"I wrote shortly before Vatican Two set the Latin mass aside. Well, I still prefer it, and who knows but what it will make a comeback in the future."
-Poul Anderson, Going For Infinity (New York, 2002), XV, p. 344.
So "Kyrie" is set in a timeline where either Vatican II did not vernacularize the liturgy or the Latin liturgy was later restored.
In the British sf comic strip, Dan Dare, Digby wanted a bob's worth of fish and chips. A bob was a shilling. There were twelve old pence in one shilling and twenty shillings in one pound. Now there are one hundred new pence in one pound. (We still say "penny," not "cent.") So Digby lives in an early twenty-first century when there is a World President and an Interplanetary Space Fleet but there has been neither British currency decimalization nor inflation. All our yesterdays...
On an evening walk in and near Liverpool, I passed a parish church, a mosque, a Krishna temple and a Latin Rite Catholic church. Maybe the future of "Kyrie" will grow from that last.
In A Case Of Conscience by James Blish, it is the duty of every Catholic, whether lay or clergy, to administer the Last Sacrament to the dying. In reality, only clergy administer this sacrament. Blish knew that but also imagined a change of Catholic practice in future and expected his readers to understand that that was what he was doing. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow...
(Regular blog readers might understand when I say that, this afternoon, I will visit the excellent Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop in Morecambe so there will be an intermission as regards blogging.)
37 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
There are still many Catholics who prefer the older Latin form of the Mass. And in 2007 former Pope Benedict XVI, in his motu proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, strove to make room in the Church for such Catholics by authorizing parish priests to celebrate Mass using the Latin Missal of 1962 if a certain minimum number of their congregants request it. Unfortunately, this generous measure faces opposition from those who don't want any use of the Latin form, which I find puzzling.
And I certainly hope this ungenerous opposition to using the 1962 Latin Missal fades away!
I'm rather sorry Anderson was unable to fit "Kyrie" into his Technic series. In many ways it would have been an ideal addition to it.
While I understand Blish's reasoning, the way the sacrament of the sick is used in A CASE OF CONSCIENCE is simply not accurate. Involving as it does absolution/reconciliation of the sick or dying, only ordained priests could administer it.
I hope Andrea is doing better, despite his health problems.
Ad astra! Sean
Plenty of Anglicans use a Latin mass based on the Sarum Missal.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Don't you mean ex-Anglicans who converted to the Catholic Church under the terms set by Pope Benedict XVI in ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS (2009)? That document allowed ex-Anglicans to become Catholics in ways which allowed to preserve some elements of their Anglican heritage (minus any doctrinal errors). I knew the Sarum Missal is used by Angllican Use Catholic parishes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Thank you for asking about Andrea. He was not too bad.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good, I'm glad. And I would not be surprised if you took a quick look around his brother's book shop!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the Sarum Missal (like the Latin Mass, private confession and monastic orders) has been common among High Church types since the 1850's.
Paul: ah, that's good news!
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I have heard of those very high church Anglicans, and of how they began during the Oxford Movement of the 1830's and '40's. Frankly, I find "Anglo/Catholics" puzzling, they want to be Catholic but refuse to go where the logic of their stated convictions tells them to: swimming the Tiber. To say nothing of how this outraged, or used to outrage low church Anglicans, who insist Anglicanism makes sense only by accepting its Protestant nature.
Ad astra! Sean
I recently reread "A Canticle for Leibowitz" & one of the things prominent in that is the use of Church Latin. It was written in the late 1950s so Walter M. Miller didn't anticipate that change.
I also noticed a mention of smallpox in his centuries later future. It's nice that humanity has eliminated that.
Kaor, Jim!
I too have read Walter Miller's A CANTICLE FOR LEIBOWITZ, as all true science fiction fans should do! And one of the things that most struck me was how the monks of the order of St. Leibowitz focused on the preserving and copying of scientific texts, even if they did not understand them.
Your mentioning of smallpox made me think that any massive collapse of civilization analogous to that which was the background of Miller's book is all too likely to be accompanied by a resurgence of plagues seemingly stamped out by modern medicine. Diseases like measles, smallpox, bubonic plague, cholera, polio, leprosy, etc., are all too likely to come back in such a scenario.
And yes, I remember how Latin was used in Miller's book.
Ad astra! Sean
Many diseases would increase in such a situation, however smallpox *should* be an exception since the only possible source are a few labs where samples are kept for possible research.
How much diseases increase would depend on how much an "ignorant & proud of it" attitude prevails.
Any region in which people continue to understand the germ theory of disease & exercise proper sanitation to the extent they can with what technology they retain, will have less disease & will tend to expand their population. They will also expand the area they control, at the expense of the "ignorant & proud of it" people.
Jim: that was a major element in my Emberverse series.
The major drop in mortality from infectious disease took place in Victorian and Edwardian times, well before antibiotics. Just knowing about bacteria and viruses and taking basic precautions did it.
Kaor, Jim!
I concede smallpox, hopefully, won't be one of those diseases which makes a comeback in a post-civilizational collapse.
But, as for the rest of what you wrote, I have some caveats. I think that at first the sheer chaos accompanying such a collapse will prevent many survivors from making adequate use of any scraps of medical knowledge they still had. Once matters had stabilized in some areas with some degree of order being restored, then I can see remnants of knowledge about the germ theory and sanitation being used.
I also think, as Anderson and Stirling hypothesized in their Maurai and Emberverse stories, that much of the knowledge gained before the collapse would survive because of how MANY printed books there were. I don't think desperate, starving neo-savages could burn all libraries for fuel. But what would be lacking, many times, would be the MEANS needed for making use of that knowledge. That kind of knowledge would take longer to regain.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the theology is complex, but basically the Anglo-Catholic position is that the Anglican Church -is- and always has been, Catholic, just as much as the churches in accord with Rome. With unbroken apostolic succession of its clergy.
As one of them put it, "Reunion is a matter of Rome acknowledging that we've always been in the right."
Sean: Bear in mind that before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church was much more decentralized than it later became, and that national governments (Kings, basically, in those days) had a substantial degree of power over things like episcopal appointments.
It was too politically important for them not to. The Spanish Inquisition, for example, was most emphatically -Spanish- and answered to the Spanish king more than it did to the Pope (who had his own, Papal, Inquisition).
Henry VIII had no -doctrinal- disagreements with Pope Clement; he simply wanted to "change his woman" as one of his Ministers put it. In fact, he'd written (or had ghostwritten and signed himself) a tract denouncing Martin Luther.
There had also been a strong nationalist, anti-Papal element in England long before Henry's break with Rome, and that included aa lot of English clergy and bishops. England was 'precocious' when it came to a sense of national identity and a prickly dislike/distrust of foreigners.
The actual fight over Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon also involved Spanish/Habsburg influence over the Papacy, specifically that of Catherine's nephew, Charles, the Holy Roman Emperor.
Usually monarchs in that period (and earlier) could get an annulment from Rome on one specious ground or another, with a little palm-greasing and politicking.
Eg., usually Henry's argument that the marriage should be annulled because she'd been married to his elder brother Arthur and marriage to a brother's widow was un-Biblical, would have carried the day, with a nudge and a wink.
But in this case Charles was against it (he wanted Catherine's daughter Mary to inherit the English throne) and had more pull with the Curia, so Clement wavered and hemmed and hawed and eventually when forced to chose came down for Charles.
Then basically Henry got his temper up (he was notorious for volcanic rages) and gave an elevated middle finger to Rome and the House of Habsburg both by declaring himself head of the Church in England.
Doctrinal stuff only came in later.
For that matter, Elizabeth I regarded the Protestant party in the Church of England as a bunch of ignorant, fanatical, insolent nuisances; but they were too politically important by that day for her to outright alienate.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
As you said, the theology and history involved is complex, and needs to be handled tactfully to avoid causing needless anger. But the Catholic view, as summarized by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical APOSTOLICAE CURAE (1896), was that the high church Anglicans were wrong. Briefly, Thomas Cranmer designed his new rites for ministerial orders and the Eucharist to exclude the Catholic beliefs about the Mass and Holy Orders. Defective in form and intention, as Pope Leo stated. And the Church has never retreated from that view of Cranmer's work.
Later, true, there were some doubtful or ambiguous cases, due to some Anglican clergy seeking ordination from churches which retained valid priestly orders, such as the Orthodox, AND Anglican ordination as well. That has led to such men who desired to remain priests after conversion to the Catholic Church being conditionally rather than absolutely ordained to the priesthood. Which is what happened not that many years ago to an Anglican Bishop of London after he became a Catholic.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
While I agree with much of what you said about the history involving Henry VIII, some caveats seem necessary. For one thing, Queen Katherine herself indignantly defended the validity of her marriage to Henry, stating among other things, that her brief first marriage to Henry's brother Arthur had never been consummated. And another factor I thought of was how the future Cardinal and martyr John Fisher was one of her defense advocates. The treatises and briefs he wrote for the defense also played a role in Henry's annulment not being settled as quickly as it might have been.
I think, soberly examined, Queen Katherine had the better case. And I do agree Clement VII was a weak man who tried too hard to please both Henry VIII or Charles V, instead of coming to a quick decision based only on the merits of the case.
Ad astra! Sean
"For one thing, Queen Katherine herself indignantly defended the validity of her marriage to Henry"
-- well, she would, wouldn't she? If the marriage was annulled, she'd lose her job and become a supernumerary not-quite- maiden aunt at the court of one of her relatives, rather than Queen of England and mother to the heir apparent.
"And I do agree Clement VII was a weak man who tried too hard to please both Henry VIII or Charles V, instead of coming to a quick decision based only on the merits of the case."
-- the problem there being that offending kings was unsafe, and offending Charles V might, from Clement's p.o.v., be -lethally- unsafe. Charles needed the Papacy, not any particular Pope, and unfortunate accidents had happened before.
The Habsburgs tended to view the Pope as the "family chaplain"...
Kaor, Mr. Stirlings!
It's been a long time since I read the arguments about the validity or not of the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon in works like Scarisbrick's HENRY VIII or Fr. Hughes THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND, but what I do recall is that these writers did not believe Henry had a good case in justice or law.
And I still a believe a strong willed and courageous Pope would and should have judged Henry's annulment case on its merits, without fear or favor. I'm reminded of how that is why the Church refers marital cases involving Catholic heads of state to the Pope, because local bishops and tribunals might all too easily be coerced by the king or president.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: in the 1500's, those heads of State were a lot closer to the Pope and a lot freer with their daggers, directly or indirectly, literally or metaphorically.
Not to mention the fact that, in the Reformation era, a monarch often had the option of simply going over to the other side if the Pope didn't do what he wanted -- as Henry VIII did, rather spectacularly.
(Charles V didn't have that option, so if Clement had been solely motivated by the institutional interests of the Church he'd have stiffed Charles and given Henry what he wanted.)
As for "without fear or favor", as a recovering lawyer I tend to view that as being rather like the blindfold on the statue of Justice -- more in the nature of a legitimizing myth than anything else. Or to be extremely polite, as an aspiration.
Anything involving a head of State is a matter of politics, which is to say mostly about power.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Your first paragraph: Except violence done to the actual persons of popes has been rare. In Henry VIII's time that had last occurred when the agents of King Philip IV of France kidnapped and abused Boniface VII in 1303. True it nearly happened to Clement VII himself when the army of Charles V, after their commanders were killed, got completely out of control and sacked Rome in 1527. But my point is that most of the time the persons of Popes were treated with respect.
Second paragraph: I agree, no matter how wrong it would be to behave as Henry VIII had done
Third paragraph: Except we have to take account of the character of Clement VII. He was AFRAID of offending either Charles V or Henry, so he weaseled, waffled, and dodged for years in a desperate effort to avoid having to make a decision angering to one or the other. My view remains that making a judgement quickly and based solely on the merits of the case would have been best.
Fourth paragraph: Except we need that "legitimizing myth" in any of its many forms if we are going to ever have reasonably tolerable societies. And there have been popes who chose to stand on principle rather than yield to expediency.
Your last sentence: I agree.
Ad astra! Sean
"Anything involving a head of State is a matter of politics, which is to say mostly about power."
Sean: In light of that, as a Catholic would you regard the reduction of the Papal States to Vatican City as a plus?
Kaor, Jim!
Absolutely! Those blasted Papal States, as they had existed before 1870, had been burdensome millstones around the neck of the Church since the collapse of Byzantine rule in Italy after the death of Justinian I in 565. To say the least, the Papal States were huge distractions from the Church's proper spiritual and religious roles.
The Papal States had their origins in the Popes being almost the only source of leadership in the chaos which wracked Italy after Justinian's time. SOMEBODY had to take the lead in Rome and the territories near the City, which is why the Popes gradually became the secular rulers of Rome and central Italy.
The Popes also came to value the Papal States as a means of preserving their freedom and independence from domination by other states. But, it came to be realized after 1870 they did not need a large state for that purpose. The Vatican City State created by the Lateran Treaties between the Holy See and Italy in 1929 comprises only 121 acres (plus the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo). But this tiny scrap of territory over which the Pope is sovereign was enough for guaranteeing his freedom.
Ad astra! Sean
I might add that the government of the Papal States was notoriously bad, even by Italian standards.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
True, but I also recalled what Will and Ariel Durant wrote in THE AGE OF NAPOLEON about how many in Rome and the other Papal States resented efficient but harsh French rule and missed the soft and gentle gov't of the Pope.
But the Savoyards did the Church a favor, seizing the Papal States by 1870.
And Paul's daughter emailed me saying damage to the cable connecting his neighborhood to the Internet is why he has been absent. He does not expect to be "back" till next Monday.
Ad astra! Sean
Good luck to Paul on the repairs!
Sean: that was more or less a matter of "King Log" and "King Stork"... 8-). "Soft and gentle" in this instance is more or less a matter of "shambolic" and "too incompetent even to be effectively tyrannical".
A number of people got nostalgic about the Bourbons in France when they'd experienced Napoleon, for roughly the same reason.
Eg., there were 4 inmates in the Bastille when the Jacobin mob stormed it, and 2 of them refused to leave and had to be removed by force.
(They were mentally ill and had been stashed there by their families.)
It was sort of a bad joke, as "dungeon of the tyrant" goes.
Fouchet and Napoleon's security forces were not a joke.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
However frustrating this hiatus from blogging must be for Paul, at least it gives him a chanced to catch up with other reading. I recall him planning to read Solzhenitsyn's LENIN IN ZURICH.
Yes, but many of the popes were gentle and kindly men. As was certainly the case with Pius VI and Pius VII, the popes of the Revolutionary/Napoleonic era. I suspect the gov't of the Papal States was shambolic and incompetent largely from the popes simply not being ABLE to be tyrannical.
I agree, as a "symbol" of tyranny, the Bastille was a laughable joke! And in 1789 the Crown did not even want the Bastille, deciding it was an expensive white elephant and preparing to ask for bids for its demolition.
And among the "prisoners" of the Bastille, besides those two madmen, was a young wastrel put there by his FATHER to learn lessons in sobriety and frugality. The mob which invaded the fortress interrupted his dinner!
I recall Norman Arminger and HIS dungeons in your Emberverse books. Now THERE was a real tyrant with real, no fooling dungeons!
Anyone who had to suffer thru the Reign of Terror and then the dictatorship of Napoleon and his henchmen (like Fouchet) had to be nostalgic for the rule of the kindly Louis XVI or of Popes like Pius VI and VII.
Ad astra! Sean
Tho' Norman's dungeons were based at least as much on fiction as fact. That is, they were real, but they were real imitations of fictional originals.
As witness the fact that he'd had to leave out the filthy straw and rats, much to his regret, for health reasons, germs being no respecters of persons.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Ha! I remember that too! And Norman also had torturers, also straight from his darker fantasies. Except he was too rational to use them for mere exercises in sadism. Instead, Norman trained them to be specialists in interrogation.
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling,
Your villains are the most evil in fiction.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree! Stirling created convincing, all too plausible villains. And SMART ones too, not stupid, easily defeated cardboard cliches. Besides Norman Arminger and his wife Sandra, I've thought of Count Ignatieff, Adrienne Breze, Gwem Ingolfssonn, etc., as examples of very alarming villains.
By contrast, Poul Anderson seldom created VILLAINS. That is, there were characters in many of his stories who served causes he would either dislike or disagree with, but they were seldom truly BAD persons. Rather, such persons were most often simply persons loyal to what they believed was right. Even Aycharaych acted from motives some of which could be respected or understood.
Ad astra! Sean
William Walker in the Nantucket series was impressive as a SMART villain.
It's a nice touch that he has the same name as a real life villain.
I should get around to reading the Emberverse.
Kaor, Jim!
I agree, I should have included William Walker in my list of Stirlingian villains.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment