Corpus Christi church was completely full for the “Requiem” Mass and lecture on the reign of Mary Tudor by Professor Eamon Duffy. The mostly graying congregation leaned heavily towards the academic and clerical – although one large young family remained quietly attentive throughout the long evening. The Novus Ordo mass was remarkable for the fine polyphonic music that could have been played in Mary’s time – Sheppard, Tallis, Taverner, even the young Byrd. This parish thus has remained true to its exemplary musical tradition.
This mass, however, although celebrated with dignity and on the whole correctly, provided for the Traditionalist an unfortunate review of the intrinsic weaknesses of the Novus Ordo. I cannot share the vision of “reform of the reform” enthusiasts for mixing the Novus Ordo with elements – principally music – taken from the Traditional liturgy. On this evening, for example, the lush English polyphony only brought into sharper relief the dry essence of this rite: a series of texts read facing the congregation with long awkward intervals in between. It is just like modern productions of the operas of Wagner – the overwhelming music does not complement or elucidate but contradicts the colorless, static images seen on stage.
There were other issues as well. The celebrant wore a violet chasuble. He was assisted, if we disregard the reader and the “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist”, by only one person – a female acolyte. Other than the polyphony and a couple of fine hymns in the Anglican tradition, much of the liturgy was declaimed in a not very pleasant chant-like tone. The congregation, attempting to join in the responses, clashed with the unfamiliar setting used by the choir. I am unsure what a Novus Ordo “Requiem” Mass actually is, but there seemed to be some clear departures from Tradition; for example, the Agnus Dei was not that of a Requiem mass. Overall, I would have wished that the organizers had devoted more effort to liturgy and ceremony at such an important event.
In his sermon, the celebrant, Fr. William Wizeman, SJ, spoke of Mary and Cardinal Pole who both died on this very day of November 450 years ago. He reminded the congregation of the suffering they had endured for the faith – Pole’s mother was martyred by King Henry VIII – and that the majority of the English people supported their restoration of Catholicism. He recalled their work in promoting literature in defense of the faith and in supporting a remarkable musical revival. Yes, heretics had been burned but Mary and Pole both believed them to be a danger to the bodies and especially the souls of their countrymen. In a remarkable passage, Fr. Wizeman noted that the “Polish Pope” had attempted an apology for such deeds of the past but thereby had created only more confusion. We cannot apologize for the sins of the dead for we really cannot know these people. Moreover, ongoing scandals of church, like the ‘pedophilia” crisis, show we are unwilling to make necessary changes in those matters which we do know and control.
After a fine musical interlude, Prof. Duffy spoke from the pulpit(!). His superb lecture exceeded all expectations. It constituted an apology or defense of the Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole against the accumulated distortion and defamation of four centuries from academics and Catholics and Protestants alike. Mary was no cold uncaring frump and Pole no impractical, ineffectual intellectual. They had proceeded in harmony, not in conflict, with each other and with the emerging Counter Reformation of Trent. Their policies of restoration coincided with the wishes of the majority of Englishmen sickened by the excesses of Edward’s reign.
In developing his arguments, Prof Duffy, fine historian that he is, always built upon the concrete and particular. To illustrate Mary’s spirituality, he described her precocious translation of a three – page Latin prayer attributed to St Thomas. That work is found in a specific volume of prayers including signatures and comments of various notables of the court. His conclusion was that Mary’s spirituality was conventional but not superficial.
Cardinal Pole was one of the great figures of the age – fluent in multiple languages, immersed in both renaissance learning and Catholic theology and spirituality. He interacted with the most advanced artistic and spiritual men and women of his time. Indeed, he was perhaps too advanced for the reigning Pontiff , “mad, bad” Paul IV who became his implacable enemy.
Together with Mary, Pole carried out a remarkable restoration that served as the pattern for future Tridentine reforms elsewhere in Europe. Their first concern was restoring the mass – this was the main “selling point” of their reform for the majority of Englishmen. The mass was in the use of Sarum. Parish life was to be improved. Particular care was paid to the revival of Catholic preaching. A systematic attempt was made to reform the episcopacy and the universities. The spineless, conformist Henrician bishops drawn from the ranks of diplomats and politicians were replaced by trained theologians and men of character and spirituality. A measure of the success of this reform was the resistance offered by the reformed episcopacy and the universities to Elizabeth’s re-imposition of Protestantism. Literature and music were also fostered in the service of the restoration(the collected works of Thomas More were published in this reign). Finally, all these efforts were accompanied by a new emphasis on loyalty to the papacy
Prof Duffy introduced the subject of the burnings by stating that of course no one can support the burning of 280 people for their beliefs. Yet…Elizabeth did the same and on some occasions much worse. The persecution moreover, was successful: it reduced the hardcore of rebellious heretics and induced those less committed to remain passive where they could be converted by preaching and example. Pole and Mary always took care that the use of force would always be accompanied by instruction. Finally, did I not detect a sly tone of relish in Prof. Duffy’s very detailed description of some of the procedures and instructions surrounding the executions?
Tragically, the reform failed with the deaths of Mary and Pole. It was obvious that there were forces of resistance such as the nobility and gentry who had acquired immense wealth in land at the expense of the church. Within a year of Elizabeth’s succession, the attempted Catholic restoration of England had been overthrown. Yet it was not all in vain. Those men who had been a part of the Marian restoration went on to lay the foundations for Catholic resistance both in and outside of England under Elizabeth. Some of these exiles had an impact on European Catholicism as a whole. As the Counter Reformation progressed on the continent, it could follow the example of Mary and Pole.
There followed an informative question and answer session marked by a restraint and intelligence unusual for audiences at such events. We learned that the Catholic missionaries to England under Elizabeth followed the Sarum use, like Pole and Mary. Prof. Duffy spoke wistfully of the dramatic decline of Catholicism in Western Europe in recent years. He is unsure about the situation in America, but the decline in the number of priests here foretells the same fate for a sacramental religion.
What of the parish priests upon the Elizabethan succession? According to Prof Duffy, new research indicates that the traditional figure of only 400 priests who refused to accept Protestantism is far too low. Yet the fact is decisive that, if only for want of other employment opportunities, the majority of the lower clergy conformed to the Elizabethan settlement. The conforming Catholic parish clergy enabled the Elizabethan Reformation to succeed – because they brought the people with them.
A questioner tried to lead the speaker into more explosive territory by asking about any connections he might see between the topic of the evening and “the current struggles in the church.” Prof. Duffy rather mischievously inquired of the questioner what current struggles he had in mind – and then denied there was any relevance. The two ages are separate.
I regret that I cannot follow the esteemed professor in this conclusion. In my personal view, the Marian Restoration is extremely relevant to developments under the current pontificate. Pope Benedict has been attempting his own restoration of Catholic liturgy. Like Mary and Pole, he understands that the first step in the restoration of Catholic life must be restoration of the mass. Like them, he wishes to foster beauty as a necessary component of divine worship. Unlike Mary and Pole, however, he has shown little capacity to reform the episcopacy and the teaching arm of the church – the universities and religious orders. While Pole and Mary moved prudently but decisively on numerous fronts, Pope Benedict has taken action only in the matter of the Traditional Liturgy. Even here, numerous unresolved issues and ongoing conflicts remain.
Thanks are due to Corpus Christi parish for sponsoring this splendid evening. We look forward to the publication in 2009 of Prof. Duffy’s book on Queen Mary, Cardinal Pole and their Catholic Restoration in England.
Related Articles
4 users responded in this post