Saturday, 19 February 2011


It just proves my point doesn't it? I have been reading some of the comments on Rorate Caeli, and they honest to God are shit scared that their world is going to collapse because of one simple ruling (or ''clarification'' - it is really quite simple and only touches upon the Pontifical) from Mother Rome, who is super-infallible and never wrong about anything, ever. If ''traditional'' Liturgy in the Roman Church depends upon the lottery of who is and who isn't in charge, then I would in all sobriety and seriousness counsel Roman Catholics of the ''TLM'' persuasion to take stock of what is important in the Tradition of the Church - actual Tradition, understood as an august entity independent of the reigning Pope and curia, or decree after decree from the reigning Popes and congregations in charge of it. If Tradition is important, then you can stick two fingers up at Rome as a meddling nuisance and just get on with Liturgy in spite of anything they might throw at you - the Inquisition won't come knocking at your door in the small hours! If magisterial meddling is all it boils down to, well then Tradition has ceased, hasn't it?

I'm not saying this to rub anybody's nose in it, but because I am genuinely distressed by this whole affair - the lamentable never-ending-story of Roman abuse. I must say I was disappointed (though not surprised) that some people went ahead and supported that petition, in spite of my telling them not to, but they're people - they're people, and one or two of them are quite respectable, and Lord knows, they may get well...


  1. The truth is, many of us would be more than happy if Rome issued a decree stating, "Listen, local liturgy is up to local churches," allowing for organic development and stuff again.

    The problem? In the current climate this would probably lead to just a lot of Novus Ordo crap. We'd have to at least start with the books as they existed pre-Pius-X (and revive local usages) and then let local development happen, but it would still have to be overseen by some process to stop the meddlers from introducing stuff NOT in consonance with tradition.

    It's a tough position to be in, really. As it stands, the Summorum Pontificum status quo, while not great, at least basically said, "You can do what you want without explicit permission" would be sad to have that reversed to a state where people started feeling like they DID have to ask Rome or a Superior for explicit permission every time they wanted to, say, use their Dominican Rite.

    Should people probably just stop caring about permission and use whatever books they want and know are more traditional? (Say, the unrevised Holy Week, unrevised Assumption propers, longer Matins lessons, etc)? Maybe. But people are afraid of "disobedience" though, as you say, it's not like the Inquisition is going to come knocking (God knows they don't with LIBERAL innovations! Why should traddies be so afraid? I don't know.)

  2. Well, though my own sympathies are definitely more Hunwickian than Patrician/Rubricarian, I couldn't possibly, for obvious reasons, have put my name to Article 7.

    I'm reminded acutely of the period of the "Good Friday Prayers" fiasco, following the MP itself, when I'd resolved to put all my reservations aside and embrace the Pope's legal fiction as the only available means to an end. Then, what did he do? Celebrate the rehabilitated "TLM"? No - he ever-so-artfully re-engineered the solemn petitions, presented annually at the foot of the Cross, so as not absolutely to exclude the dispensationalist heresy insinuated in the "Ordinary Form". To this day, my stomach continues to turn at the thought of it.

    RCism is essentially a system for promoting and protecting reputations; and that's all.

  3. I see the petition addresses Pope Benedict in this way:

    "You are a true homo liturgicus whose love for the sacred liturgy is an inspiration; it teaches more clearly than words the centrality of the liturgy in the life of the Church."

    That term 'homo liturgicus' is not one I have encountered.

    A google search reveals that Cardinal Danneels describes the 'Homo liturgicus' in an "America Magazine" article in this way:

    " the fundamental attitude of the “homo liturgicus”--both individually and collectively--is one of receptivity, readiness to listen, self-giving and self-relativizing. It is the attitude of faith and of faithful obedience. It is not because a particular caricature of this attitude of obedience led at one time to slavish and nonsensical dressage and rubricism, that the sense of “entering in to what transcends us” has to be so diminished.

    The “homo liturgicus” does not manipulate, nor is his or her action restricted to self-expression or auto-realization. It is an attitude of orientation towards God, readiness to listen, obedience, grateful reception, wonder, adoration and praise. It is an attitude of listening and seeing, of what Guardini called “contemplating,” an attitude so alien to the “homo faber” in many of us.

    In short, the fundamental attitude of the “homo liturgicus” is none other than an attitude of prayer, of handing ourselves over to God and letting his will be done in us. "

    If anyone knows what this means do let us know.

  4. Isn't this Notion that Rome can ignored in certain matters and at certain times,in part,why we have Clown Masses,Rock-heavy Metal and a myriad other liturgically dubious practices these days? It would seem there is a reasonable argument why a supreme authority on issues exists and has final say.There will always be those who will never be satisfied.

  5. What proposals exists to maintain sound liturgy for the universal Church across the board?

  6. I didn't sign it for obvious reasons, despite multiple invitations to do so. Well done Patricius!