Sunday 13 January 2013

In response...


...to a comment made by the reader James C.

I know of many Roman Catholics who choose to remain Roman Catholics despite their lack of belief in that system, men much more intelligent than me. Maybe they haven't the heart to take their families into a kind of cultural and religious exile, or maybe they're unwilling to travel miles out of their way on a Sunday morning to attend church services in Greek or Russian, which they know not, and where they are foreigners; still less to give countenance to various schismatic groups (such as the Old Catholics). The ones I have difficulty with are people like my mother, a woman who hasn't been to church for ten years but would take up the defence of Romanism if you spoke any calumny against it. She once said, after an altercation on the matter, that ''the holy father is the leader of our church.'' I just gave up and went to my room. It's that kind of dormant cultural attachment, which at a pinch turns into something militant, which I find disturbing about religion.

I will eventually move on from all this. Already I am sick to death of all this polemic, and I understand the points you raise about intellectual dissonance; although maybe I don't understand why you ask the question. Tolkien himself will remain ever in my affections as I esteem him as the single most gifted writer of the 20th century, and as I said earlier, a man of genuine wisdom and good faith. It can, contrary to what you may think of me, exist in the Latin communion, has in times past, and I daresay still does - though seldom among the traditionalists. They are where I draw the line, I find them dispicable. But Tolkien was not a recogniseable ''traditionalist,'' even if he did lament the liturgical and ecclesial changes towards the end of his life. Terms like ''holy father'' were in his vocabulary, but is that not indicative of the era in which he lived? Suffice it to say that were he alive and well to see Summorum Pontificum he would have rejected it as a lot of lies, which it undoubtedly is. Tolkien reverenced Tradition (which is evident from his work), not defective liturgical books fraught with so much ideology and prejudice. I believe I am still waiting, two years later, for a Roman Catholic to furnish me with proof that the liturgical books of 1962 were never juridically abrogated. You have asked for proof for my belief that Tolkien would join the Orthodox Church today, so where is your proof about that!

But, quite frankly, who gives a shit? This blog will not close any time soon though I may devote it entirely to Tolkien's legendarium, much more within my capabilities than all this polemic, and nobody listens anyway.Two years ago, before I ''officially'' left the Latin communion, this blog was very lively. Now readers have dwindled to a few core people, who comment occasionally. Where, then, is the impetus to continue? I have more or less run out of things to say, and sometimes think of myself as I write posts of little worth on here as like to that orc among the lowlands of Emyn Muil going down to the green fields of Rohan, where he said: '''Curse the Isengarders! Uglúk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob búbhosh skai!:' he passed into a long angry speech in his own tongue that slowly died away into muttering and snarling.'' Maybe you'd agree with this?

Actually, I want no more part of it. Though I keep the company of Christians, of different persuasions, I will not go to church anymore, nor will I say any Office. Well, what's the point if I am in communion with no bishop? My interest in liturgy remains, and I will still read Tolkien with the same enthusiasm I always had, but my appetite for ''church'' has all but disappeared. I want nothing more these days than to wake up late on a Sunday morning and not have to go anywhere or do anything. Once again I think I am burnt out. Maybe I will die in this state? Who knows.

6 comments:

  1. Patrick, don't stop praying an office, any office!
    At All! You won't die in this state. I tried and it didn't work for me. and I'm much older than you(77 now) and I've tried several times, but I keep going back and doing it again and again. It still works now and then and i can't let go of it.

    Probably monastics do it 'regularly' but they are in community even if they don't feel like doing all those prayers and stuff, they still belong to the bunch. We lay persons (solitaries?) have to go on our own selves and hope as we may, eh?

    Jim of Olym

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I believe I am still waiting, two years later, for a Roman Catholic to furnish me with proof that the liturgical books of 1962 were never juridically abrogated. You have asked for proof for my belief that Tolkien would join the Orthodox Church today, so where is your proof about that!"

    Indeed, SP is in some sense a legal fiction. I don't deny that Paul VI tried to abrogate the 1962 Missal, but I stand with Fr. Hunwicke (and, in the good Father's opinion, with Benedict XVI) in believing that the Pope has not the authority to abrogate the traditional Mass. See Fr. Hunwicke's most recent blog posts for a typically erudite explanation.

    Now, I agree to an extent with your opinion of most of the Pian reforms, but the 1962 books were still recognizably the traditional Mass, if somewhat marred. Perhaps in the future some of those 1950s alterations can be revisited, or freedom to celebrate one or the other (of course, some of that's already quietly being done in some places). But in the current crisis, we have to go step by step and not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

    I am in communion with Pope Benedict, but I am not an ultramontanist. And, I daresay, neither is Benedict. Summorum Pontificum was a compromise; keep in mind that John Paul II wished to issue a similar measure in the mid-1980s, only to back down after several bishops' conferences threatened him. If Benedict tried to do what you would want him to do, he would be widely disobeyed.

    I'm glad the ultramontanist period of the 19th and early 20th centuries is over, even if we are in a terrible crisis. But like Tolkien, I will stick with the Catholic Church, knowing that loyalty is only a virtue when tested, and do what I can to contribute to the restoration.

    I tried Orthodoxy, and they have their own serious problems. The grass is not greener there, just wilted in different places.

    That is the state of Christianity in today's new Dark Age. The Orcs are at the gates, and even inside. Should we succumb to despair and give up, or should we fight the Long Defeat, knowing our Lord's promise of final victory? I believe the Lord of the Rings provides us with the answer.

    I greatly enjoy your Tolkien posts. Violent rants against the Catholic Church not so much. I hope you'll continue, Patrick, and I will keep your difficult situation in my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (That was James C. For some reason my iPhone and laptop are signed onto two different accounts)

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Indeed, SP is in some sense a legal fiction. I don't deny that Paul VI tried to abrogate the 1962 Missal, but I stand with Fr. Hunwicke (and, in the good Father's opinion, with Benedict XVI) in believing that the Pope has not the authority to abrogate the traditional Mass. See Fr. Hunwicke's most recent blog posts for a typically erudite explanation.'

    But that is not answering the question. In what way did Paul VI's legislation 'fail'? His legislation regarding, e.g. the Eucharistic fast was a 'success' observing Traddieland reaction to it so why did that work yet the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum supposedely fail yet required, with Universae Ecclessiae, abrogation of the post 1962 changes to the Mass rite? So we are expected to believe that Pius X had the authority to destroy the ancient Roman Psalter, Pius XII had the authority to change almost anything he could put his hands on, Benedict XVI has the authority to impose the current, ridiculous, translation of MR2002 yet Paul VI did not have the same authority?

    As to Fr. Hunwicke, it was myself who sent him a copy of Chad Glendinning's superb article demonstrating with the norms of accepted Canon Law the fallacious claim of non-abrogation of MR1962. So, following Fr. Hunwicke's view that Paul VI lacked the authority to abrogate the 1962MR would you, James, therefore conclude Pius X lacked authority to abolish the Roman Psalter, Pius XII lacked authority to bugger-up Holy Week, to destroy the Eucharistic fast etc, etc?

    The claim for non-abrogation of MR1962 in Summorum Pontificum is, at best, confusion and at worst and outright deceit aimed at bringing the Lefebvrists - and their significant sums of money - to Rome: what a success that has been too!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was my impression - I trust Rubricarius will correct me if I am wrong - that Bugnini had attempted to have the MR1962 abroagated but was denied this by Paul VI. Missale Romanum, to my knowledge, is phrased, as Quo Primum is, as presenting an available option rather than specifically requiring the MR1970's use - hence early trad objections to the imposition of MR1970, including some letters sent to Fulton Sheen at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gnaeus,

    Mons. Bugnini makes no mention of attempting to abrogate the 1962MR and why should he? The 1962MR, or to be specific, the right to use it had been derogated by the promulgation of the 1964/65 rite and then, in turn, the 1967 rite. 1962MR was then abrogated, having no claim to centennial or immemorial custom, by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. What Mons. Bugnini was clearly concerned about was the right to use the old liturgy by virtue of immemorial custom but that clearly could not have applied to a missal printed in old Rubricarius' life-time.

    Quo primum ordered the use of the 1570MR expect where customary use of two hundred years of a different use was to be upheld. Missale Romanum was far less generous. When MR1970 was promulgated no one had been using MR1962 for six years or so. Permission was granted for elderly priest to use the 1967 rite (not MR1962) for celebrations sine populo. The 1971 Heenan indult gave broader permission for the 1967 rite - the fact that was ignored and the pre-Pacelli rites used is another issue.

    Sadly the traditionalists have sacrificed their best arguments on the altar of respectability and recognition.

    ReplyDelete