We have had a few ad hominem remarks in the comment boxes on recent posts, which seems to me an excellent opportunity to lay down the law on these personal statements. If you, dear readers, are going to say something about myself or another reader that is derisive or insulting, please be sure it is accurate and consistent.
Mr. Rubricarius was positively scandalized to find that I was described as having a "boutique liturgical fetish" by someone who apparently accused him of having a mere "liturgical fetish." I received the higher accolade!—yet this is entirely wrong. I am an amateur compared to Mr. Rubricarius in both liturgical knowledge and liturgical fastidiousness. He, if anyone, has the boutique fetish while I only have an interest in liturgy.
In conclusion, feel free to address one another, but take care to do so correctly.
UPDATE: Mr. Rubricarius has put up some information on the historical inextricability of Mattins and Lauds here. The exceptional bifurcation of Mattins and Lauds on Christmas, with the Mass between the hours, is stronger in the Roman rite than in some of the French rites and the Bragan rite, wherein Mass follows Mattins immediately and Lauds is interpolated into Communion much like Vespers in the Roman Holy Saturday Mass.
UPDATE: Mr. Rubricarius has put up some information on the historical inextricability of Mattins and Lauds here. The exceptional bifurcation of Mattins and Lauds on Christmas, with the Mass between the hours, is stronger in the Roman rite than in some of the French rites and the Bragan rite, wherein Mass follows Mattins immediately and Lauds is interpolated into Communion much like Vespers in the Roman Holy Saturday Mass.
Dear The Rad Trad,
ReplyDeleteCould I, please, order two Liturgical Fetishes from your Boutique ?
We are running a special on baroque fetishes this week. Buy one folded Roman chasuble, get the second 50% off!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Dean of the chapter of Barchester, I insist upon being given priority on the list of bidders and purchasers of liturgical fetishes. All the more now, and urgently, what with the prospect of Mrs Proudie sitting on the throne as Lady Bishopess.
ReplyDelete"I'll order 5 hot pink fiddleback chasubles! HOT PINK. With as much floral decoration as physically possible. Oh, and lace. You can never have enough lace to complement your biretta with a pom-pom (those $$PX ones without the pom-pom are so unfashionable).
ReplyDeleteI'll need sixteen sets of altar server gowns and spare no expense. We want the boys to look pretty, don't we?"
-Fr. Anthony Blanche, S.J.
My d-d-dear Bollocks, your order will be completed by week's end. A pity one can only wear such delectable vesture two p-p-puny Sundays per annum!
DeleteI was sure that my Romanist confrere (well, I lived before Apostolicae Curae) was ICRSS...
DeleteActually, to be a liturgical fetishist, which Rubricarius is (and he's a poor one at that compared to his estranged brethren in the Orthodox East) is to embrace the lifestyle in toto. "Boutique" is a limiting qualifier which applies well to a guy on a liturgical vacation who seems incapable of basic correction when he is manifestly wrong. For instance, your "Lauds" remark. (Oh, and the 1961 Lauds remark is a non-starter, too, since even in private recitation Lauds, like Matins, is liturgical prayer.)
ReplyDeleteLook, I'll say this. Rubricarius may be obsessive about his peripheral nonsense, but at least he's accurate and does the public a service by producing an ordo every year (which I own by the way). I won't lie. I do find it unintentionally funny that your descriptor claims you have "a global taste of the traditions of the Roman faith" and then immediately slide into, "I currently attend a Byzantine rite parish."
Of course maybe you are using "Roman faith" as a synonym for "Catholic faith," but if so, do you realize how off-putting that would be to someone who comes from one of the Eastern sui iuris churches of the Catholic Church? For a Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Maronite, Chaldean, etc. all have the Catholic Faith by virtue of being part of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in communion with the See of St. Peter, but they are not "Romans" and it would be insulting to imply as much. But maybe that was just a terminological error on your part and no harm was intended. Still, I can see how expressions like that give the Orthodox -- and our Eastern Catholic brethren -- the willies.
opuspublicum,
DeleteI know his Traddiness personally and I have met few who know as much about the history or the particulars of the Roman rite (he was raised Roman Catholicand has been to Rome). He happens to attend a Byzantine parish since he likes it better than the Roman ones in the area.
Please don't make assumptions of people you haven't met. You clearly came to this blog with an ax to grind.
I say, despite the objurgations of His Traddiness, Modestinus, whose ideas on illiberal Catholicism I respect, is using strong and uncharitable language re: peripheral nonsense. It is a matter of Patrimony, Sir, not of peripheral nonsense. And it is truly a pity you, Sir, did not join in the general humorous banter of the comment box.
ReplyDeleteQuite right, Rev. Mr Arabin. I have long been of the opinion that most the world's problems result from people taking themselves too seriously!
DeleteIt is peripheral nonsense to obsess over liturgy to the point where it becomes the sole criterion of the faith. And if you don't think Rubricarius does this, ask him what ecclesial body he belongs to -- because it isn't the Holy Catholic Church. The moment one clings to liturgy so strongly that they break communion -- or refuse to enter into communion with -- the one Church of Christ, it has officially become peripheral, even not damnable, nonsense.
DeleteI would never presume to break into the conscience of Rubricarius and there question his motives; and I think this type of attitude is tantamount to disgraceful bullying. Your certainty as to communion and the one Church of Christ, seems, regrettably, not accompanied by sufficient charity for your neighbour. I surprised and saddened that you are going on with it.
DeleteUnlike the Rad Trad, I do not know Rubricarius and neither do I care what his personal views are. He knows a lot about liturgy and is an excellent source for it. If opuspublicum has a problem with Rubricarius, I ask that he please take it up with him privately. We don't want to hear it.
DeleteMy views, erstwhile, are that the trivialization of liturgy is exactly the problem. Traddies moan about the liturgical changes and then berate any of their allies who dig into liturgy beyond the "Traditional Latin Mass" (be it Econe, 1958, 1954, or what have you). Really, they are their own worst enemy.
Also, I'm not leaving the Catholic fleet. Better to be in a fleet with an admiral (however messed up and dysfunctional) than one where two or three captains claim to be admiral (Chalcedonian Orthodox) or one where the captains have all agreed to not choose an admiral (Miaphysite Orthodox).
Opuspublicum,
DeleteYour comments are visceral, nasty, and quite unkind. I do not know what I or the fair readers of this blog did to deserve the treatment you are dishing out on us, nor do I possess the technical know-how to ban you, but if you do not either start publishing comments that are Christian in nature or cease to comment entirely I am going to have to punish the well behaved readers (literally, every single other person) by turning on comment moderation. At that point, nothing you say will ever be published.
What is wrong with pointing out that someone isn't in communion with the Body?
DeleteThe spiritual works of mercy
ReplyDeleteTo instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.
ABS doesn't know the status of Rubricarius but he does know the sine qua non of Catholicism is the duty to maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority and, so , if a soul is constrained to address the matter as to whether or not a man is or isn't a member of the Catholic Church, it isn't bullying according to Catholic Tradition.
If you do think that is bullying, then Saint John was a sadist:
2 John 9 Every one who recedeth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God: he that continueth in the doctrine, he hath both the Father and the Son.
I would prefer not to comment on the outbursts of certain individuals but a phrase employed by my friend Dr. Glover, 'religion brings out the worst in people', seems apt. I don't doubt my communion with Christ and His Church but doubt some peoples' understanding of Gospel precepts.
ReplyDelete