Gregory VII and the Rationale...

"Since your excellency has asked that we would allow the divine office to be said among you in Slavonic, know that we can by no means favourably answer this your petition. For it is clear to those who reflect often upon it, that not without reason has it pleased Almighty God that holy scripture should be a secret in certain places, lest, if it were plainly apparent to all men, perchance it would be little esteemed and be subject to disrespect; or it might be falsely understood by those of mediocre learning, and lead to error. Nor does it avail as an excuse that certain religious men have patiently suffered the simple folk who asked for it, or have sent them away uncorrected, which, after Christianity had grown stronger, and when religion was increasing, were corrected by subtle examination. Wherefore we forbid what you have so imprudently demanded of the authority of St Peter, and we command you to resist this vain rashness with all your might, to the honour of Almighty God." From an epistle of pope Gregory VII to Vratislaus II of Bohemia; text from the Patrologia Latina, Migne 1844.

Pope Gregory VII wrote this letter in A.D 1079. Two centuries later Durandus, rector of the theological schools in Paris, composed the famous Rationale Divinorum Officiorum with the express wish of dispelling ignorance of scripture and the divine offices where the Roman pope wished to maintain it! In the preface we find:

"But what shall we say of our own times, if scarcely or not at all there may be found any man who understands what he reads or hears read, or who truly perceives what he sees done or does himself? We must lament with the prophet, etc."

It's interesting that the popes so often esteemed by the Traddies have actually been some of the most arrogant and destructive men in ecclesiastical history. The content of pope Gregory's epistle is reminiscent of his treatment of the Mozarabic Rite in Spain and so expressive of the general tendency of popes to deliberately obscure and manipulate the scriptures themselves to uphold a plethora of abuses. I daresay one could argue for almost any moral position or doctrine from the scriptures when they are not interpreted properly! Nevertheless, this attitude, maintained throughout the Middle Ages, was strikingly at variance with the apostolic labours of such men as St Bede, who translated portions of the Bible into Old English for the edification of the simple folk.

This subject has been done to death, I fear, but what interests me is the change. In mediaeval times vernacular translations of the Bible and vernacular liturgy were too often associated with heretical sects like the Waldensians or Lollards. Literate persons knew Latin anyway. When Erasmus wrote in favour of popular reading of the Bible in 1527 the University of Paris called him rash and impudent and cited a three hundred year old "decree" of Innocent III condemning the matter. Sixty years later and the Rheimish New Testament was published and now bears the Baronius Press hallmark. Why the change? Rise in literacy? Pressure from the Protestant reformers? Counter Reformation missionary zeal, manifestly the Jesuits?

I'd be interested if any readers with better knowledge of this would comment with their thoughts on this matter. Because, as in so many other matters, the constancy of the Roman church has proven less fast than previously imagined.

Mugs of beer...

To-day I thought I'd share with you a passage from The Lord of the Rings. Quite at random, really; I opened book I at chapter IX and found this:

"They were washed and in the middle of good deep mugs of beer when Mr. Butterbur and Nob came in again. In a twinkling the table was laid. There was hot soup, cold meats, a blackberry tart, new loaves, slabs of butter, and half a ripe cheese: good plain food, as good as the Shire could show, and homelike enough to dispel the last of Sam's misgivings (already much relieved by the excellence of the beer)."

It makes a pleasing change to narrate a more homelike (to borrow the phrase) passage than to go on about such weighty matters as kingship with constancy. It is Tolkien's genius to warm the heart with such passages, particularly at times of fear, to remind us of our kinship with hobbits, and that the Sun of Middle-earth sets over our own fields too. I don't have book IV to hand (do I go back upstairs..?) but there is another where, upon their meeting in the fields of Calenardhon, Éomer asks Aragorn whether a man can walk open-eyed in the broad light of day amid so many wonders. The Prancing Pony Inn, blundering Butterbur and his plain food illustrate that you can. The inn is situated in an atmosphere of fear and suspense; with ruffians stalking the woods about the town, the memory of the Old Forest, ill-favoured men, not to mention the Black Riders. It's almost as if plain, hearty food and drink are the tonic for all that. It brought a smile to my face anyway.

Cuthbert's letter...

Tempus est, si sic Factori meo videtur, ut ad eum modo resolatus e carne veniam, qui me quando non eram ex nihilo formavit. Multum tempus vixi, beneque mihi pius Iudex vitam meam praevidit. Tempus vero absolutionis meae prope est, etenim anima mea desiderat Regem meum Christum in decore suo videre.

Five years ago I produced a translation of St Cuthbert's epistle on the death of St Bede. It is a profoundly moving piece and its Latinity is exquisite. Here is a portion:

In such exaltation we passed the fifty days even unto the day hitherto mentioned, and the same rejoiced greatly and rendered thanks unto God that he had merited to be thus infirm; and oft said he: ''God chastiseth every son whom he receiveth'' [Heb. 12:6], and that sentence of Ambrose: ''I have not so lived, that to live among you shameth me; but neither do I fear to die, for we have a good God'' [Paulinus, Life of Ambrose, xiv.43]. However in those days there were two small works worthy of memory, with the exception of those daily lessons which we received from him and in the chanting of the psalms, which he strove to complete, that is, from the beginning of the Gospel of blessed John even unto the place where it saith: ''But what are they among so many?'' [John 1:6] he translated into our tongue, to the profit of the Church of God, and certain selections from the Book of the Wheels [that is De Natura Rerum] of bishop Isidore, saying: ''I do desire that my boys read falsehood, and working on this after my death without fruit.''

But when the third feria had come before the Ascension of the Lord his breathing was with great travail, and a small swelling appeared in his feet; but all that day he taught and dictated happily, and sometimes among other things he saith: ''Learn with haste, for 'I know not how long I shall survive, and if after a short while my Maker takes me' [Job 32:22]''. To us however he seemed that he knew well when his end should be. And so he passed the night vigilant in the rendering of thanks, and in the first light of morning, that is of the fourth feria, he gave instruction that the writing, which we had begun, should be finished quickly. And we did so even unto the third hour. From the third hour, however, we walked in procession with the relics of the saints, as the custom of that day required.* And one of us was with him, who saith unto him: ''There is still one chapter from the book, which thou didst dictate, missing, and it seemeth to be difficult for thee to ask more.'' But he saith: ''It is easy. Take up thy reed pen and mend it, and then write quickly.'' And so he did. From the ninth hour said he unto me: ''I have certain precious things in my small box, that is, pepper, napkins and some incense. But hurry quickly, and lead the priests of our monastery unto me, that I may distribute such gifts as God hath given me to them.''

And this I did with trembling. And being present spake he unto them and everyone, advising and imploring that they make masses and prayers for him diligently. And they willingly promised unto him so. But they did mourn and all wept, but greatly in the word which he saith, that his face would not be seen much more in this world. But they rejoiced about this which he saith of him: ''It is time, if it seemeth so to my Maker, that released from the flesh I should come to Him, which, when I was not, formeth me out of nothing. I have lived much, and the pious Judge has provided well for me all the days of my life. Forsooth, the time of my absolution is near, and indeed my soul longs to see Christ my King in all His beauty.''

Having spoken thus and not a few other things to our edification, he passed his last day in joy unto the evening. And the aforesaid boy, with the name Wilberht, saith again: ''Sweet Master, there remains still one sentence not written.'' And he saith: ''Write it.'' And after a short time saith the boy: ''It is written so,'' but he saith: ''Good, it is finished. Thou hast told the Truth. Take thee my head into thy hands, for it pleaseth me much to sit nigh to the holy place in which I was wont to pray, that, sitting there, I might call upon my father.'' And so, upon the floor of his cell, chanting: ''Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost,'' and the rest, he breathed his last; and without any doubt it is to be believed by us that, for him he had laboured here always in the praise of God, his soul was carried by Angels into the joys of the heavenly longings. But all who heard or saw the death of blessed Bede our father, said that never had they seen another man end his life in such great devotion and peace, for as ye have heard, do long as his soul was in his body, he sang the ''Gloria Patri'' and other songs to the glory of God, and spreading out his hands he ceased not to give thanks unto God.

But it behoves you to know that much could be told and written concerning him, but now the unlearnedness of my tongue cutteth short my words. But I purpose, in time, with God's help, to write a fuller account of him, which mine eyes have seen and mine ears have heard.

Here endeth the letter of Cuthbert on the death of the venerable priest Bede.

*This undoubtedly indicates that the community at Jarrow were following the Gallican practice of the Rogations in the days preceeding Ascension Day. This custom developed in Gaul in the fifth century and was not practiced in Rome. This indicates a strong influence of the Gallican church on the English Church and certainly detracts from the myth of Ultramontane Anglo-Saxon England.

Innovations and Abrogations...

A Vogue cover from 1962. That's Grace Coddington before she looked like a skeleton.

Inspired by the interview given by the Saint Lawrence Press Limited about the history of the Ordo Recitandi, I publish again my post on the abrogation of the 1962 Missal by Paul VI and the dominion of liturgical falsehood built up and maintained by such traditionalist organisations as the Society of Pius X and the Latin Mass Society. Be not deceived!

This is an expansion and analysis of my rather frugal thoughts the other day on the important pastoral and canonical questions of abrogation of the 1962 missal.

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI presents a number of significant innovations in canon law and liturgy which have potentially adverse consequences for the unity of faith. I say potentially but I have seen the fruits of Summorum Pontificum myself in Blackfen; disaffected parishioners of many years standing being forced out, others into sullen fear; the parish priest even forcing communicants to receive the Sacrament on the tongue at the altar rail despite the disposition of the communicant and the general discipline of the Latin Rite. But the usus antiquior, latterly constituted an "extraordinary form" of the one Roman Rite parallel to the reformed missal promulgated by Paul VI, was introduced at Blackfen and many places beside because, we are told, the 1962 missal "was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." Neither the motu proprio itself nor the accompanying letter to the bishops offers any proof of this; instead, it's just stated as a "fact" to be accepted at face value. So, why should we believe it? Either the pope is mistaken, which, given the nature of this matter, calls into serious question the fallibility of the magisterium, or it is categorical falsehood in which case its implementation anywhere is a grotesque affront to Christ's faithful, whatever the intention.

The universal consensus of the Roman church until the publication of Summorum Pontificum was that Paul VI, in promulgating the Novus Ordo, had ostensibly abrogated the older rites. That was my own personal understanding as a teenager when I first undertook autodidactory research of the Second Vatican Council; I liked it no more than I liked inter-religious dialogue but such was life. I daresay it was the understanding of the traditionalists themselves, however much they appealed to Quo Primum, until seven years ago! Modern traditionalists maintain, however, with support from their highest authority, that the 1962 missal was never abrogated. Perhaps they are entirely innocent of the process of liturgical reform? We shall see.

Paul VI officially ended the "interim period," i.e: the 1962 missal (which was never intended to be a definitive edition), with his own motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam published on 25th January 1964 (while the Council was still in session) which continued the systematic process of liturgical reform begun by Pius XII - a fact to which even John Paul II defers in the Apostolic Letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus of 4th December 1988. The decree Inter Œcumenici of 26th September 1964, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, introduced further reforms to the rite of Mass, ironically many that the great Dr Fortescue had called for in the preface to the first edition of The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, such as bows to the choir, all the irreverent kissing, the psalm Iudica me, etc as general norms until the new Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus were published the following year. The next decree of the S.R.C, Tres abhinc annos, published with the approval of Paul VI on 4th May 1967, introduced a greater plurality of scriptural texts for the Mass, simplified the rubrics, stipulated that the use of the maniple is now optional and sanctioned the wider use of vernacular tongues for the scriptural pericopes and the (now audible) Eucharistic Prayer. Three new Eucharistic Prayers were approved in June 1968 for reasons of pastoral expediency; Eucharistic Prayer I being the (somewhat reworked) Roman Canon; EP II, deliberately (notoriously) short, based on the so-called Prayer of Hippolytus; EP III (in my experience the most commonly used), of medium length and best suited for use on Sundays alternately with EP I; and EP IV which presents a highly developed and complete synthesis of salvation history. At no time during any stage of these reforms was use of the 1962 missal an option and unless somebody can prove to me that any of the above decrees were defective, wanting in some canonical sense or published illicitly then this is another clear indication that the claim of Summorum Pontificum that the missal of John XXIII was always permissible is builded on sand.

Council Fathers in procession in St Peter's Square. Imagine having colour photographs of an ecumenical council...

Finally, on 3rd April 1969 (which was Maundy Thursday), Paul VI published the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, promulgating the new missal and abrogating the interim, i.e: the 1962 missal. Paul VI used exactly the same style as previous popes in the conclusion in order to make the 1970 Missal definitive:

"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations," we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

"We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

"We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation."

I don't know about you, dear readers, but it doesn't look to me like Paul VI is presenting the Novus Ordo as an option for those who find it agreeable. In promulgating the new missal Paul VI had made the New Rite definitive; he had replaced the interim missal with the new missal; he had abrogated the 1962 missal with exactly the same Petrine authority as Pius V when he published Quo Primum in 1570. As the liturgical scholar J.D Crichton said: "the document concludes as usual in the stylus curiae, but it is important to realize that it enshrines a legal decision formally abrogating the missal of Pius V. What Pius could do, Paul can undo. If the primacy of the Pope does not mean that, it means nothing."

Even more compelling than the abrogatory clause of Missale Romanum is a personal letter written by Paul VI to Marcel Lefebvre on 24th May 1976, which can be read in full here (in Latin pdf, p374), in which Paul VI states unequivocably that the pre-Vatican II rites were no longer permitted (emphasis my own):

"Usus novi Ordinis Missae minime quidem sacerdotum vel christifidelium arbitrio permittitur. Instructione autem edita die quarto decimo mensis Iunii anno millesimo nongentesimo septuagesimo primo provisum est, ut Missae celebratio antiquo ritu sineretur, facultate data ab Ordinario, tantummodo sacerdotibus aetate provectis vel infirmis, qui Divinum Sacrificium sine populo ofierent. Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur post maturam deliberationem atque ad exequendas normas quae a Concilio Vaticano II impertitiae sunt. Haud dissimili ratione, Decessor Noster S. Pius V post Concilium Tridentinum Missale auctoritate sua recognitum adhiberi iusserat." Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 68.

Archbishop Lefebvre himself. Look at the lace! So traditional!

Clearly Paul VI thought that "the Novus Ordo was promulgated in place of the old," and that "use of the new Order of Mass is by no means committed to the choice of priests or Christ's faithful." So, how are we to understand Paul VI's clear invocation of apostolic authority to abrogate the constitutions and ordinances issued by his predecessors in the light of Summorum Pontificum? Well, in all honesty, we can't! Benedixt XVI doesn't treat fairly or honestly with the facts and instead postulates a number of canonical and liturgical innovations, so understanding is negligible. The innovations are such:

Innovation the first: For the first time in the history of the liturgy the Roman Rite has been split down the middle into two "uses," namely the so-called usus antiquior and the usus recentior; this split having come about not by organic growth at parochial or diocesan level over a number of years but administered by the supreme authority in the Roman Catholic church at a single stroke.

Innovation the second: The result of this split has been the re-casting of the Roman Rite which creates a scenario, hitherto unknown in the Roman church, where the Roman Rite can be celebrated in two completely different ways in the same parish; in two languages utterly at variance, different styles of musick and ornament, different scriptural cycles, even different temporal seasons! This can be in the interests of neither the traditionalists, who would sooner replace the new rite altogether, nor the trendy liberals who would see the "old rite" lifted clean out of this world.

Innovation the third: It's strange that such a short-lived tradition, which was never really tradition in a meaningful sense, should be given a new eminence by the pope on account of the Lefebvrists. And this is more important than many people can understand. Marcel Lefebvre, arguably the most aliturgical man of the 20th century, arbitrarily decided upon the 1962 missal in 1983, a decision which caused a splintering of the Society of Pius X itself with the expulsion of four priests in America and five others (the "naughty nine") leaving of their own volition in protest against the bastardised rite of 1962. The Society of Pius V was founded as a result of this. The innovation lies in the fact that the 1962 missal was, as admitted by Paul VI in Sacram Liturgiam, an interim missal, having no more worth than any other liturgical experimentation during the deliberate and systematic reform of the Roman Rite between the years 1951 and 1969. Lefebvre's choice of 1962 had not the faintest liturgical insight; it was chosen because it was promulgated before the Council. And so Benedict XVI, deferring to this arbitrary yet significant year, has succeeded only in making Lefebvre's "twisted ecclesiology" (see Paul VI's letter) credible, even commendable, in the eyes of the contemporary Roman church.

Innovation the fourth: There had been various indults relevant to previous liturgical rites since the promulgation of the new missal. The first of these was the largely misunderstood "Heenan Indult" of 14th June 1971. This was sanctioned by Paul VI before the 1962 missal had any prominence whatever and actually (contrary to the opinion of the Latin Mass Society) stipulated use of the Roman Rite of 1967 and not 1962. The next indult, Quattuor abhinc annos, came on 3rd October 1984 (the year after Lefebvre's fateful choice), published by the Congregation for Divine Worship. This indeed sanctioned the use of the 1962 missal but with many limitations and was decried by the Society of Pius V who continued to use pre-1962 rites. Implementation of Quattuor abhinc annos was hardly generous and so in publishing the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei on 2nd July 1988 (in response to the infamous episcopal consecrations by Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer) pope John Paul II called for a "wide and generous" implementation of Quattuor abhinc annos in order to heal the schismatic effects of Lefebvre's actions. But even so these three, 1971, 1984 and 1988 were "indults," understood canonically as departures from normative law. By contrast, Summorum Pontificum has regularised defective liturgy into the sacramental life of the church, which is something very different. Also of note is the conspicuous absence of any expectation in Summorum Pontificum of adherence among people attached to the 1962 missal to the doctrinal and liturgical integrity of the Novus Ordo...and Benedict XVI wishes to foster unity hereby?

Innovation the fifth: This last is hardly an innovation in the Roman church, having been the norm since 1588, but important nonetheless that a substantial amount of authority, guaranteed under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, for diocesan bishops to regulate the liturgy in their dioceses has been supplanted by the Papacy.

Cardinal Ratzinger, I think in 1988.

Having considered all these things I can think of no reason why use of the 1962 missal should be permitted at all let alone for the benefit of a few renegades. The 1962 missal, having been used in tact for two years maximum, is not protected by bicentenial custom unlike, for example, the Ambrosian or Mozarabic Rites, so can be considered neither antient nor great nor particularly sacred. In any case, you can't heal decades of liturgical abuse by the mere exercise of authority. The problems of the Roman Rite go much deeper than that and are, ironically, inextricably linked to authority. Nor can you with good reason substitute something greater for the rite of 1962 and expect a goodly fruition of liturgical piety; innovation is just going to perpetuate innovation if sanctioned from on high. Perhaps an admission from Rome that this was all an horrible mistake is what the doctor has ordered? It would certainly be an honest, admirable admission and I would not gloat.

Of course, many people have used Summorum Pontificum to introduce whichever edition of the Roman missal they like! Rather hypocritical, actually, to hide behind the shield of authority, accusing others of dissent while being themselves guilty of that. But then most people can't tell the difference anymore than they can understand the language so who's going to stop them?

Lumen Christi! Deo Gratias! Notice the triple candle...

I would be very interested if anybody, perhaps on the New Liturgical Movement blog, would consider writing a response to this post. Naturally, I have been waiting for four years for a response to my previous post on Summorum Pontificum, but I live in hope. Particularly welcome would be empirical proof of the claim that the 1962 missal was never juridically abrogated. I don't suppose we could have expected any proof during the pontificate of Benedict XVI as this was the time of the traditionalist ascendancy. Now that things look brighter under good old pope Francis, perhaps a reappraisal of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae is called for? I entreat you all sincerely.

River Cottage...

I don't often recommend television programmes but I do enjoy watching River Cottage. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's philosophy seems to be one of plain, homegrown English food which I think is admirable. I'm sure Tolkien would too. The series has a website. I may actually go to their Spring Food Fair in May of next year as it has been a while since I have been to the West Country - ten years, in fact.

An Interview...

The Rad Trad has published a succinct and detailed review of the Ordo Recitandi published by The Saint Lawrence Press Limited over on his blog as well as a rare and very frank interview with its compilator, my esteemed friend Rubricarius. I have said so before and I say again that the Saint Lawrence Press Ordo is the most detailed, the most thorough and the best-presented ordo published in modern times for use in the Roman Rite. Buy your copy to-day!

Stats...

I dismantled my Sitemeter when it went awry and I got no response from the moderators or whomever deals with their complaints. This means that I am happily oblivious to my site traffic. Blogger itself, however, offers some tracking. I was amused to discover that there have been people searching for Liturgiae Causa using the words "gay Liturgiae Causa[e]," and "hate Liturgiae Causa." Someone wrote to me recently saying that (my having given a good word to another blog) a correspondant had said: "that is high praise indeed because Patricius doesn't like anyone." That is not strictly true. I am just very intolerant and I have no qualms about publicly humiliating people (myself included); John Zuhlsdorf is a charlatan, for example, or pope-"emeritus" Benedict XVI is an old queen. I do so, you may be surprised to learn, for the good of humanity. You might say I am one of life's moaners or a spoil-sport but it's my crusade to make people understand. I do not think it is in anybody's interest to buy china mugs with Say the Black, Do the Red printed on them. Why? Not only because that is distasteful beyond belief but because the proceeds go to a man who is an unabashed leach and a carbuncle on the arse of the Roman church. Ratzinger is less utterly hateful, but only comparatively and his one saving grace is that he is not American.Nevertheless, his liturgical works exemplify an underlying ignorance which is hard for me to ignore.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong? Maybe I should start cashing in on my notoriety. I too have an Amazon wishlist (with about thirty or so books listed). Perhaps I should put up a donations tab in the sidebar linked to my bank account and offer to pray for people in exchange for money. It sounds like an honest and Christ-like life, doesn't it!

The '62 Police...

Five or six years ago I attended a Paschal Vigil at a prominent Roman Catholic church in South London. As we were outside and the celebrant was about to bless the new fire a helicopter flew overhead. I remember saying to the man next to me, in jest: "that'll be the '62 police overhead!" It was a running joke at the time; nobody really let on about using pre-1962 liturgy as we all knew the cautionary tales about spoil-sports and tittle-tattlers. Once I even compared it to the practise of Roman Catholicism in Elizabethan times, all very incognito; there we were, under the aegis of Summorum Pontificum, and doing something quite different. Unlike a lot of other traditionalists I wasn't too concerned about the Church as a whole. What the parish in the next town was doing didn't concern me in the least and, to an extent, I am still of that mindset. Not because I lacked the zeal and triumphalism of the typical traditionalist but because my whole mind and purpose was bent on what was going on in my immediate surroundings; with all its problems and shortcomings and certainly of those standing by. Other Catholics were a mistake! Nevertheless, I was only too well aware of the futility and fragility of the whole thing. A stiff breeze and the edifice would crumble. Why? Well, simply because you cannot resurrect a tradition without the right disposition and wherewithal, and this has nothing to do with the '62 police. Let them grass us up!

What am I trying to say? In short, I think, live and let live. You can't change the world let alone Christ's Church. Live by example. If the Traditions to which you aspire are in themselves good then live a Christ-like life to the best of your ability and with the comfort of the Sacraments. Abandon triumphalism! Abandon hauteur and separatism! Change your mindset. This does not endanger your love of Tradition. Do not blame the trendy liberals for their dissent when you yourselves rejoice in your dissent. Revise your bookshelves! Why not swap your Michael Davies for Gregory Dix? Why not go to a Byzantine church on Sundays instead of to the Society of Pius X? Now that the Prayer Book office has achieved some recognition in the Roman church, why not say Mattins therefrom on holy days? Church Tradition is not solely limited to the Latin patrimony and you will find that when you escape the mire of petty medals and ill-informed customs you will breathe an air wholly clean and refreshing.

I realise some of you think I am a fruitcake so you needn't take much notice. I just thought I'd write this to pass the time. It's the chief reason I write; to pass the time.

Ad meliora advocatus...

"A young country clergyman used his ample leisure for the study of astronomy. He was a brilliant mathematician. From his observations and calculations he predicted when the planet Venus would pass across the sun's disk. If he were right about this transit of Venus, great developments might be expected in the science of astronomy. He himself as the discoverer could be sure of fame. You can imagine his keenness with which he observed the planet on the predicted day. There he was, gazing through the telescope and making notes. If you were to read through his notes they would not convey much to you unless you were an astronomer. Even an astronomer might be puzzled by one note, of three Latin words, Ad meliora advocatus, which means 'Summoned to better things.' He was summoned by the church bell to take his part in the liturgy. That he esteemed as meliora - better things than important scientific discovery and the glamour of personal renown. That was his estimate of liturgy..." Taken from Addresses & Papers of Michael Lloyd Ferrar 1909-1960.

Well worth reading, particularly what he says about the corporate nature of Trinitarian worship viz my post on low Mass. Traddies go on about how the Novus Ordo is a one-man-shew but they can't see the connexion between a priest wearing a tasteless chasuble and facing down the church with a microphone and a priest ad orientem at low Mass supplanting the rôles of deacon, subdeacon, choir and other ministers.

Quoth the Traddie: "Well, at least he's wearing a maniple and he's saying Mass in Latin!"
Ait Patricius: "But liturgy is common prayer. Even Presbyterians have the co-operation of a number of elders around the officiating minister at the Lord's Supper!"
Quoth the Traddie: "Oh, you're just a bloody heretic."

Art: From "The Ceremonies and Religious Customs of the Idolatrous Nations" By Bernard Picart.

On low Mass...

The variations in the ceremonies practised in the celebration of the Eucharist make a division into two heads easy: missa solemnis and missa privata. The missa solemnis is the publick, or high Mass, and gives us the rule for the celebration of the Eucharist. The priest is assisted by a deacon and subdeacon....The private, or low Mass, on the other hand, must be regarded as the exception, and in this the priest is assisted by a server only. It is the presence of the deacon and subdeacon which makes the difference between high Mass and private Mass, and not whether any part of the service be sung. Now, it cannot be too often repeated that it is only high Mass which gives us the antient, typical ceremonies of the celebration of the Eucharist, and from which we may learn the true idea of the Eucharistic rites. Low Mass only gives us the rite in a maimed and imperfect, not to say corrupt and irregular way. Private, or low Mass, that is, a celebration of the Eucharist without deacon or subdeacon, was as little known to the Church at large for the first 800 years, as it is to this day to the Eastern Church. It seems to have come in when Latin ceased to be understood by the people, who betook themselves, therefore, to their private prayers. Low Mass robbed the mediaeval church of the idea of common prayer, which it is the glory of our Prayer Book to have brought back. The celebration of the Eucharist in private (I am only using the word still used by the Roman Missal) shews but small respect to the Christian mysteries. It may be borne with in country parishes where there is no one in holy orders but the curate himself, but to see in a church with a large staff the altar served by some boy taken out of the street, who probably does not know his Catechism, and has not been confirmed, while men in holy orders are doing nothing in the stalls of the choir, or only come into church to distribute the Communion, shews that there is little or no zeal for the solemnity of the Eucharist. It shews a contempt for the practices of antiquity, to which in all questions of ceremonial, as well as in faith and morals, the Church of England appeals.... Even the more learned Roman Catholick authorities dislike the boy server, and tell us that it is the deacon who is the proper minister of the altar. Dr John Wickham-Legg, ''On Some Antient Liturgical Customs Now Falling Into Disuse,'' in Transactions of the St Paul’s Ecclesiological Society, vol. II (London, 1890), 123-24.

Many contemporary Roman Catholic liturgists consider Dr John Wickham-Legg's scholarship obsolete and understood solely in the context of the late 19th century Anglo-Catholic ceremonial wars. For my part (in this passage at any rate) I would dissent only from Dr Wickham-Legg's supposition that low Mass evolved largely on account of the obscurity of Latin to the people. I would say that it was more a case of bad theology latent in the Scholastic movement than necessarily a linguistic problem, although the Latin language may have been a case in northern Europe. Otherwise, what he says about the distinctions between the services, that out understanding of the Eucharistic liturgy is by recourse to high Mass only, and that low Mass is defective is absolutely right. I consider low Mass, except in cases of utmost necessity, to be a liturgical abuse akin to turning away from the East or an extempore Anaphora, and the custom certainly contributed to the decline of the Divine Office as an act of corporate worship as opposed to clerical recitation in private.

Because low Mass is codified into the Roman liturgy with a set of rubrics and was given sanction by the Tridentine missal, people aren't prepared to admit what a mistake it was. If Trent really was an holy synod it would have abolished the custom as a mediaeval superstition. Unfortunately, it's seen to-day as complimentary to high Mass (seldom provided), with its own inherent qualities of contemplation, of quietude and piety. That it detracts from the nature of liturgy itself, and even from Scripture itself, "where two or three are gathered in my name," etc, puts the Traddies out of reckoning. So we're stuck with it.

Venite, venite...

This is exquisite. Emma Kirkby and Evelyn Tubb sing Monteverdi's motet Venite, sitientes, ad aquas Domini. Simply marvellous.

O come, O come, ye that thirst, to the waters of the LORD; make haste ye for to gain this milk and honey beyond price. O come, drink ye this wine which hath imparted unto you unfathomable wisdom. Eat and drink ye, friends, of this godly milk and honey. For richer is God's love than wine to console the world.

I used God's "love" as a euphemism for ubera, which means something completely different of course. Is it out of season, do you think?

The Stars of Night...

An English rendering of one of the finest hymns in the Latin tradition. No jokes, please, in the comments as to which verb the Liturgia Horarum has in mind when in the ham-fisted revision of the hymns creator was substituted for conditor. Enjoy!