Sunday, April 30, 2017

Dominica secunda post Pascha


  • Mass: Misericordia Domini plena est terra. Ego sum pastor bonus: et cognosco meas, et cognoscunt me meae. Pictured: Vidi Aquam before Sung Mass. Fond memories of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, an authentic Gothic Revival fantasy I visited on and off from 1985 until 2010; in name outside the church but with us in spirit. Most of its parishioners are now in fact Catholic, in the ordinariate of course worshipping somewhere else. Some are with me at Our Lady of Lourdes. The Episcopalians still have the old building; that's their business.
  • Today the Anglican missals revert to Cranmer's collect and readings, here still based on ours but he threw in his tuppence; here not a problem doctrinally but ecclesiologically. He had no authority to do that. I've come to the idea that there was no such thing as "liturgical studies" until at least the 1800s. Historically, the church East (its many rites) and West consciously changed things very little; just an occasional edit, which is what St. Pius V was doing with Quo Primum. Things did change, and interestingly scholars say the Byzantine Rite changed a lot, but it was like "whisper down the lane," not intentional. Good thing the church is infallible and indefectible. Clergy didn't dare rewrite services lest they take out something essential, depriving the people of the grace of the Mass. Anyway, the Protestants didn't have the historical knowledge to edit services to some pristine patristic form either. Cranmer used some things he liked (such as the Collect for Purity that's part of the priest's prep in the Roman Missal) and wrote the rest, based on his imagination and his made-up theology (Reformed, Bucerian). By the way, was the last big organic change to the Roman Rite (not the Novus Ordo rewrite, unprecedented), the merging of the old terse Roman (as you can hear in the oldest collects) and the more flowery Gallican rites (an indirect Eastern influence on the Roman Rite) to make the Roman Rite as I know it, conscious (an editing job) or gradual?
  • Actual English translation.
  • Moment before Mass: A sound to please American anglophiles' ears. The organ prelude, first time I've heard it used for one, was "Rondeau," best known as the theme music of PBS's old "Masterpiece Theatre." We're not re-enactors (although in many ways I am one); more like Corpus Christi, Manhattan 60 years ago than many/most other American parishes. If it's Anglican but it's orthodox and it's good, we use it!
  • My Easter duty. The church requires us to receive Communion at Eastertide because medieval people rarely received. Not ideal but better than receiving unworthily (deeds that are grave matter on your conscience, without absolution after auricular confession). This week the kindly Capuchin friars downtown put up with hearing my nonsense in the box yet again so I was at the rail today. The only part of the formula I could really hear Fr. McKale say was "...in vitam aeternam. Amen." Byzantine Rite prayers at home afterwards. It's all good. On that note, here's a true story of Alfred Hitchcock resuming the practice of the faith. Blessed, praised, hallowed, and adored be our Lord Jesus Christ on his throne of glory in heaven, in the most holy Sacrament of the altar, and in the hearts of his faithful people.
  • An ecumenical moment: Down the street from us is an Episcopal church. Dating back to when the neighborhood was monied, it was the Memorial Church of St. Paul, which I guess has been suppressed as St. Thomas African Episcopal Church (not to be confused with A.M.E. although their founders once worked together as Methodists) moved in some time ago. My guess is it's the church home of British Caribbean blacks. Anyway, as I was walking by, taking some time before Mass, I saw some cassocked priests, including I imagine the father rector as he was wearing a mozetta (shoulder cape), which I think is an insignia of rank, just like my late Anglo-Catholic rector. Unlike Catholic liberals, Episcopalians now love our customs. That's great.
  • The century-old Presbyterian church on 65th Street that burned up last summer, looking like a blitzed cathedral on my way to and from Mass, is being torn down. Sad. Its name was Good Shepherd.
  • Why I like reading Vespers of Our Lady on the commuter train home during the week using my Anglo-Catholic Prayer Book, including Athelstan Riley's translation of Ave, Maris Stella, the hymn, which I learned in England: hearing these offices sung to Gregorian chant at St. Clement's, Philadelphia for years. (Sunday Vespers, standard Catholic parish practice before radio, the movies, and TV.) Good music is like praying twice; it's reinforcing because it uses a part of the brain not used otherwise. Why "Schoolhouse Rock" works. I know someone who can't remember spoken prayers but has no problem with song lyrics.
  • Fred Reed: The place of Christianity in history: A view from without.
  • Stay tuned: I will have a post for the centenary of Fátima.

20 comments:

  1. You asked:

    "By the way, was the last big organic change to the Roman Rite (not the Novus Ordo rewrite, unprecedented), the merging of the old terse Roman (as you can hear in the oldest collects) and the more flowery Gallican rites (an indirect Eastern influence on the Roman Rite) to make the Roman Rite as I know it, conscious (an editing job) or gradual?"

    Both, I think. When Charlemagne decided to suppress the old Gallican Rite in favor of the Roman Rite, and asked the then pope to send him Roman liturgical books, Roman practice was found to be rather "sparse" for Frankish taste, and so Charlemagne entrusted the English monk Alcuin with adapting them (Alcuin's work was continued after his death by another monk,whose name I forget). Alcuin incorporated some Gallican features into the liturgical books, and then over the next 600 years all sorts of northern "bright ideas" (such as the Offertory Prayers aka the "little canon") made their way into the Mass rite at different times in different places, sometimes with reduplications, throughout northern Europe (and in Iberia from the late 11th Century onwards the Franch form of the Roman Rite was slowly displacing the Mozarabic Rite - and one can note, as a curiosity, the introduction of the Sarum Rite into Portugal from the 1380s onwards).

    In Rome itself, there were occasional influences from the North, e.g., the introduction of the Creed, with the filioque, into the Mass there in 1014, at the behest of the Emperor Henry II, who was shocked when he came to Rome for his coronation to find that the Creed was not said at Mass there, but the big influx of northern stuff into the "Roman Rite of Rome" apparently began in 1277, when the pope ordered a Franciscan version of the Roman Rite (with various northern features) to become the rite used in the parish churches of Rome. More changes happened at the end of the Avignon papacy, during the course of which (as I have read) somehow the papacy discarded its own version of the Roman Rite (for use at the papal court) in favor of a Franciscan version of the Roman Rite, which had lots of "northern" features (e.g., the Offertory Prayers), which the papacy brought back to Rome in 1378 and which was codified by Johann Burchard and printed in 1474. It was this Missal which, pruned of some florid features but with the Mass Rite itself, was promulgated by St. Pius V in Quo Primum in 1570.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Cranmer used some things he liked (such as the Collect for Purity that's part of the priest's prep in the Roman Missal) and wrote the rest, based on his imagination and his made-up theology (Reformed, Bucerian)." That sounds like an admission that Anglicanism is...well...you know... fakedty fake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading. Yes but. We've been over this. I'm Catholic too (back five years so I'm not a newb ignoramus or fanatic). But Anglicanism's falsity doesn't mean everything in it is false, including where it differs from American Catholic culture; not teachings, culture. Anglo-Catholics taught me a lot. For example, that old and new styles can co-exist in the church; modern Anglicans don't hate high church like Catholic liberals do. The stuff isn't mutually exclusive like the liberals in the official church and the SSPX have been saying. (The liberals are just like Protestants: if you don't throw out the old and adopt the new, you're disobeying God.) Also, that semi-congregationalism can be a hedge against liberalism. Something to think about when considering that everything that's not doctrine should be on the table in ecumenism. (Not that the Episcopalians are interested in returning to the church. Everybody among them who really wanted to be Catholic already has come in.)

      I could join the ordinariate if I wanted to, and they and I have much in common. I hear the same hymns and use the same English translations. (In English we literally say the same creed.) A difference is I don't use things Cranmer wrote. But if the church vets and approves something, fine. I would take the ordinariate farther. As I just wrote, everything that's not doctrine is on the table. If they can support married priests and their families (honestly, how many Catholics would pony up for that?), do the Eastern thing of ordaining the married not just for ex-Anglican converts but for second-generation etc. ordinariate men. The Antiochian Orthodox have Catholicized Cranmer's Eucharistic prayer so the ordinariate can have it if they want it.

      Hardly Cranmer's and his teachers' idea of reformed Christianity.

      Delete
    2. We don't want the Cranmerian anaphora, thanks - we'll stick to the Roman Canon (in the splendid translation of that abominable heretic Miles Coverdale). :-)

      Delete
    3. I know many who would say the same thing about the fakedty fake novus ordo

      Delete
    4. Imperial. The "Anglican" canon approved by the Antiochian Greek Orthodox has almost nothing to do with Cranmer, other than its wonderful English. Cranmer and Luther for that matter, were both very much medieval theologians when it came to the matter of the consecration, both believing that only the Words of Institution were necessary for the consecration to take place. Also, I have been several times to the local Roman parish, and have yet to hear the Roman canon.

      Delete
    5. Catholics have a moral obligation to support the married clergy and their families. They don't want to?? Too bad!

      Delete
    6. The "Anglican" canon approved by the Antiochian Greek Orthodox has almost nothing to do with Cranmer, other than its wonderful English.

      Good, because Cranmer was a rank heretic.

      Cranmer and Luther for that matter, were both very much medieval theologians when it came to the matter of the consecration, both believing that only the Words of Institution were necessary for the consecration to take place.

      I don't think that's what the church teaches. Otherwise most Masses would last only five minutes. There was no such thing as liturgical studies then. Later, when it turned out the Catholics were right, Lutheran liberals (ELCA) backtracked, writing an ambiguous anaphora as an option.

      I know many who would say the same thing about the fakedty-fake novus ordo.

      "Would you support abolishing the Novus Ordo?" Sounds like bait. I wouldn't mind if it went away, and I think writing new services isn't desirable, but I don't want to be the caricature traddie bookend of the liberals who banned my Mass. I have zero conscience problems with the new Mass in its original Latin and as reformed in English under Benedict XVI. It's not fakedty-fake; it is the Mass. If most Catholics want to use it, fine; just don't step on my toes.

      Catholics have a moral obligation to support the married clergy and their families. They don't want to?? Too bad!

      I like that.

      Delete
    7. "Would you support abolishing the Novus Ordo?" As soon as possible. It is a heavily defective liturgy and exists only to Protestantize the Catholic Church, outside of a destruction of the Catholic faith and practice, it has no reason to exist. A solid translation of the traditional Roman rite would have been the right thing to do.

      What most Americans do not realize is that the destruction of the traditional Roman Mass had consequences that went far beyond the Mass itself. For those of us who lived in the old country when this liturgical abomination was forced upon a Catholic population we are aware that it also destroyed living Catholic tradition as well. Destroyed was the Catholic practices that surrounded the old rite. The processions, rogation-tides, first and second Vespers, the Catholic traditions of the home etc., etc...all gone, never to return. The Catholic Faith is more than simply the Mass, much more; it was this destruction of a whole, living tradition that was the real destructive effect of the novus ordo.

      Today when one visits a traditional Orthodox country one can experience what was also the living, breathing tradition of the Catholic Faith as a daily lived experience.

      The abolition of the ancient Mass had consequences far beyond the Irish Catholic tradition, Mass only, that became the Sunday only Catholicism of the United States.

      Today, for most western Catholics that only thing that separates them from the secularised Protestants is that they have the Pope.

      Delete
    8. The Novus Ordo is at worst unfortunate but it is still the Mass. (For newbs: by the way, Novus Ordo is only a nickname.)

      ...exists only to Protestantize the Catholic Church

      That was part of it; I think the bigger reason was many churchmen bought into space-age progress: "Streamline the church like a new car or jet plane, and now that we have liturgical studies, we know how." But I don't think most of our bishops at Vatican II intended to go nearly as far as Bugnini did; they assumed the Roman Rite would continue using only the Roman Canon and with that likely still in Latin.

      A solid translation of the traditional Roman rite would have been the right thing to do.

      You're preaching to the choir here. Been saying that for years. Of course in English, Anglo-Catholics had done that for us with the English Missal, or any Catholic hand-missal translation will do.

      You're right about the destruction of Catholic culture and about Orthodoxy's appeal in comparison. Partly why I suckered myself into Orthodoxy 20 years ago. The trouble is when they tell you to believe that only Byzantium is the church, which is why you and I aren't Orthodox anymore. I'm still a part-time Byzantine.

      Regarding the Irish and Mass-only, that's what Novus Ordo American Catholicism is but don't blame the Irish for the end of Sunday Second Vespers in the parishes; blame the movies, radio, and TV. When people had that entertainment, they went to church less.

      Today, for most western Catholics the only thing that separates them from the secularised Protestants is that they have the Pope.

      That's the American church I remember in the '80s; I'm sure it still seems that way in many places. But I know our teachings and Benedict XVI the Great reformed the new Mass in English so it's much less so.

      Delete
    9. Is the Novus Ordo a perfect liturgy? No. Did the Novus Ordo help usher in a period of forgetting in the Church, where previous devotions and practices were abandoned. Sadly, yes. Is the Novus Ordo, in Latin or in approved vernacular translations, a valid form of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Absolutely. The most humble Novus Ordo, celebrated by a validly ordained Catholic priest, even when accompanied by a nun playing St. Louis Jesuit hymns on a banjo, using the old 1970 ICEL translation when that was authorized, is valid.

      Delete
  3. I'm a member of the Ordinariate and our two options are the Roman Canon (normative) and the "Alternative Eucharistic Prayer" (a somewhat more hieratic version of "dewfall"/EP2, only allowed for weekdays, though I've never heard it used, ever).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the Orthodox Anglican Use, one can easily see that, outside of language, it has very little to do with the Eucharistic rite of Cranmer:

      https://orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_(text)

      Delete
    2. From what I can tell just looking at the anaphora, it's Cranmer (the Scottish version in the old American Prayer Book) up through the Verba, then the epiclesis of course is a mix of Catholic things, Roman and Byzantine, effectively Catholicizing the anaphora for use by our ordinariate people if the church allowed it.

      Delete
  4. I should mention simply because I have posted the Antiochian Anglican based liturgy does not mean, by any means, that I support the western rite in Orthodoxy which has tended to be a complete failure because of the cultural bigotry of the Byzantine Orthodox; who make Bishop John Ireland look open-minded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right; they're not the universal church so they fall flat when they pretend to be. Western stuff put on by people who hate the West; doomed.

      Delete
  5. Dale wrote:

    "Cranmer and Luther for that matter, were both very much medieval theologians when it came to the matter of the consecration, both believing that only the Words of Institution were necessary for the consecration to take place."

    Absolutely true of Luther, who certainly retained the notion of a "consecration" of the elements effected by the Words of Institution. But Cranmer? By the time the 1552 BCP came out Cranmer appears to have abandoned both the word and what it signified. The late Church of England academic liturgical scholar Edward Craddock Ratcliff (1896-1967) discussed all this in his "The English Usage of Eucharistic Consecration 1548-1662," originally published in *Theology* vol. LX, no. 444 (June 1957) and no. 445 (July 1957), and how the word "consecration" returned with John Jewel. It has an interesting discussion of the trial of one Robert Johnson, a "Puritan" clergyman, in 1573, who was charged with mal-administration of the Sacrament because, when the supply of either bread or wine ran out in the course of the Communion Service, he simply had more of one or the other brought to the church and immediately distributed without any form of "supplemental consecration." Johnson justified this on the basis that the 1559 BCP made no provision for such a thing and, furthermore, that the Words of Institution were directed to God, in thanksgiving, and to the congregation, to properly dispose them, and not, "as a popish incantation," to the elements. He cited Cranmer at length to justify his stance, but his arguments were dismissed and he was sent to prison, where, within a year, he died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that theologically Luther is at least consistent, to a point; but Cranmer is much harder to pin down (as it were). His theology on the Eucharist seems to have had very little consistency from the first BCP, which is still a Catholic document, to his far more Protestant, in the Reformed direction, of the second book (both used for a very short time). But regardless he still preserved, in both books, the Prayer of Humble Access, which appears to have a definite expression of the Real Presence in Sacrament (although once, again, it still leaves Cranmer's own position on this issue open to interpretation). Had he not been burnt to death, perhaps we would have a better understanding of his continually changing theological positions. Also, one must be careful in painting the whole Anglican experience with the single brush of Cranmer; this would be akin to questioning the whole of the Roman Catholic church on the actions of one individual, such as when a recent Pope actually, publicly kissed the Koran.

      Delete
    2. Well, yes, but Dale, don't you think that the removal of the phrase "in these holy mysteries" from the 1549 version of the prayer in the 1552 revision is an indication of how Cranmer's views had shifted?

      We do not presume to come to this thy table (o mercifull lord) trusting in our owne righteousnes, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we be not woorthie so much as to gather up the cromes under thy table: but thou art the same lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercie: Graunt us therefore (gracious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christ, and to drynke his bloud in these holy Misteries , that we may continuallye dwell in hym, and he in us, that our synfull bodyes may bee made cleane by his body, and our soules washed through hys most precious bloud. Amen.

      Delete
    3. But Cranmer does indeed refer to the Eucharist as a Sacrament in the 1552 admonition to be said by the Curate to all those who receive, stating:

      "DERELY beloved, forasmuche as our duetie is to rendre to Almightie god our heavenly father most harty thankes, for that he hath geven his sonne our savioure Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual fode and sustenaunce, as it is declared unto us, as wel by goddes word as by the holy Sacramentes of his blessed body and bloud, the whiche being so comfortable a thyng to them whiche receive it worthely, and so daungerous to them that wyl presume to receive it unworthely."

      Once again, it is indeed hard to discern Cranmer on this issues, in same places, even the in 1552 BCP, he still seems to regard the Real Presence as a reality in the Eucharist, albeit no longer in the transubstantiation tradition as understood by both the Orthodox and Catholics of his time (although more modernist Orthodox now appear to reject Transubstantiation as well [although this is in direct contradiction to the universally accepted Orthodox Catechism of S Peter Mohila]). But it is hard to accuse him of the complete rejection of some sort of physical presence in the Sacrament as understood by Zwingli.

      But then in the administration of the Sacrament to the laity he does seem to approximate a "spiritual reception" based upon faith that appears to approximate Calvinism, which attempted a half-way house in an attempt to unite the two very opposed Lutheran and Zwinglian tendencies, which was to accept some form of the Real Presence, but based upon the personal faith of the individual receiver of the Sacrament:

      "Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving."

      Once again, my contention is that the Eucharistic theology of Cranmer appears to have been evolving, always on must admit in a Protestant direction, but was indeed always ambiguous. It is indeed interesting to note that there was nothing really ambiguous in the rite of 1549, but by 1552 it had certain moved further and further in a Protestant direction; but then implying a final conclusion, which may or may not have happened, is to move beyond the actual documents.

      Delete

Leave comment