Sunday, 23 January 2011


I don't like it when people disagree with me. This may seem rather ''immature'' to others, but in terms of something as fundamental as Liturgy I have a tendency to get very angry when another person expresses an opinion which is diametrically opposed to my own (correct) one. The other day someone I knew from college put on his Facebook: ''What if we just said 'and also with you?''' I tried remonstrating with him the consequences of eschewing the traditional diction of liturgical prayer, but to no avail, and his response to my arguments in favour of Prayerbook English was simply that it wasn't ''pastoral.'' His recourse to this Modernist pseudo-theory of Liturgy (which only threatens the Tradition of the Church) put me in such a foul for the rest of that day, and the next (and in fact I am even seething about it now, seeing in his view the final cut administered by bad theologians with the Tradition of the Church). I have never come away a better person from even seeming-trivial disagreements such as this. When people express sentiments which I repudiate, I see them very often as something strange and crooked in them as persons; almost a disease of the mind which must be cured (by me). It angers me that when I demonstrate the orthodoxy of my own views people cling to their own false views with a somewhat delusional conviction. Why do you not alter your wrong opinions and believe my correct ones?

I cannot personally conceive of being wrong in many of my beliefs, but I would happily accept correction in some if they were proved to be wrong. Why, then, do so-called traditionalists still use the lace cotta in spite of my every effort to prove how pernicious it really is? They honest to God get me so angry I might actually scream!


  1. I see them very often as something strange and crooked in them as persons; almost a disease of the mind which must be cured (by me).

    Rather, this is a disease of the heart (ours, not theirs) which must be cured by Christ.

    I've been Orthodox for four years and still don't know a stichera from a prokeimenon (despite having been ordained a reader for some inscrutable reason) - but I do know that.

    Your candour's commendable, but it ought to be for your spiritual father.

    Read this. Then do it.

  2. Have they actually studied the liturgy as much as you?
    Are they anywhere near as smart as you?
    There is no such thing as equality. One must be charitable to those who simply cannot understand.

    I have never seen a Latin Mass, not even the 1962 version. Liturgically speaking, Louisiana is a desert, unless you are willing to go Orthodox, which has been sorely tempting for some years now.

  3. Anagnostis, there is Truth and falsehood. My point here is that I am right about the modern translation (and the old one) of the Roman Missal, and both Traddies and Modernists alike are wrong - Traddies for thinking it an improvement, Modernists for rejecting it as non-pastoral and exclusive. Why don't they set aside their errors and believe what I say instead? Because they are obstinate fools. Similarly the lace cotta. It is ugly and untraditional, and therefore I am right for rejecting them, and they are wrong for using them.

    Thank you for the link, I shall check that out now.

  4. August, your comment is interesting. I am actually talking about people who do understand but refuse to listen though.

  5. Patricius,

    Is your listed email the email you normally use? I have sent you a message hoping to perhaps open a discussion with you.

    If this is not your email, and you feel uncomfortable giving it out, my own is on my profile.

    I find your thoughts to be fascinating and in the right. I agree with most you have presented throughout the past year(I must not be presumptuous having only recently begun going through the archives). I admit some unease over your presentation, but that does not lessen the insights you bring. I pray that you may keep patience and find the best way to turn hearts, a task far more difficult than changing minds.

  6. Tomas, I did indeed receive your kind email but I have had no time to reply in the length that it deserves yet. I shall attend to this now.

  7. Patricius,

    You've spoken before of having Asperger's.

    As someone with experience in that area, I would urge you to consider that your "black and white" thinking on these matters is actually the result of your condition.

    There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to cottas!

    One may be more truly "traditional" if by "traditional" you mean ancient (or, in this case, medieval). Though that's not the only way to define it either.

    One may be in better taste according your preferences (and I agree). But there is no accounting for taste. You can't be so rigid on these matters. It may be the result of your condition, I think, but it is not spiritually healthy.

    Do I think that certain developments in the liturgy that are "decadent" correspond with certain decadent attitudes towards doctrine and spirituality? Sure. I can definitely see the connection between certain liturgical or devotional practices (especially in the West, but not exclusively)...and certain spiritual attitudes that I consider negative or dangerous.

    But, at the same time, spirituality is rather flexible. I'm not going to say that someone, in the subjective forum, can't get more actual grace at a Low Mass if that inspires their fervor more, or that the Sacred Heart image can't draw someone closer to relationship with Our Lord. I'm just not that presumptuous.

  8. I think the thing to remember is the final end. Everything we do should be seen in the light of that consideration.

    Do you know the story of St Thomas and the accent?

    Every conversation is a talent thrown our way to invest.

  9. (the accent in a Latin word)