Sona Si Latine Loqueris!
FYI: “Kyrie eleison” and “Lord have mercy upon us” don’t match–I don’t know whether the first syllable of “upon” was accented in Cranmer’s day but it sure isn’t now. I agree he couldnt write verse for sour beans if he trried to make those lines scan the same. Compare them:
KY- ri- e e- LEI-i-son
LORD have mer-cy up-ON us.
I prefer what Tom Lehrer did to it:
Ev’rybody say his own
Kyrie eleison
Doin’ the Vatican Rag! 
“If you drive an automobile, please drive carefully–because I walk in my sleep.”–Victor Borge
No. No. No. You have to remember that the choir in those old cathedrals sat up in the sanctuary (raised above the level of the nave) in pews that went up fom the sanctuary.
The phrasing is:
KY- ri- e e- LEI-i-son
LORD have mer cy UP on us
In fact, the original verses spelled “upon” as two words. Only later did curmudgeonly types try to bring the translation back in line with the text, ruining the meter of the song.
Tom~
The explanation is simply that Cranmer sucked as a poet. Look at his version of the “Veni Creator Spiritus”, the one piece of verse that he couldn’t avoid. (You won’t find it in any reasonably recent U.S. Prayer Book, but I think it survived into the 1666 English Book, which is still easy to find.)
Fortunately for the BCP, Cranmer knew that he had no talent for verse (he says so).
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
So glad to see this mailbag question has generated so much discussion. For the record, there are an amazing number of musical settings for the Kyrie Eleison ranging from Gregorian chant all the way to rock (I’ve heard a psuedo-rap version locally). The Catholic Church (in it innumerable documents as well as Vatican II) calls for the Church to foster “full, active and conscious participation” of all its faithful … and they highly suggest using the music and art of the culture so that most people can relate well. There is a very active Life Teen movement in the Catholic Church which specializes in using not-your-typical-Sunday-Mass-music. Teen mass attendance is up as a result.
After all, scripture says, “Make a joyful NOISE to the Lord!”
Tammy
“May your song always be sung.”
Tom-
I have not been able to find reference to a finding by the Church that the Bull of 1896 was or was not a declaration that was
infallible. Has there been such a finding? If not, upon what authority do you judge that the “Apostolicae Curae” does not meet
the conditions required to deem it an ex cathedra teaching? Also I take great exception to the maligning of the education
provided by the school of St. Frances Cabrini Parish, one of the oldest active parishes west of the Mississippi; and her former pastors, Rev A. J. McMahon and Rev. Val Peters, director of Boys Town. The instruction in all subjects was exemplary, and included custom curriculums for class sizes as small as 7 students. Any misconceptions I may hold are due entirely to my own inexact memory after 20 years outside the Catholic faith.
Your statement “The pope cannot simply declare something as infallibly true and have another pope declare the reverse as
infallibly true.” is correct -IF- you subscribe to the R.C. belief that the Holy Spirit prevents the popes from issuing an infallible teaching that contradicts an earlier one. I however, do not & think this COULD happen and if it did, both popes would be correct under the doctrine of the infallibility of the papacy & the church.
The following heavily condensed information is taken directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published under the jurisdiction of the Most Reverend Archbishop Farley and edited by Prof. Charles G. Herbermann, Prof. Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, The Right Rev. Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne, S.J.
"Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the First Vatican decree:
'The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private
capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. The presumption is that
unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to
be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.’
For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be “an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal,” to which one may add that in its superscription the pope invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei. (servant of the servants of God)…it was in the ninth century that the phrase came to be used invariably in documents of moment."
Here is the sequence of events leading to the Bull of Leo XIII.
"The Pope determined that he would have the whole question re-investigated thoroughly. Accordingly, he selected eight divines
who had made a special study of the subject, and of whom four were known to be disposed to recognize Anglican orders and four to be disposed to reject them. These he summoned to Rome and formed into a consultative commission under the presidency of Cardinal Mazzella. They were given access to all documents from the archives of the Vatican and the Holy Office which would throw light upon the points at issue, and they were bidden to sift the evidence on either side with all possible fullness and care. After sessions which lasted six weeks, the Commission was dissolved, and the acta of its discussions were laid before a judicial committee of cardinals. These, after a two months’; study, in a special meeting under the presidency of the Pope, decided by a unanimous vote that Anglican orders were certainly invalid. After an interval for prayerful consideration of this vote, Leo XIII determined to adopt it and accordingly published his Bull “Apostolicae Curae” on the 18th of September, 1896.
“Apostolicæ Curæ” definitively decided against the validity of Anglican Orders. The Bull concludes with the usual declaration of
the authority of this Apostolic letter."
It appears to fall under the established requirements, however, an ecclesiastical commission and the current pope would make
any determination, not you or me. Of course, if status of an infallible teaching has never been attached to it, the Church can, at any time reverse it’s position on the validity of the Anglicans. Incidentally, the R.C.C. does not support your statement “The
RCC has only had the doctrine of infallibility for 130 years…” The Rev. Thomans L. Kinkead explains,
“The Church does not make new doctrines, but it teaches its truths more clearly and distinctly when someone denies them. The
Church always believed that Our Lord is the Son of God; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is infallible, etc. These truths and all the others were believed by the Apostles, and the Church proclaimed them in a special manner when they were denied… They proclaimed these truths- not as new doctrines, but as truths always believed by the Church, and now defined because denied.”
To reiterate, I understand the concept of infallibility well, I just don’t believe it.
I am sorry to say this, but the statement that the Church always regarded the Pope as infallible simply cannot be justified by the historic record. (The history of the Nicene Council, for example, becomes absurd when one attempts to deal with it from that viewpoint.)
And most Roman scholars are very hesitant to apply Infallibility to any doctrines beyone the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of the B.V.M., and (sometimes) the Tome, Leo the Great’s tract against the Monophysites.
But that aside, one certainly hopes that Apostolicae Curae is not to be regarded as infallible (and I don’t see how it can be, anyway, since it is an issue of history, rather than of Faith and Morals), because huge tracts of it have been exploded by modern scholarship.
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
My “130 years” crack was specifically aimed at the First Vatican Council wherein the actual doctrine of *papal[\i] infallibility was set forth. It had certainly been appealed to prior to that event and, of course, in laying out the arguments in favor of papal infallibility during their 1869 discussions, the Council reached back through history to find examples to support the claim. However, prior to Vatican I, there is no pronouncement by a General or Ecumenical Council of the RCC claiming infallibility for the pope. (The Magisterium is a different issue.)
I do note, in review, that I omitted the adjective “papal” in my earlier post. My only (lame) defense is that in the context of a Papal Bull, I assumed Papal Infallibility (to which I also give little credence).
Tom~
In summary: Papal infalability has only been invoked 2 or 3 times. Everything the pope says is NOT infallable. Nobody who knows what he’s talking about has ever said otherwise. Get over it.
As long as this thread has spread into the Church of England, perhaps somebody could answer me this. Do Anglicans honestly believe that their founder, King Henry VIII, is in heaven? After all, the man had IIRC two wives executed on false treason charges and had countless people imprisoned, tortured, and killed as part of the break with Rome. And all for purely selfish reasons. Do Anglicans honestly speak of him in the same breath as Martin Luther or John Calvin, or would they like to forget about old Hank 8?
“I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms.” -The Secret of Monkey Island
I’ve never heard of any Hank 8 veneration, partly because his actions were mainly political, and partly because the Anglican Settlement owes more to his pragmatic daughter, Elizabth I, than it does to him.
When he established his Supremacy, he didn’t change the doctrine of the Church - it was pretty much Roman Catholic, except that Henry took over the Pope’s role as Supreme Head. It was only after the turmoils of the Protestant extremism under Edward VI, and the attempted return to Roman Catholicism under Mary I, that Elizabeth I’s pragmatic middle way between the two was largely accepted as the basis of Anglicanism.
The monarch who was remembered by the Church was Charles I, the sainted royal martyr (also known by his opponents as “that man of blood.”) There was a strong element of religious debate in the English Civil War, with Charles I stongly in favour of an episcopal High Church, and many parliamentarians in favour of puritanism, presbyterianism, anabaptism, “levelling”, and other Protestant views. So, after the Restoration of Charles II, the date of the execution of Charles I was added to the Calendar of the Anglican Church as a day of remembrance. (Note: not a saint, just remembrance of his witnessing.)
I guess the moral is that the Church remembers martyred kings with more sympathy than kings that make martyrs.
(And as for the state of Henry’s soul - that’s not a matter of church policy, so far as I know. I imagine the Church would say it’s between him and God.)
Actually, Charles I was officially canonized, the only one in Anglican history. His day even had a special service. But that disappeared some time prior to 1968.
Anyway, no, Anglicans don’t think much of Henry VIII. (Though we do defend him from the, “All he wanted was a divorce,” line. The issue was whether the Pope had ever had the right to allow him to marry his brother’s widow, then, as now, regarded as incest by both churches, and Henry does seem to have somewhat sincerely believed that Katherine’s failure to produce a living male heir was God’s punishment for it.) But from our viewpoint, his disconnection from the Roman Church was a Good Thing in that it allowed the formation of an island in the Church that was somewhat freer of the, “Being Protestant is the only sin,” and, “Being Catholic is the only sin,” attitudes that continue to tear the Western Church to this day.
Of course, we have our own fault: “Making waves is the only sin.”
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
All English history is divided into Good Things, Bad Things, and one Memorable Date (1066).
John,
I’m intrigued by the idea of Charles I being canonized. The entry for him in the “Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” refers to him as being popularly considered a martyr by the High church wing, but doesn’t list him as a saint. Can you give me any further information?
CK,
with great regret, I must remind you that English History consists of two genuine dates; the other is 55 B.C.
I didn’t know there was a CODCC. I’ll check the ODCC2. If it’s not there, I probably read it somewhere in Prayer Book Studies (the booklets published from the late 40’s to the mid 70’s that eventually produced the new BCP).
John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams
Actually, two memorable dates.
At Runnymede King John is convinced that the Magna Carta is a good idea.
That’s better.
JTI, I love you!
Sorry, Wally, but jti is correct, and I am in error – 55 BC is the other memorable date, “the year in which Julius Caesar (the memorable Roman Emperor) lnaded, lake all other successful invaders … at Thanet.”
The Magna Charta – from the Latin Magna great and Charter (a Charter) – was “the chief cause of democracy in England, and therefore a Good Thing” … but the date is not memorable.
Anyone else who doesn’t know what we’re talkin’ about is directed to 1066 and All That by W.C.Sellar and R.J. Yeatman.
CK,
let’s just keep it platonic, okay?
I thought I would bump this to save it from the Great Purge, because of: (a) the range of topics covered; (b) the number of posters who contributed, many still active on the boards two years later; and © it was my first thread (I’m sentimental).
The poster formerly known as jti (sig™ inserted at request of dantheman, and to placate Sue Duhnym)
As a product of the English education system I assure it goes, or rather went, in my day, something like this.
Starts 1066 Battle of Hastings, not actually in Hastings King Harold gets arrow in eye, William wins. Before that there were a few Saxon blokes, at least one of whom burnt cakes. There were Romans at some time that built roads, but that was all a long time ago.
After that some more wars, some King dies after red hot poker shoved up backside, we fight with French a lot, not that there was a France as we know it today, and we owned most of it quite rightfully by marriage and all that, you know.
Henry VIII : divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. Mary Rose, sunk.
Edvard VI: protestant bloke, founded some schools for not so very rich people.
Sister Mary, Catholic: seemed a bit miffed about something or other.
Elizabeth I : Protestant wonan, deforested much of England to built ships. Fought Spanish (not personally), Sir Francis Drake did it whilst playing bowls. Sir Walter Raleigh, tobacco, potatoes, threw cloak over pubble so Queenie wouldn’t get feet wet.
King James I: Scottish bloke, dirty hands, wrote Bible.
Charles I got head chopped off, Cromwell chappie around for a while, another Charles came back or was it James.
**1666 **(the other memorable date) Great Fire of London got rid of plague (which must therefore have been in 1665).
Some women rule for a bit, then a lot of German blokes. The Industrial Revolution, steam and spinning wheels and stuff.
Then Victoria, hurrah, Empire etc. Then these Socialist chappies became popular then we had a world war and it all went down hill from there. Boo.