A reader left a comment in my post entitled Bede's World asking whether I had formally renounced the Roman Pontiff and joined the Church of England. I don't quite know what prompted that question, since I don't seem to have said anything indicating that in the post (or elsewhere); but I will say this: I am not now nor will I ever be a member of the apostate Church of England. I consider myself to be an orthodox English Catholic (not Roman, I do not live in Rome) of the Sarum Use. Well I would be of the Sarum Use but I say the 1570 Roman Office and perforce attend Mass in the Roman Rite pre-1962 (far less worthy than the venerable Use of Salisbury). I do not recognise the bishops of the 19th century Italian Mission in this country, if that's what you mean; I am subject spiritually to the lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the only real episcopal authority in this country, whose See goes back to St Augustine, sent by the holy father Gregory of Rome to illumine our pagan forefathers. Of course, like the Italian bishops, I don't really pay much attention to anything +Rowan Williams says. My relationship to the Bishop of Rome is rather complex. He is my apostate Patriarch, who celebrates novel, made-up liturgy in a pagan temple in Rome. I look longingly towards Rome as an exile would look to his ancient home as though it had become an abode of dragons, as indeed Rome has. Rome is the primeval guardian of orthodoxy in the West, though sadly is in schism with that ancient orthodoxy. As a Catholic it is my bounden duty to pray that the Apostolic See returns to orthodoxy and orthopraxis, though I do not see it happening.
So...I am an orthodox English Catholic, and a member of that True Church which is driven into the catacombs by despot Ultramontane pontiffs and their ilk, striving for righteousness and orthodoxy. The photo of the Pope above indicates that he is apostate and in schism with the Roman Tradition; he is wearing red on Palm Sunday and flanked by deacons wearing red dalmatics (though you cannot see them in this close up).
Patricii,
ReplyDeleteThe Papal title "Patriarch of the West" is no longer used as it is considered obselete:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19144
How then can Pope Benedict be described as an "apostate Patriarch"? he no longer claims to be a Patriarch at all. Are you criticising his abandonment of the Patriarchy perhaps?
As for the idea he is an Apostate tout court I am not at all sure what you mean there. An apostate from what and to what?
I have looked back at your first post and just wonder how today's post advances the ideas you set out there.
The "Use of Salisbury" (introduced by Norman conquerors who invaded England with a papal mandate) is every bit as much an alien imposition on the English Church as Pius V's Roman Missal.
ReplyDeleteThou art a fool, and a protestant one at that. If you are not in communion with a living bishop, you are only in communion with yourself. At a minimum, choose a bishop near you, Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox, and submit to the faith of that bishop. That's a start. Otherwise, you are just playacting (which of course is what all Anglicans do anyway).
ReplyDeletePugna fortior, fili mi!
ReplyDeletePatricius
ReplyDeleteYou're becoming a victim of your own rhetoric. All this bombast makes simple truth-telling very difficult; you end up as a fantasy Patricius inhabiting a fantasy universe.
Make a rule for yourself: whenever you start writing in a parodies of encyclicalese, 16th century cod-theological invective, or, mutatis mutandis, like a Soviet commissar - strike it our and start again.
There's no more certain route to perdition than adopting as a matter of habit a way of speaking, which becomes a way of thinking, which cuts you off inexorably from everything that actually exists.
Red was the colour used in Sarum for Palm Sunday.
ReplyDeleteO bone Patricii!
ReplyDeleteHere are your rather dramatic words, which led me to believe that you had mihgt have formally left the Catholic Church:
''And so it all boils down to two things. Either you accept Christ, and take the consequences, or you do not, and take the consequences. Maybe one day I shall again bend the knee to Rome, but something drastic will have to happen first. There are just two possibilities - either the claims of the Pope are true, and therefore it is necessary to be subject to him; or they are a damnable falsehood inimical to the Gospel. The Book of Ecclesiasticus puts it succinctly: He has set water and fire before you: stretch forth your hand to which you will (15:17). There is no ''only to you'' about it; either I am in error for rejecting the Pope, or I have, by God's Grace, been set at liberty by rejecting him. Lord grant that I have chosen rightly..''
Since English is not my mother tongue (though, my birth mother was English, from Yorkshire, which makes me half-English...) I decided to ask you about this, rather than presume to have understood your words correctly.
In fide,
Albertus
1) @Bryan: "Patriarch of the West" ironically is the one historical title that the Eastern Orthodox appreciated... it is suggested that Benedict XVI elected to drop the title in deference to the Eastern Orthodox...?! As if they have less objection to "...vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the universal church... servant of the servants of God"?! Either way, it is historically a title of the Bishop of Rome, whether or not the present incumbent wishes to use it or not.
ReplyDelete2) @lxoa: Perhaps the "Sarum Use" was but a Gallican variation - that would seem probable. It doesn't alter the fact that is was the most extant "Use" in this country until the Reformation.
3) @Stephen - you contradict yourself!
4) @Fr Michael - indeed it was, but our author has declared himself for the 1570 "universal Use" for lack of the Sarum, quote, "Well I would be of the Sarum Use but I say the 1570 Roman Office and perforce attend Mass in the Roman Rite pre-1962 (far less worthy than the venerable Use of Salisbury."
5) @Albertus: Patricius has only declared himself for true Catholic Tradition... which has attempted to explain.
Where in England can you find a pre-1962 Missal celebration of the Tridentine Mass that is celebrated by priests in communion with Rome? I thought only sedevacantists celebrated earlier incarnations of the Missale Romanum.
ReplyDeleteFrying pans and fires. Is there more anger, weirdness, paranoia and cognitive dissonance where you are now, or where you were formerly? So there's the clue.
ReplyDeleteAs Evelyn Waugh asked John Betjeman, is it likely that the Apostolic Tradition in its fullness has been entrusted to, and preserved exclusively by, a handful of homosexual curates in the South East of England?
Before the twentieth century reforms the pope would not have worn violet on Palm Sunday anyway. The custom was that he presided at a celebration where the ministers wore violet but the pope wore a 'paeony' colour cope.
ReplyDeleteRubricarius,
ReplyDeletewhat exactly is ''paeony'' colour?
Albertus,
ReplyDeleteI presume the colour of the flower - the problems arise these days with cultivars such as Paeonia 'Bridal Cream', P. 'Sarah Bernhardt'. P. 'Yellow Crown' etc. I suspect though that in the eighteenth century most paeonies were a deep purple-red.