold it back for a future Pope, who would have the power to overturn what his predecessor (Paul VI) had done - by dealing with the situation by Motu Proprio, (that is to say without being prevented from acting by any authority.)
The Common Law rule of the Church that No-one can sit in Judgement over the Holy See, ought to be understood in a restricted manner, that is to say, it is in force for the acts of a Pope during the time of his Papacy but does not apply in the future: well, evidently that rule does not apply at the Last Judgement, nor at the Particular Judgement of the Pope in question, nor at the judgement of a future Pope: the enjoyment of the right of appeal against the decisions of a Sovereign Pontiff cannot be denied to the faithful as the refusal of this right would be contrary to the very idea of Law as understood by the Church. [If this occurred] there would simply be a suspension of the right of appeal against a decision of “a poorly informed Pope until the arrival of a Pope who understood the situation better”. Take for example the banning of the Malabar Rite in the 18th Century.
So the ability of the reigning Pontiff to make decisions independently [of previous Pope’s decisions] is not affected by this argument, but it is not therefore true that a future Pope cannot reform (or put right!) a liturgical abrogation which was eventually tacitly accepted to have been an unconstitutional action {omitting dogmatique}.
In other words, HH Pope Benedict XVI (without actually saying so explicitly) has handed down a judgement that the liturgical abrogations of HH Paul VI were unconstitutional [ultra vires perhaps], it is implicit [and not said out loud]in order to save face. Whoever were to have the audacity to set out in detail this idea [ie. What has really happened] which does not redound to the glory of HH paul VI would, without doubt, be torn to shreds by all the Canonists falling back on the legal concept of “Noah’s coat”.
And here below is the contribution of Rubricarius noted on the Holy Smoke blog.....
NB: Words in square brackets [..] are not in the original.
I would welcome any suggestions of how to improve the translation - Presbu uses quite a number of legal terms which I may well not have captured properly in English.
Yes, Patrick, I sometimes sing in the Little Choir at Maiden Lane, so you may well remember me.
I am very keen to find out how your preparation for your Classics degree is going - have you any set texts to read before you start?
In caritate Xp.,
Bryan
Bryan, many thanks for taking the trouble to translate the article for us, that was kind of you. I don't remember anyone at Maiden Lane with the name Bryan, although this may not be your real name.
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks indeed for your time and effort with this, I feel slightly moins bête as the French had some specialist terms in it.
Traddies used to claim that Quo primum and immemorial custom were reasons for celebration of the old liturgy right up to, and indeed after, the mid-1980s, way beyond the reign of Paul VI. These arguments continued despite the ‘Heenan’ indult (1971, not 1969) up to Quattuor abhinc annos when John Paul II granted permission to use the 1962 Missal by indult. Hitherto the Heenan indult and the permission Ordinaries could give for elderly priests who could not cope with the 1970 Missal was to use the 1967 rite, in the case of the elderly priests in celebrations without a congregation.
After the 1984 indult Traddie opinion started to divide, slowly at first, but increasing after the events of 1988 with arguments about custom inversely proportional to this growth of 'Tradition with permission'. With SP the old arguments seem to have just been dropped altogether.
‘Presbu’ does not address the issue but appeals to some ethereal global argument that basically amounts to ‘the pope can do whatever he likes’ comparable with St. Ignatius of Loyola commending people to agree black is white and white is black if the pope says so.
Presbu also infers that Paul VI was wrong by Benedict XVI’s judgement. The problem with that approach is what happens when John Paul III or Paul VII comes along and rules that Benedict XVI was wrong and Paul VI was actually right?
In a court a judge will present a summary of the arguments of the Law relevant to the case. Why can no supporter of Summorum Pontificum do the same? Surely the Latin Mass Society, Una Voce etc have someone who can explain the assertion numquam abrogatum. I have been in lengthy correspondence with Professor John Huels who has written a blistering criticism that appeared in 'The Jurist'. Professor Huels is absolutely clear that numquam abrogatum makes no sense in relation to the term abrogation as understood in Canon Law. He also is fully conversant with the twentieth century history of the Roman books so is very precise in his reasoning. I have written to the Canonist Ed Peters and also to PCED – neither bothered to even acknowledge my letter yet alone offer a coherent defence of SP.
My view is that Liturgy should not be subject to legal mechanisms in the first place... However, it appears to me that the better legal arguments, i.e. those based on immemorial/centennial custom and also those based on the development of praeter legem custom are the better arguments with solid foundations and have been cast away in favour of those built on sand IMHO.