The Beauty of Grief

Today, I watched the funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It was a beautiful service befitting a grand lady. Although Anglicanism has always been foreign to me, they do liturgy and music exquisitely. I believe a lot of the English-speaking world could learn from the nobility of the Anglican tradition. Especially with wording like this, from the Eucharistic Prayer for Children: "He came to take away sin, which keeps us from being friends, and hate, which makes us all unhappy." Oh dear.

Anyway, what struck me as important about the funeral is the ability to grieve. The family grieved their matriarch and a nation mourned their sovereign. This was enabled by an atmosphere of grief and solemnity. I believe that this is something that we need to bring back into modern funeral liturgies. It was a grave error, in my estimation, to change the funeral liturgy in the Roman Rite. Grief is no longer the focus with the resurrection being the primary focus of the liturgy. White is now an option and the event can take a celebratory tone.

For me, it is important that there is a chance to grieve. Purple and black remind us that our time on earth is brief and that we need the opportunity to mourn. The prayers in the Extraordinary Form were for the soul of the person, entreating God's mercy and asking forgiveness for the person. We now pray that the person will be immediately admitted into the company of the saints. I read that Cardinal George of Chicago was wary of funeral liturgies that "canonized the deceased." That is something we should also avoid if possible. 

This is, perhaps, to be expected. In modern times we have often changed our definition of metanoia, to a self-help understanding of ourselves that our sins are just individual peccadillos which define us. I'm ok, you're ok has replaced the need for repentance uttered by the Orthodox (but still with great hope): "Image am I of Your unutterable glory, though I bear the scars of my stumblings. Have compassion on me, the work of Your hands, O Sovereign Lord, and cleanse me through Your loving-kindness; and the homeland of my heart's desire bestow on me by making me a citizen of Paradise."

So, this is my plea. Let us bring back solemnity to funerals. It is ok to grieve and it is ok to admit that the deceased is approaching judgment before Almighty God. It is, in my estimation, not only psychologically healthy but part of our venerable tradition.

Organizing Liturgical Diversity

I generally refrain from commenting on current events in other churches, but the newsworthiness of the moto proprio Traditionis Custodes cannot be ignored. And, I believe, it has larger implications for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. 

If you have not heard, or have been under a rock, Pope Francis recently restricted the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the local bishop rather than the celebrant as had been the case with Summorum Pontificum. Included in the decision are limitations on parishes utilizing the Extraordinary Form, founding new religious communities, etc. This comes as a deep blow to many who love the Tridentine Mass. And I personally think it is heavy handed. Especially when there are other options available. 

The Roman Catholic Church has flourished with liturgical diversity. In the Latin Rite, Jesuit missionaries received permission to celebrate Mass in Chinese and in Dalmatia and parts of Istria the Mass was celebrated in Church Slavonic. Thus, the Tridentine Mass has been celebrated in many languages and places in diverse ways. Diversity is also present in the regional forms of Mass, such as the Ambrosian Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite, etc. Diversity is present not just in the Latin Rite, as there are whole particular churches set up for the Eastern rites so faithful can utilize a rite that is both familiar to them and culturally sensitive. 

In the above examples, each option for diversity exists either locally or is extended to a larger structure. This seems, for me, to be a reasonable step for the Tridentine Mass, too. We have seen it work with the Anglican Ordinariate in terms of creating liturgical cohesion. So why not create a Tridentine Ordinariate? That way, people with an affinity for the Tridentine Mass can be grouped together in different ways throughout the world. There is also a precedence with the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. 

Opponents may argue that that could create a "ghettoization" or a hotbed for disobedience. But, there is evidence that it can work. The Anglican Ordinariate is made up of former Anglicans who traditionally have not been given the spiritual gift of obedience. But by grouping them together there has been a cohesive way to regulate those who resist authority. And by not creating an Ordinarite for the Tridentine Mass, the Roman Catholic Church is just driving the faithful to outside sources. Maybe that is their point. It's hard to bring in people who tweet "Francis will die, but the Latin Mass will live forever" as was recently done by a popular traddie blog. But, to use an uncouth quote from President Lyndon Johnson, "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

There is one key element of these groups which can't be understated. The Eastern Rites, the Anglican Ordinariate, etc. accept the validity and legality of the Ordinary Form. If a mutual flourishing does not exist, to borrow from the CofE, there cannot be cohesion. This is a necessity of any Ordinariate but also isolates those who reject this principle.

Outside the Roman Catholic Church, there have been examples of where it has worked to create a group for a specific need. The Old Ritualists have carved out a place in ROCOR. I think this has implications among Autocephalous Catholics, too. I have often spoken about priests who are ordained and wish to offer the Mass of Saint Abdecalas exclusively (this is a joke). This is often times not realistic to do publicly, because it is a liturgy which is unfamiliar to people who are already unfamiliar with us. Often times, we do have to utilize a liturgy promulgated by other parts of the wider Church so that it is familiar with those who seek us. Then the process of catechesis can begin if you want to offer a wild and wonderful liturgy. 

It does behoove us (size permitting) to create ways for different valid, historical liturgical expressions to flourish. For example, I have a great affinity for the Tridentine Mass in English because it is part of my tradition. But I also realize that introducing it may take easing into it, because most people are unfamiliar with it outside of Anglo-Catholic circles. And while I would have been ok if the changes to the Latin Rite to have stopped in 1965 (as did Msgr. Lefebvre), I realize that it did not. 

In our movement, we can very easily say "I want to belong to this jurisdiction because it only celebrates the Roman Rite." Or, "I only want this jurisdiction because it celebrates the Anglican Rite." But, frankly we are too small to start excluding other groups of people just because we disagree on non-essentials. So why not welcome everyone and create different groupings for those who have certain preferences, so they can build up each other and contribute to the group better as a whole? Perhaps that is a lesson for all churches.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” ― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer 

Photo: Matthew Doyle

On Fleek: Clerical Dress

I realize that in the Autocephalous Catholic world we spend a lot of time on dress. It is a natural human tendency to want to look nice, especially when you're approaching the God of the Universe. But there are a few abuses I feel compelled to address which I have seen over the years. I don't mean to imply that those who have committed them do not know the liturgy and I realize that dress is relatively unimportant. I do think, however, that it is important for us if we claim a Catholic heritage with the corresponding dress that we wear things as they were intended. To not use them correctly risks us being viewed as unlearned or "dressing up."

This article is primarily for those who claim to be Independent/Old Catholic and I will use terms proper to the Roman Catholic Church. Anglican/Orthodox traditions are outside the realm of this article and churches which claim apostolic succession but do not operate as "Catholic" churches are also not included and can do what they want (even if the sight pains me greatly).

Alb 

ALWAYS wear an alb if celebrating Mass or concelebrating Mass (in the Novus Ordo). There is no such thing as not wearing an alb as the celebrant in the Western Church. Especially if you have on a habit or a cassock. I have heard it said "Pope XYZ gave a dispensation to the Franciscans." Nope, nope, nope. Even the Dominicans wear albs with white habits.1

 

Biretta 

If you are the celebrant, the biretta is worn only to process in and out of the sacristy, when seated, and at the homily. It is not worn like a zuchetto throughout the liturgy.

 

Choir Dress

If a bishop is in choir and not participating in the liturgy, they should not wear a mitre or carry a crozier. Choir dress is mozetta (or mantelletta), rochet, and cassock. No extra bits and not a cope over a mozetta. N.B. there are a few times when a bishop wears a mitre with a stole and rochet, like consecrating a chalice, but these are extraordinary and need not concern us.

 

Fascia

The Fascia is only worn with a cassock. It is not a cincture for an alb.4

Chasuble Under a Cope

Don't do it ever. Even for a second. Just don't. In this case, less is more. 2

Zuchetto 

Take off the zuchetto at the preface and return it after communion. Please, please do not wear it with a suit.

 

1. Image PadreRenzo

2 Image: Komanec1

3 Image: Gugganij  

4 Image: Valter Campanato/ABr - Agência Brasil 

Liturgy Among Autocephalous Catholics

Perhaps the most difficult thing for Autocephalous Catholics (or Independent Catholics or within the ISM) is choosing a liturgy. Often times this is because what they would like to use can be at odds with what people will actually attend. Here are some different perspectives:

1. The traditionalist--this is a member of the movement who is committed to celebrating the traditional rites of the Church in whatever tradition they use. Usually they have a particular interest or focus on parts of the liturgy and liturgical adherence. This can be the use of the second Confiteor, the Pre-1955 Holy Week, etc. The positives of this perspective are that these individuals are often faithful to the rubrics and to the precise celebration of the liturgy. The downside can be that they care about things literally no one else does. The average person in the pew typically does not care about liturgical minutiae and there can be a danger of becoming the butt of the old joke (What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.)

2. The antiquarian--this is a person who is likely obsessed with the "Liturgy of St. Medard of Picardy" or some other obscure saint who used a rite from 564 that we don't quite know what it said but they want to recreate it. This is certainly attractive to people like myself who love historical liturgy and, in particular, liturgies from Early Christianity. They are often deeply interested in research and want to recreate the rites used by the saints and developed in holiness. The challenge can be attracting people to the Rite of Saint Cunigunde of Luxembourg and convincing them they should care about it or adjust their prayer to it.

3. The pragmatist--this is a person who uses whatever liturgy is requested by the congregation. This could be Novus Ordo, 1979 Prayerbook, etc. The benefit of this perspective is that the individual will be attractive to people who were not previously part of the Independent Movement (literally everybody it seems) and the liturgy used will be familiar to people. The challenge is that the liturgy is indistinguishable from the parish down the street. Furthermore, using liturgies which are familiar can be challenging to groups which claim a heritage that does not match the implementation of the liturgy (i.e. Old Catholics who started in the 1700's but are using a Roman liturgy implemented in 1969).

All of these approaches present very difficult questions. For example, do you want your jurisdiction to reach out to former mainstream members? What is your unique charism if that is the case--is it inclusivity, traditionalism, or something else? If you are called to a primarily historic or otherwise relatively unknown tradition (i.e. Western Orthodoxy) do you have the ability to properly catechize people as well as make these traditions attractive to them? 

It may appear that I am oversimplifying the lay response to new things, but I believe these are real issues to be addressed. We have seen the same challenges presented with mainstream clergy do things like turn the altar to ad orientem. It takes a concerted effort to explain why this is desirable and how it is to be done. For us, we have to explain it at the beginning of people coming which is even more difficult than having a standing group that we have to convince.

These words don't offer much guidance or comfort, I'm afraid, but more a realization of what we're up against in our ministries. How is it that we can foster genuine ministerial support without it becoming a "hobby?" Is it by being more flexible to people by adjusting our liturgical standards? Or is it by staying true to ourselves and sticking to something? That seems to be at least part of the answer--when in a public liturgical setting PLEASE DO NOT KEEP CHANGING THE LITURGY YOU USE. I'm not talking about slight differences between rites or using diverse rituals in sacraments outside the parochial Mass--I'm talking about when one week you're Byzantine and the next week you're using the Novus Ordo. It looks crazy.

Ultimately you have to use the tradition you feel called to use while understanding that it may be difficult to attract people to a "new" thing. Or you use a liturgy with which those assisting at Mass are familiar but it may not be your favorite. Or you use a liturgy that you love and that people love but you have to emphasize why you're different from the church down the street. Whatever you do, do it with sincerity and reverence.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” ― C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer

Missa Privata

The Mass without people (a.k.a. Missa Privata or In Missis sine populo celebratis) is getting a lot of attention because of the Coronvirus or Covid-19. Unfortunately, many dioceses and ecclesiastical entities have had to restrict public Masses because of the risk to the faithful. For now, priests and bishops are offering Mass privately or behind closed doors. Typically this includes at least one person but it may not (depending on who is available and the risk of infection). These certainly are unprecedented times and there is much to be said for the theological concept of economy right now.

There have long been many opinions about Private Masses. In the Eastern Church it is discouraged, although there are individual examples like St. Theophan the Recluse.1 In the Roman Catholic Church it was also discouraged, as documented in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: "A priest should not celebrate Mass without a minister who assists him and response."2 This was somewhat relaxed in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states "A priest may not celebrate without the participation of at least some member of the faithful, except for a just and reasonable cause."3

In the West, in particular, this concept has been discussed extensively. There are many different perspectives on this issue and they usually fall where people identify liturgically or theologically. Traditionalists argue in favor of the Missa Privata because of the intrinsic value of each Mass. Modern or contemporary scholars argue against it because of the limitation of lay participation.4 The contemporary argument is that it is against the concepts presented by Vatican II and that the Mass is not under the ownership of the Priest.

I take the traditionalist approach. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that the Liturgy should happen for the benefit of as many people as possible. That is always the ideal, that both clergy and laity will participate for their spiritual benefit. However, when that is not possible there are still benefits to solo celebration. First, it benefits the priest. Priests are human beings who need spiritual succor like everyone else. The ultimate reason many of us became priests is to offer the Holy Sacrifice for ourselves and the People of God. There are intrinsic benefits to our having access to offering the Holy Mass frequently.

Similarly there are benefits to the Holy Mass being offered frequently even without a congregation. This topic is more nuanced because of the historical complexities related to it. First, there can be a hesitation to discuss the graces flowing from the Mass because of comparisons to magical or esoteric Christianity. Similarly, there is also hesitation among those who support concelebration because of the association that concelebration was limited in favor of Private Masses. Yet this was a later development and often done because of the need for numerous Requiem Masses or the need for priests to celebrate in monasteries. Finally, there is also the concern that this can be taken to its most extreme where Masses are offered again and again stripped down to little more than the Words of Institution. This is the case in Palmar de Troya (in the Palmarian Catholic Church).5

Yet we are faced with the understanding that there is benefit to the Sacrifice of the Mass itself. In the Roman Catholic West, the Mass is regarded thusly: "The intrinsic value of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that is, its peculiar dignity and efficacious power in itself (in actu primo), is infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the Sacrificial Gift, and of the Primary Sacrificial Priest."6 Also, "As a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving the sacrifice of the Mass is infinite as to its external value also, that is, as to its actual operation (in actu secondo) since the operations of adoration and thanksgiving refer immediately to God, who as the Infinite Being can receive an infinite act."7

Therefore the Mass is the summit of all Christian worship because it is "the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass as in the Sacrifice of the Cross; primarily the glorification of God, secondarily atonement, thanksgiving, and appeal" and is "a sacrifice for the Church."8 The benefit of offering Mass (even for those who do not receive Communion at the Mass) is echoed by St. Thomas Aquinas who says: " But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation."9

This demonstrates that there is a clear theological reasoning to Private Masses. The Mass is participation in the Sacrifice of the Cross and there are benefits for those commemorated therein (both the living and the dead). There are also advantages for the priest spiritually to join himself to such a Holy Sacrifice.

This is an area where Autocephalous or Independent Catholics are condemned by other members of the Church Catholic. We are often derided that we offer Mass by ourselves in our garage with no congregation. Yet the Church is waking up to a very different world than existed even two weeks ago. I believe that the larger church has something they can learn from us. While condemnation has been heaped on us, there is a rationale to our offering the Holy Mass (even solo). While it is ideal to have a congregation, those who cannot are still participating in offering the Holy Sacrifice and participating in its benefits.

What is even more unique about the Autocephalous Catholic Movement is that ordination is more fluid. So there are many more opportunities for people to be ordained to offer the Holy Mass and participate in the Sacrifice of the Cross. Again, ideally this is in the context of a congregation but if it is not there is still benefit. Even if it is in the silence of their garage, the celebrant benefits from the Holy Mass. How fortunate we are to be able to celebrate it and what a blessing it is to allow more fluidity for others to celebrate as well. Solo celebrations have brought me great joys and allowed me to offer petitions for those who need it most.

Unfortunately we do not know how long this pandemic will last. But, for priests, we are infinitely blessed that we can offer the Holy Sacrifice ourselves any time we desire. We (and the Church) derive benefit from the offering regardless of who is present. May God bless our humble work and those for whom we pray.

“The Mass is a compendium of all God's love, of all His benefits to men, and each Mass bestows on the world a benefit not less than what was conferred on it by the Incarnation." - St Bonaventure

1. https://www.stbasil.com/new-events/2020/1/10/divine-liturgy-gregory-of-nyssa-amp-theophan-the-recluse
2. Canon 813.1. Peters, Edward. The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.
3. Canon 906. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P37.HTM
4. https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2020/03/18/private-masses-do-not-fit-with-a-contemporary-understanding-of-eucharist/
5. https://magnuslundberg.net/2017/08/29/the-palmarian-order-of-the-mass/
6. Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Tertia Pars. Q. 79.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the Liturgy

Below is a letter from Fr. Adrian Fortescue dated November 24, 1919 to Stanley Morison (the formatting was retained). It details that although we become experts on certain topics or subjects, those same subjects may not be our passion! The humor is not lost that we now look to Fr. Fortescue as one of the great rubrical masters of his time.

“I cannot possibly give up another day, or part of one, to looking over Gurney’s wretched pictures of people in Italian vestments, to judge whether the thurifer is standing at the right place and whether the deacon ought to have his hands joined. There is something more about this. I wish you would tell everybody who wants to bother me on the subject. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT MODERN CEREMONIES. I hate, loathe and utterly despise the trivial details of ceremonies. I do not think it matters one little straw where the acolytes stand during Pontifical vespers at the throne, and I simply do not know the correct answer to the endless stream of questions of this kind that people are always sending me. I suppose I knew something about these things while I was writing that book of Ceremonies, but now I thank my Maker that, if I did, I have forgotten it all. My writing that book was a colossal mistake really. I had written a book about the history of the Mass. Then B. & O., understanding nothing about such things, invited me to revise Dale-Baldeschi. If they had understood anything, they would have known a man who wrote a history of a rite is absolutely the very last man to write the rules of modern ceremonies. The two things are utterly different, and appeal to utterly different types of mind. I know people, like Wallis and Hall, who have that queer taste for the silly details of ceremonies. They never known nor care about the history of such things. To them it is not the history nor the development of rites that matter a bit, it is the latest decision of the Congregation of Rites. These decisions are always made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want to simply ignore. It is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment. I do not think there is any possible subject of inquiry that seems to me more entirely trivial, futile, silly and uninteresting. I have some slight interest in the history of the Roman Rite (though even in this I have now gone a long way in other directions. At present, I am much more interested in what Plato thought about ideas, and the relation of Proclus to Christianity, how far Neoplatonism is Platonism at all). I never cared a tinker’s cuss what the Congregation may have decided about the order in which the acolyte should put out the candles after Vespers. B & O understand nothing; so of course they did not understand the differences between the man interested in the history of rites and the man who makes a stupid hobby book of knowing what is the footling rule for each case now. They ought to have offered the work to Wallis or Hall, or that little man at St. Edmund’s who found several hundred mistakes in my book, after Bergh and Hall had passed it as perfect. I took on the job solely for filthy lucre’s sake. It was in the middle of the war, nearly all chance of a market for literary works ended, Britten had just written to say that C.T.S. could not think of printing my book on the Uniate Churches till times had changed. I wanted money, and I thought it would not take long to revise Dale. I had not the ghost of an idea when I took on the job what an appalling business it was going to be. Having begun, I thought I ought to go on. Dale soon proved to be impossible. For one ghastly year (I think the most dismal, hateful, useless year of my life), I swotted away at stuff for which I could hardly conceal my contempt and disgust while I was doing it. Day after day I took up the hateful burden of verifying in Merati, Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Van Der Stappen, what each person does in the course of these interminable ceremonies. It was as far removed from any intellectual interest as anything could be. Absolutely any fool could write such a book of ceremonies. It is only a matter of looking up what about 10 stupid Italians say. Generally they all say the same thing. When they disagree, you say so, and give the view of each. It was about as interesting as drawing up a railway guide by combining the hours of trains from the time-tables of ten different companies.

During that hateful year I acquired two overwhelming impressions. First, that whatever beauty interest or historic value, or dignity, the Roman rite ever had has been utterly destroyed by the uneducated little cads who run that filthy congregation at Rome; secondly that it would be beyond the power of man to invent a form of literature more entirely uninteresting, or more finally disgusting than the works of Messrs. Martinucci, Le Vasseur, Baldeschi, and the rest. The one only pleasure I got in doing the book was writing the preface where I say, as plainly as I dare, what contemptible nonsense the whole thing is. I ended thanking God that it was done. But it was not. The little man at St. Edmund’s sent men an interminable list of errors. Once more I had to take up the loathsome burden and revise the book. But then I had done. I have sold all the books on the subject I acquired while writing it, thank God I have forgotten every little bit of what I learned writing it. I have never looked at my own book ever again. I want never to hear another word about ceremonies for as long as I live. I would rather discuss the symptoms of cancer. There is no subject in the world for which I have so intense a disgust.

But see and learn from my sad case. That putrid book is the curse of my life. Day after day I am inundated with letters from people of whom I have never heard, with strings of questions about ceremonies; Catholic priests, still more High Anglicans, from all over the country think they have the right to dollop on me several hours’ work doing research for them about some silly detail of a subject of which I know nothing. This is what amazes me, the incredible imprudence of these people. Because I have written a book it does not follow that I have turned myself into a society for giving free advice, and doing free research work for every unknown fool who may choose to write me and ask for it. I could of course spend my few hours at the Museum by having out again Martinucci and his peers, verifying points, comparing authorities. I could ask for the whole collection of the Decrees of the Stinking Congregation of Rites, and pass through hours or so hunting for the date of a decree. But why cannot these imprudent scoundrels do their own dirty work? Their cheek takes away my breath. I do not fire off a letter to some doctor in Harley Street whom I do not know, asking him, with a lot of compliments, kindly to write out for me a treatise on the cause, prevention, treatment and cure of arthritis. It would never occur to me to find the address of some lawyer and jump on him eight questions about real and personal property. People do this to me. Every week I get six or seven letters, often with ten questions in each. Any of these questions would take me a couple of hours of research to answer, some letters would need six or seven folio pages to answer properly, and two or three days of arduous and hateful work. Why am I to be pestered without ceasing, by any fool in Cornwall, Scotland, Isle of Man? What makes me most furious is when they enclose a stamp for the answer. It is not the value of their beastly penny half-penny, it is the hours, sometimes days, of work that they have the infernal imprudence to expect me to put at their service.

Final conclusion: Every letter of this kind goes straight into the waste paper basket. If the man sends me a stamp I lick it off and keep it; if he smears his request with complements I simply confound his infernal impertinence. I am not going ever to answer any letters with questions about ceremonies. If people want to know these things, let them get a book and find out for themselves. My only request is that it would take too much trouble to do as I would like, namely to write back the most offensive insults I can think of. It is really extraordinary that almost every letter I get (except yours) and some bills, contains a string of questions on various subjects, representing about £3 or £4 worth of research work. If I answered all these as the people who write them expect, I should have a full life’s work with this alone. The brazen cheek of people, who would not write you to ask you to send a cheque for £10 as a present by return of post, but have no sort of scruple in asking calmly for pounds’ worth of free work to be done for them astounds me.

Do please tell anyone who threatens to fire off strings of questions at me that I am exceedingly busy, that I am not a society kept out of the rates of answering anyone’s queries, that I have no time to write letters, that I wish for goodness’ sake that they would leave me alone, so that I may have a little time to do my own work.

Example: Today a parcel came from herder. I do know nothing of Herder except that I have sometimes a bought a book there. His manager sends a big German book on the use of the tabernacle. Will I kindly read it, then advise him whether, in my option, there would be sufficient demand to justify him publishing an English translation of this book? Enclosed please find four stamps, to pay for return of the book. I know nothing about the book. I do not want to read it. I do not know anything about the demand for such works in English. I know nothing about the subject. I am not Herder’s literary advisor. I want to be let alone to finish twenty pressing jobs, and above all, to get back to Boethius. Now I have this infernal nuisance of writing to his man, doing up his beastly book, taking it to the post, hanging about there while they weigh it and all the rest of the filthy bother. He thinks it is adequate return of all this loathsome nuisance that he encloses the stamps. You will think that since I am so pressed I need not fire off all of this wrath on you. No I suppose I need not. I did not mean to when I began. It arose out of Gurney. Then my feelings have carried me away, and you will now have the benefit of months of pent-up fury at the endless nuisance of all these swinish fools who peter me all the week."

Book Review: "Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020”

The subject of this book review is “Extraordinary Celebrations, Extraordinary Growth!: Ideas for Independent & Old Catholic Communities during the Year of Matthew 2020.” The author is the Hon. Rev. Dr. Jayme Mathias. It is a time-honored practice for Independent Catholics to list any and all titles in print. Mathias has had great success with his parish, Holy Family, in Austin and this work is a continuation of his efforts. He is to be commended for his online videos promoting education within the Movement, and seeks to share his experiences in this book. He is well educated and his viewpoints add a great deal to the Movement.

The number of exclamation points in the work indicate the author’s passion about the subject. It is evident that he loves his community and attempts innovative ways to grow and sustain it. I struggled with parts of the work where it appeared paternalistic and gimmicky—I am not personally convinced that the “razzle dazzle” of megachurches is the best example for authentic liturgical communities. Fr. Steve Rice recently commented "what you with them with is what you win them to." I also believe “less is more” regarding visuals, or they can become trite. The author also draws heavily on his Roman Catholic background, so using examples of what the Second Vatican Council promoted is not always applicable to all sectors of our Movement. I am also personally wary of benchmarking based on clergy stipends—this model has not fared well for mainline Christianity.

The book also contains some very useful practical examples on pastoral care. Using a parish necrology or anniversary is an excellent tool for personal outreach and a parish lunch or coffee hour is essential to building true community. Mathias’ focus on social media and involving children are also helpful, as they are ways to keep all members of the family involved. I also enjoyed the daily meditations on different saints and holy people. Traditionally-inclined Catholics may be surprised to see Sr. Elizabeth Johnson, John Alan Lee, and the Dalai Lama among the group, but the author includes something for everyone. It was especially pleasant to see legends like Thuc, Karl Pruter, and others included, as well as ecumenical figures like Patriarch Addai II and Patriarch Neophyte.

Overall, the author and I don’t share the same ethos on how to grow a parish. However, his passion shines through and the book is helpful to any group which needs ideas to get them “unstuck” from mundane Sundays (or needs a fresh ordo with something for everyone). The author is to be commended for investing the time and energy into adding to the publication list of the Independent Catholic (or Autocephalous Catholic or ISM movement). 

The Sacred and the Secular

As we end the month of June, I have noticed social media covered in pictures of churches festooned with LGBT pride flags. For me, this is problematic because any secular symbol in the sanctuary is problematic. This is not about LGBT equality and I do not believe this can be singled out to just a pride flag. This extends to a variety of items—sports team chasubles, pride stoles/flags, political statements, and even national flags. Our gathering for the liturgy is a sacred action where we come to receive the very Body and Blood of Christ. We come from a variety of backgrounds--saint and sinner, firm and questioning, committed and struggling--to receive that which gives us strength to continue. It would be different if we were a non-sacramental church where there is no emphasis on eucharistic devotion. But we gather to join ourselves to Our Lord’s ultimate sacrifice. As such we are called to join ourselves wholeheartedly to Our Lord. 

Because of this perspective, anything highlighting a secular cause or campaign is not suitable for the Holy of Holies. I am certainly sympathetic to people wanting to ensure everyone feels welcome and extending hospitality towards those who have been rejected in the past. But when we involve the secular—again be it nationalism, regionalism, a sports team, or highlighting a group—it runs the risk of politicizing or secularizing the sacred. And we’ve seen time and time again how that does not work out. So, put up funny church signs, bless the team before the big game, advertise an extravagant welcome to anyone and everyone on your website, even put things in the narthex, but please keep the sanctuary sacred. 

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Gal. 2:20

Photo: Altar at Blessed Sacrament Church in Hollywood, Calif.

The Mass as Sacrifice

"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?” (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387])." - St John Chrysostom 

I opened this post with a quote from St. John Chrysostom because it is, for me, a perfect summary of what we believe about the Holy Mass. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it has become more common to emphasize the Mass as meal and the altar as table. While these terms are accurate--the Mass is a "Heavenly Meal" on the "Table of the Lord" overuse of them can lead to a de-emphasis of the Mass as sacrifice.

Ultimately, if the Mass is not a sacrifice then we are not emulating the commandment at the Last Supper to "do this in memory of me." True, there was in the Early Church (and still today in the beautiful custom of the Eastern Church with the antidoron) the offerings of agape feasts both closely related to the Eucharist and, later, separated from it. Yet these remained distinct from the sacrificial action which was limited to the Body of Christ (excluding, for example, catechumens) and which required baptism, penance, and other expectations.

How, then, did we get here? The reformers had some effect by their denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Still, too, did the liturgical reformers who utilized non-sacrificial terminology in liturgical revisions. This created a de-emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass. While I prefer an ad orientem celebration of the Mass I don't think our problems hinge on that single issue. There are numerous ones which have gotten us to our current level of informality. 

So, then, what is the solution? 

1. Proper catechesis. Emphasize in homilies, writings, and other venues the importance of the Holy Mass as sacrifice. Train those entering the Church that the Mass is a sacrificial act. I was recently told be a Catholic convert "I became Catholic but I still don't believe it's really the Body of Christ." That is the wrong attitude, obviously.

2. Appropriate liturgical atmosphere. Even if you're renting space or meeting in a non-liturgical location you can still take steps to ensure the Mass is reverently celebrated. 1. Create an atmosphere of holiness that is separate from peoples' ordinary lives, unique, and reflective. 2. Use the best resources possible when celebrating the liturgy. This means dignified vestments, reverent materials, and proper respect for holy vessels and objects. ABSOLUTELY NO SCARF STOLES (I'm looking at you RCWP). 3. Choose music and other supportive material that emphasizes the holiness of the Mass. If I have to hear "Gather Us In" one more time... 

3. Use clergy appropriately and generously. The beauty of the autocephalous Catholic movement is that we can ordain people more easily. Find appropriate people in your community to act as deacons and priests and encourage their vocation. We don't have to utilize "eucharistic ministers" because we can foster people's vocations without the rigid strictures of the mainstream. This is not only beneficial for the liturgical setting, but the faithful have access to spiritual benefits not available from the laity (like blessing children or catechumens who can't receive the Eucharist--which can't be done by "eucharistic ministers.")

4. Emphasize the holiness of the Eucharist. It has become fashionable to receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, this, too, can do much to de-emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass by promoting familiarity. And familiarity, as we know, can breed contempt. If the Eucharist is received it can be received on the tongue with great reverence. There is less discussion about the method of receiving the Eucharist. While I prefer kneeling, standing has long been the tradition in the Eastern Church. Encouraging a bow, genuflection, or reverence before receiving Holy Communion is laudable.

5. Create a setting of prayer. In all community gatherings or other events, ensure that prayer is offered and that prayer is at the heart of the event (as it is ideally within our lives). Whether it is a parish picnic, retreat, or any other setting use it as a chance to provide reverent prayer. Also use time-honored liturgies, not those created on the fly. As I've previously mentioned--there is a reason why we use liturgies which were created and prayed by saints and within the tradition of the Church.

There are always steps that can be taken to ensure that the sacrificial nature of Mass is honored. These can be done regardless of the Mass rite itself (whether Novus Ordo, Tridentine, etc.). To some, these items may not be important. "People are starving" is a refrain heard whenever one talks about liturgy. They are starving... spiritually starving. And they are starving because of our mediocre liturgies and lack of prayerful atmospheres.

"O Priest of God, say this Mass as though it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."

Caption: Rev. George. H. Clements giving Holy Communion, Chicago, 1973. Original caption: Holy Angel Catholic Church on Chicago's South side, 1973.

Caption: Outdoor Mass, reverently celebrated. Source unknown.

Liturgical Wars

Well, I have a feeling people are going to love this post... Not. Today's topic is the liturgy. I have a preference for traditional liturgy, preferably in the Tridentine Rite. However, I can say this without condemning other people's liturgical practices. Why? Well, I personally only care about one thing: REVERENCE. 

I tend to believe that many people believe liturgy is created in a vacuum. That is can never change. I personally do not believe Our Lord was celebrating a Pontifical High Mass at the Last Supper. However, I also don't think that the God of the Universe is best worshiped by showing off your dance moves. For me, the liturgy should be shaped by 1) a lack of focus on the celebrant (this isn't the Fr. Bob show), 2) deep reverence towards the liturgical act (which is often expressed by following the rubrics), and 3) historic rites which are theologically orthodox while spiritually edifying.

The challenge is how to incorporate this into the Church. It should be noted that these are all my personal opinions. They do not shape the order of worship for my church or anyone else. However, as I noted I prefer the traditional liturgy. I do not begrudge changes in that liturgy, however, such as the Holy Week, calendar, etc. For me the key is to look at the intent of the changes. Are they to restore a more ancient practice? Perhaps. But that is a slippery slope. Because many of the medieval practices we have come to love (benediction) could be considered liturgical innovations. Is it, then, to truncate the liturgy? This is not bad in and of itself in the West, as shorter forms have long been used (in emergency forms of sacramental rites, the Low Mass, etc.). We all perhaps wish we had the stamina to engage in the liturgy 24/7 but this may not be practical. So why is that that someone uses the rite they have adopted?

Then there is the Novus Ordo Missae. I do think that its introduction was endemic of the hermeneutic of rupture. Because it is radically different from its predecessor missal--that can't be denied. I think, as well, it has been introduced in a way to make the liturgy less reverent. Familiarity breeds contempt and I think it has been made so common in many areas as to not be given due reverence. The attempt was made to revert back to the believed customs of the Early Church. In doing so, I think the slippery slope mentioned above is pertinent. However, I do not think the rite is bad in and of itself. I firmly realize, as Dix notes, that the liturgical practices of the Early Church were much different. Many of our propers were impromptu because texts and literacy were problematic. Christendom has utilized many different texts to celebrate the liturgy. My concern is how it was implemented which seemed to rupture from the previous rite without a clear continuity.

This is especially pertinent for the 1970 liturgy. We now have, among Autocephalous Catholics, those who would seek to elevate this liturgy as the supreme example of liturgical beauty (like a liberal SSPX). In spite of its simplistic language and the abhorrent additions like the Eucharistic Prayers for children. I do think the revised Third Edition of the Roman Missal is an improvement, despite the fact that it is clearly not perfect. For me, the 1965 liturgy was a much better option of dignified translation and reverent liturgy. However, in general wherever possible I am in favor of hieratic language and separating the liturgy from the ordinary.

Where does that leave us? Well, it seems to all come down to preference anyway. Various groups will gauge orthodoxy based on if there is a second confiteor, the Holy Week rite used, etc. Some groups wear red or purple on Palm Sunday. Within the Novus Ordo some have become attached to the Mass of 1970. Others have adopted the Third Edition. Sometimes ad orientem, with communion on the tongue, etc., etc. I don't think we have to be scared of liturgical innovation. It has clearly happened frequently in the Church's long history. For me, again, the important thing is that it is shaped by the above principles in bold. 

AND, I should add, that just because people think they can write the world's best liturgy doesn't mean it will be the world's best liturgy. We have so many examples of historic liturgies that are beautiful and reverent and written by people much smarter than most of us. Why not just use that? That doesn't mean liturgies can't be tweaked for their place and purpose. But starting from scratch seems a bit much.

I realize that none of this solves any of liturgical issues. And it's enough to make perhaps everyone who reads it unhappy. But it is a stream of consciousness.

“Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant. You know what I mean. Try as one may to exclude it, the question "What on earth is he up to now?" will intrude. It lays one's devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, "I wish they'd remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep; not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.” - C.S. Lewis

Clergy Fashion: Déhanchez & Enchantée!

There is one principle that ISM clergy have never heeded well: simplicity of vesture. In the words of Mademoiselle Chanel: "Before you go out, always take something off". In the ISM, perhaps the more appropriate statement is "The Infant of Prague is to be venerated, not imitated." Don't get me wrong--I am a traditionalist and love brocades as well as all manner of luxurious vestments. The very nature of liturgy is to transcend this world in praising God. It is mysterious and familiar at the same time. The clothing of the celebrant and the atmosphere should reflect the dignity of this most sublime Sacrifice. In other words, it is the anti-polyester.

It's not necessarily a matter of taste or of money. Each parish or clergy person has their own abilities and their own tastes. But, liturgical vesture should be something special and unique. It's not about adding as much as you can and finding it as cheaply made as possible. There's a whole blog devoted to badly dressed clergy (blessedly most of them are Episcopalians). But, besides creating beauty in liturgy there are also a guideline as to what clergy should where and when. This isn't about following Roman rules or imitating any denomination--it's what looks appropriate and honoring the dignity and purpose of every item of clergy vesture. Each item evolved over time and came to symbolize something important to our faith. The mitre symbolizes tongues, the alb is a baptismal garment, the stole as Christ's napkin when washing feet, etc.

Sure, there are certain things that drive me crazy. PLEASE DO NOT wear a chasuble with a cope, or a zuchetto with a clergy suit, or a mitre while in choir dress, or wear a chasuble without an alb, etc., etc., etc. But, it isn't about dressing up. It isn't about looking the most fantastic. It is about creating reverence and dignity. I have been countered in this argument by priests who say: "My people want something casual" or "We don't want to spend the money." To that I answer that Dorothy Day, the great Catholic Worker crusader, realized the importance of beauty and mystery in worship. The story goes that a priest told her he wanted to build a simple, inexpensive church in a poor area. She responded that church was the only place that could help the people transcend out of the slums and experience something beautiful and otherworldly.This isn't social hour--it's holding eternity in an instant and infinity in the palm of your hand. Treat it thus.

"Priest of God, celebrate this Mass as if it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."