Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Now just watch as the ADL freaks out.
Oh Happy Day! I have been a Catholic for four years, and this is certainly one of the happier moments in a wonderful journey!
Bishop Fellay has responded well on the SSPX website, and I hope the nay sayers will be drowned out. Thank you Holy Father. Thank you Mary Queen of Heaven. Thank you Lord Jesus King of Kings...
Te Deum Laudamus!
Long live our courageous, holy, magnificent, glorious Sovereign Pontiff!
Thanks be to God! Thanks to Pope Benedict!
Thank you, Holy Father this an historic day for the Catholic Tradition.
The next step is the Full Communion.
TE DEUM LAUDAMUS!
So did this lift Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication as well?
Press Release from the Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X:
http://www.dici.org/accueil.php?loc=US
Letter of Mons Fellay to the faithful.
http://www.dici.org/dl/fichiers/
...ter_Sup_Gen.pdf
Fantastic. And no preconditions to acknowledge Vatican II or swear loyalty to the Novus Ordo like before!!!!
Rome must have seen the light.
And being open to further discussions on serious issues of disagreement between the Vatican and the SSPX is another concession of the Vatican!! Heretofore they had not been willing to discuss anything other than SSPX submission to Vatican II.
I think the Roman authorities...and especially Benedict XVI are finally beginning to realize that to perpetually hold up Vatican II and the novus Ordo as the final test of obedience was a loosing position, because there is so much bad fruit that came from it.
I hope the discussions with Rome and the SSPX are constructive, and bring to light many of the errors that have plagued the Church since Vatican II.
Maybe this is a first step towards a total re=evaluation of Vatican II, especially the Novus Ordo, and a reconstitution of the Faith.
A Dutch translation can be found here http://summacatholica.blogspot.com/
This is particularly great news because of the fact that there are now 525 more traditionalist priests in the Church, and about 30 religious Orders of priests, nuns, monks and friars.
Added to that is the fact that the SSPX in the USA has one of the largest smeinaries enrollment wise in the USA, with 80+ seminarians!!
"This is particularly great news because of the fact that there are now 525 more traditionalist priests in the Church, and about 30 religious Orders of priests, nuns, monks and friars."
1) The SSPX itself is not schismatic. In any case, the decree deals only with their bishops.
2) The decree is a step towards full communion, NOT a declaration of full communion between the SSPX and the Holy See.
What about the suspension a divinis?
Indeed, what this effectively does is put the issue back to the state it was prior to the episcopal consecrations of 1988.
There is much work yet ahead, but this is a significant beginning.
Thanks be to God. This can only be a good thing. To anyone who points to many peculiar and even wildly distorted opinions, on politics or theology, of any of these men, consider that the removal of the excommunication takes from them their main claim to fame. It is a step toward unity and also the beginning of normalizing this sector of the Church.
After having carefully read the decree and the responses, I'd like to make the following initial observations:
1) The decree simply lifts the censure of excommunication and deprives it of any effect as of January 21, 2009. There is silence on whether the original decree of excommunication imposed on July 1, 1988 was valid, and the decree seems to imply that yes, it was. Take note that the decree neither declares the excommunications null and void from the beginning, nor does it mention any posthumous rehabilitation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. Thus, the Pope has struck a middle course: lift the excommunications as desired by the SSPX, without declaring the excommunications to have been invalid from the beginning.
Had Pope Benedict XVI declared the excommunications invalid from the beginning, that would have been seen as a massive slap to the face of the late Pope John Paul II. Of course, he did not do that. I don't think he could have been expected to do that in the first place, whatever his actual opinions on the matter may have been.
2) The decree mentions that the Pope did this out of his "paternal sensitivity" to the pain suffered by the four bishops because of the excommunications, out of his desire for unity among the faithul, and in the hope that by thus lifting the burden of excommunication from the four bishops, the SSPX will be moved to reconcile with the Holy See. It is clear that the Pope is now extending the utmost mercy and clemency to the SSPX; I hope that the world's bishops will take note and follow suit. At the same time, I pray that the SSPX's hardliners will not abuse the Pope's amazing generosity.
3) The lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops does not signify that the SSPX is back in full communion with the Holy See. This is clear from the wording of the decree:
"It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity."
Basically, what the Pope is saying is: "Ok, SSPX bishops, I've removed your excommunications. It is now up to you to reconcile with the the Church". It will be interesting to see what the SSPX will now do. The ball is in their court now. So, the SSPX bishops are NOT YET bishops in good standing; but they are now Catholic bishops, that is for sure.
All these seem to imply that the suspension a divinis remains for all SSPX priests and bishops.
4) Interestingly, the Holy See is referring to:
"..trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin..."
This signifies that the Holy See is now willing to open talks with the SSPX to resolve the SSPX's difficulties with Vatican II, provided that these discussions will touch only on "still open matters." This refers to the SSPX's demand for "dialogue" on doctrinal matters with Rome.
The SSPX has always made clear that it will not reconcile with Rome unless Rome rejects Vatican II's "errors and ambiguities" . However, in the SSPX's response to this decree, Bishop Bernard Fellay has considerably toned down his position, simply stating that the SSPX has "some reservations" on Vatican II. I find this to be very hopeful.
The fact is that not only the SSPX, but many thoughtful non-Trad Catholics have long wrestled with the question of how to reconcile Vatican II and the post-1965 Magisterium with the pre-Vatican II Magisterium. Hermeneutic of continuity notwithstanding, it is still necessary to actually demonstrate this continuity -- with clarity and without ambiguity -- between Vatican II and what came before it, instead of merely making an act of faith that it is there. To this end, I think that all Catholics should eagerly await the dialogue between Rome and the SSPX. The decree refers to "still open matters", thus implying that at least some of the post-Conciliar changes on which SSPX wants to have a discussion are, indeed, open to reconsideration. However, the very wording of the decree also makes clear that Rome expects the SSPX to promptly come back to full communion.
Thanks be to God! God willing, we could soon see the FSSPX fully reconciled with the church,and all of its priests with full faculties.
The lifting of the excommunication seems to be based upon the SSPX's argument that the four men discussed today were made bishops in 1988 as a result of an emergency. Many here have attacked that position, with some here defending the position of the Society.
A lesson for us all is that we should be careful with our words. The same can be said with a whimsical favoring of instant canonization for popes, or even tossing around the title of "great" ten minutes after they die. I make that last comment because this is the second time Benedict XVI has reversed a major decision of John Paul II with respect to traditional Catholicism, the first being the elimination of an indult and the declaration that the traditional Mass was actually never abrogated.
"The lifting of the excommunication seems to be based upon the SSPX's argument that the four men discussed today were made bishops in 1988 as a result of an emergency..."
I don't see anything in the decree that implies this at all. If this were true, then this newest decree should explicitly declare the excommunications to have been null and void from the beginning.
Among the reasons given for lifting the excommunications, there is not one allusion to the "state of emergency" -- but a lot of allusions to the Pope's sensitivity and desire for unity.
I'm not saying that there is no merit to the state of emergency argument; I am only saying that the Congregation for Bishops does not use it in this decree.
What will be important to remember is that this clearly isn't intended to be Rome's final word.
These matters, including the matter of Lefebvre himself, will no doubt be a part of those discussions between Rome and Econe.
This statement affirms that the 1988 consecrations were not justified and the the censure of excommunication was valid and deserved. But the Holy Father is giving them a great gift and removing their deserved punishment. This is very similar to when a President pardons a convicted criminal. He is not saying the conviction is in error, he is just exercising his mercy and letting the criminal off the remainder of his sentence.
My question is:
Now that the Holy Father has been so generous to lift this punishment, will the SSPX act as good holy men who seek to follow the Holy Father, namely, in recognition of their suspended state will they refrain from offering the Sacraments? Or will they continue to offer the Sacraments in violation of Canon Law? It would seem that if they are serious about coming home, they would humbly obey the law until they are fully reconciled.
These steps toward reunification are truly a blessing for Holy Mother Church!
Kenjiro makes two statements that are less than accurate.
First, having "80+" seminarians does not make the SSPX institution one of the largest in the U.S. Some seminaries have double and almost triple that amount; it makes it about average size.
That said, that seminary is still not fully "in the Church" because the SSPX situation is still irregular. To use the language of Vatican II and subsequent theological discourse (and also some patristic wording), the SSPX and their followers are not "in full communion."
What this Pope has done is exactly the same as what Paul VI did with Athenagoras as they mutually lifted the excommunications of 1054. The action is designed to allow for discussions to move ahead in a less polemical environment. The hope is that in an atmosphere of charity, truth can be served better and more effectively.
There is certainly no hint of the excommunications having been invalid, nor of any posthumous lifting.
I am shocked! I am also mad. I feel lied to by the Church!!! For over 20 years I have been told that the Tridentine Mass was abrogated...now I am told it never was (like I am an idiot or something), no...just like that...the excommunications are lifted. May I please ask what this whole battle was about? The fights over the liturgy, excommunications, families torn apart, priests persecuted etc, etc. All for nothing. Was SSPX right the whole time? It looks like it. I don't know what to think.
Father Stravinskas, that is incorrect, as the SSPX bishops did not ever excommunicate the Pope!
Let's resist the temptation to act like the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son.
andrew...you were, or at least by a lot of people in it.
Andrew - with respect your are somewhat naive. Read the history of the Church? Galileo? As an old - and very wise priest who had seen it all before, during and after Vatican II once said to me - "everything in Mother Church is forbidden until it become compulsory". That's reality. Scott
With all respect to Fr. Stravinskas, I really, seriously doubt that ANY Vatican II seminary in the USA has 3x's as many seminarians as the 80 SSPX seminarians at Winona, Mn. St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary.
That would roughly be about 240 seminarians...and I know reasonably well that NO Vatican II seminary in the USA that uses just the Novus Ordo in English in the usual banal "progressive" style of most parishes, and clings to just the usuall Vatican II scheduel and style of classes and instruction and formation has had 240 seminarians for about 40 years.
Our own St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pa. had nearly 600 seminarians (+ another 30 in Rome) before Vatican II (and most of them were for Philadelphia alone).
But as of 2008-09, there are only 130 seminarians of which 41 are all there are for Philadelphia (the lowest totals for Philadelphia Archdiocese since before the Civil War !!!)
Even New York, has only 40 seminarians.
So, I think Fr. is speaking more from a "pro-Vatican II/Novus Ordo" stance, than reality.
The reality was most large diosecean seminaries had 250+ seminarians before Vatican II and some as many as 600, whereas at the present the reality IS that in the Vatican II Church, most average size USA dioceses are luck to have 6-10 seminarians, and the large dioceses maybe 25-40. Definitly NOT a good track record.
ON the contrary, the Fraternity of St. Peter Seminary in Nebraska which celebrates the Tridentine Latin Mass has nearly 80 seminarians, and the SSPX seminary in Mn. does have 80+ seminarians.
I really doubt that most Archdioceses or Dioceses in the USA for that matter, can boast even half that.
And with the excommunications lifted, the unfavorable stigma (and the propaganda from neo-con Catholics) against the SSPX will be totally invalid.
Look for enrollment at the SSPX seminary in Winona to skyrocket now.
As for the regular diosecean seminaries.....hmmmm?
Kenjiro,
you don't get it. The lifting of the excommunications is the first step in hopefully reaching full communion for the SSPX. As of now, the status of the SSPX has not changed, their priest - and also the bishops - are still suspended a Divinis.
@ Kenjiro
The lifting of the excommunication of the bishops of FSSPX has no bearing on the canonical standing of the FSSPX priests nor the juridical status of said Society.
What has happened is that the clock has been turned back to Spring 1988 before the consecrations took place...when the FSSPX had already been called schismatic for over a decade and its clergy laboured under the penality of suspens a divins.
The question about Lefebvre and Castro-Meyer is quite simple:
1) Excommunication is from the Church on earth, once you are dead, it is null, as you move into a new relationship with God, not regulated by the earthly authorities.
2) Anyway, the decree states that all effects of the decree Ecclesia Dei of 1988 are now withdrawn. How much clearer can that be?
Why is it some people wish to see contention and skullduggery at every turn? The blogs are full of this question. Can the Pope never please these people?
A careful reading of the document from the Congregation of Bishops would indicate that the excommunications of Msgr. Lefebvre and Msgr. de Castro Mayer are likewise lifted although they are not mentioned by name in the document:
"...rimetto ai Vescovi Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson e Alfonso de Galarreta la censura di scomunica latae sententiae dichiarata da questa Congregazione il 1° luglio 1988, mentre dichiaro privo di effetti giuridici, a partire dall'odierna data, il Decreto a quel tempo emanato."
All juridical effects decreed in the document "Ecclesia dei adflicta" have been revoked. That would include the consecrators!
Josephus,
exactly.
Father Stravinskas: "There is certainly no hint of the excommunications having been invalid, nor of any posthumous lifting."
The Vatican: "...has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of the Bishops..."
That is more than a hint.
Scott,
You are right, I am anive. I try to take people and the Church at their plain word. Believing that they mean what the say, and they say what they mean. Stupid me I guess.
I attend the University of Saint Thomas in the Catholic Studies Department, and the Minor Seminary on, Saint John Vianney, has 155 seminarians. The Major Seminary, Saint Paul Seminary, has ca. 75 seminarians, with a %90 retaining rate.
Wm. Hoag,
The juridical effects have been removed as of 01/21/09. From 06/30/88 (I think that's the correct date) to 01/20/09, they were all still excommunicated. That would mean Arch. Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Mayer died in a state of excommunication. May God have mercy on their souls.
The Holy Father in an act of great mercy lifted the excommunications. He did not, in any way, declare them invalid or unjust. He gave the 4 bishops a papal pardon, if you will.
Kenjiro,
Whether one likes it or not, St. Mary of the Lake in Chicago has over 200 seminarians. Many others (like Mount St. Mary's, Emmitsburg) have double 80.
Why must an "us" vs. "them" mentality always rise to the surface?
Let's see the Pope's paternal charity (and that's what it is, nothing demanded by justice, to be sure) as a moment of grace coming at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. And let's hope that his charity toward the SSPX is reciprocated.
Deo Gratias!
And thank you, Holy Father!
Andrew... don't feel so bad. There will be many such episodes of people realizing that they have been "lied to", or at the very least not told the entire truth. I have already heard from some of our own parishioners, when news of the FSSP Personal Parish about a mile away began to circulate..."I thought the Latin Mass had been banned!" When our own Bishop announced the opening of said parish, there were more such comments, some even implying that this wasn't a "real" Catholic Church, but a special church that had received special permission to open, but that not everybody could attend. I assured them that it was a parish, just like our church is a parish, and that anybody could attend. They didn't seem convinced.
It makes no sense to have a question mark hanging over the head of the good Archbishop. The Institute of the Good Shepherd venerate him as a saint and are allowed to hang his picture in the sacristy.
In a few years when the dust has settled, expect a cause to be opened for Marcel Lefebvre.
With all do respect to Father Stravinksas, Novus Ordo Seminaries are not full hardly, most have closed since Vatican II, yet the S.S.P.X., F.S.S.P. and The Institute of Christ the King are bursting at the seems and have waiting lists!!! Facts are facts Father and traditional seminaries that teach The One Holy Catholic and Apostoclic Faith are packed. Deo Gratias Holy Father Benedict the Great brick by brick.
Dieter,
Many US seminaries are posting record numbers. St. John Vianney, Kenrick-Glennon, Mundelein, etc. are all growing rapidly.
The diocese that are reverent and teach what the Church teaches have ever growing seminarian numbers...even if they have no Traditional Latin Mass.
Also, worldwide the number of seminarians has GROWN by 74% since 1980. That's some pretty serious growth.
why should the sspx stop ministering to people on the very day it has been proven to have been a victim of politics? what an outstandingly mean thing to suggest.
Why is it that the same people on here (ie. Kenjiro and Dieter)continue to proliferate the "us vs. them" drama on this blog? Frankly, I think those 'high brow' attitudes do little in regards to furthering and promoting the work of the Church.
While I think the lifting is a good move, I think the Church has bigger things to worry about than this.
(sigh!)
"The Institute of the Good Shepherd venerate him as a saint and are allowed to hang his picture in the sacristy."
Hanging someone's picture in the sacristy is scarcely the sign of a cultus!
The priests of the IBP (and of the FSSP, for that matter) may privately think of Msgr. Lefebvre as a saint, but that is their personal opinion to which they are fully entitled.
Fr Stravinkas,
I would agree that Kenjiro's ebullience for the SSPX's seminary is somewhat unfounded, but he isn't too far off, especially when you consider the numbers of TLM faithful.
The priest to parishioner ratio for traditional orders (SSPX, IBP, and FSSP) is about 1-to-1,217 (including seminarians), whereas the ratio for Novus Ordo Catholics is 1-to-1,400 in the US and Europe, but can be as high as 1 to 4,800 in Africa.
Clearly, traditional Catholicism spawns vocations at a rate much higher than does New Coke...er new Catholicsm.
I do, however, agree that we must cease seeing this as us versus them.
We are the same family of faith.
Dear Brothers in Our Lord Jesus Christ :
TE DEUM LAUDAMUS , TE DOMINE BENEDICIMUS !
Thank You , Most Holy Father !
Ad Multos annos , AD MAIOREM DEI GLORIAM ANIMARUMQUE SALUTEM !
Pope: Hey, lets talk and try to settle things like the good Christians we are.
SSPX: That sounds reasonable, with God's help, we should be able to settle this.
Some people on this thread: VATICAN II IS THE WORST THING EVER NO ONE IS IN VATICAN II CHUCHS WE ARE RIGHT AND ROME IS ALWAYS WRONG
Give me a break. None of us are Bishops, so lets let our leaders sort it out and be happy things are on the road to reconciliation.
God Bless Benedict XVI and our still somewhat separated, but not for long, brothers in the SSPX.
Anonymous,
You show great courage in defending the church as it is. Now show a little more by taking a name in your comments, even if you don't have the courage to use your own.
I never say "Rome is always wrong", just that the Novus Ordo has proven to be a huge mistake. Whether Rome was wrong or not with Vatican II is an open question... but the results of the last 40 years across the board speak for themselves.
"Also, worldwide the number of seminarians has GROWN by 74% since 1980. That's some pretty serious growth."
As per this quote from Fr. Stravinskas...you forget to mention Father, that of the 74% growth...nearly all of it (99%) has been in Africa, Asia, and South America where for the most part, the Catholic Church there has not suffered the junk after Vatican II that it has in Western Europe, USA & Canada, and Australia/Oceania where seminary enrollments are DOWN over 74% and even more in some countries .
Kenjiro,
The posting about 74% growth was not my statement. And I am not all that enthused about that growth because there can be many reasons for such growth, which are not always healthy. However, in those countries of extensive growth, we have to note that there is almost no Tridentine movement to speak of.
Why do "traditional" communities of priests have a higher ratio of priest to people? One reason is that those attracted to the traditionalist movement in general tend to be more liturgically minded and even more naturally disposed toward a changeless liturgy (neither good nor bad in itself, such a posture).
Finally, as Will Rogers reminds us: "There are lies; damned lies; and statistics." And before anybody jumps on the bandwagon, just remember I did not start the numbers game; I merely responded to an unfounded assertion.
Kenjiro,
It was me who posted that not Fr. Stravinskas.
Yes, some parts of the world have done better. The US is up a bit. The point, though, is that vocations are growing in many parts of world without the traditional Mass, just with orthodoxy and reverence, that's the key.
Kenjiro,
The SSPX in the United States has 67 priests to serve 100 chapels. That looks more like a shortage of priests, the supply is far below the demand.
I don't want to argue about numbers anymore. I was just quoting stats.
And if anyone chooses to browse thru the PJ Kennedy & Sons Catholic Directory for 2008 and looks at the stats for each diocese on seminarians...or the 2008 Annuario Pontificio and look at each diocese with their stats broken down (look for sm=seminarians), you'll see I didn't pull averages from the air.
As for USA sems being up, it's probably a glitch. If you keep track like I do, it's up by 90 one year, down by 60 the next, up & down etc.
Not continuous growth.
At least it's not down 1,000 or so a year like 30 years ago, but it's more or less stagnant.
I know that this excommunication doesn't make the SSPX free and clear, they are still under penalty of some kind. But I am sure that too will be lifted within a very short time.
That they don't have to swear undying love and loyalty to Vatican II is a shocker. I hope it stays that way.
Also, I appologize to Fr. Stravinskas for posting you as the source for the 74% increase in sems.
My mistake.
I'm just going to stick with my Anglican-Use Mass! For those of ya'll stuck in the Tridentine form of the Mass....I'd suggest that you do some research on the old "Sarum Mass" that was in existence in England BEFORE the Tridentine Mass was the established 'norm'. Not all traditional Masses before Trent were in Latin, gentlemen.
Sorry...I just realized that my above posting has nothing to do with the subject at hand! Mea culpa...
Fray Antonio: the Sarum liturgy Mass was in Latin. It was just a variant upon the Roman liturgy.
Anon, (why can't you pick a name handle on here?)
I never said that the Sarum Mass was not in Latin...I just said that it preceded the Tridentine Mass. The point I made of older Masses not being in Latin, I meant to refer to the Masses said in Gaelic in the British Isles WAY before Trent.
But yes, you are correct in that the Sarum Mass incorporated Latin.
A SIMPLE PRACTICAL QUESTION:
now the excommunication is lifted for the four bishops:
1)Can one take communion at masses celebrated by FSSPX priests who are obvioulsly still suspens a divinis
2)Does Sunday assistance at FSSPX masses surely satisfies Sunday obligation?
"Lies, damn lies and statistics" was first used in US print by Mark Twain, via British PM Benjamin Disraeli.
"As per this quote from Fr. Stravinskas...you forget to mention Father, that of the 74% growth...nearly all of it (99%) has been in Africa, Asia, and South America where for the most part, the Catholic Church there has not suffered the junk after Vatican II that it has in Western Europe, USA & Canada..."
"The posting about 74% growth was not my statement. And I am not all that enthused about that growth because there can be many reasons for such growth, which are not always healthy. However, in those countries of extensive growth, we have to note that there is almost no Tridentine movement to speak of."
Kenjiro and Fr. Stravinskas:
I think that the situation in the Catholic Church in the "Third World" vis-a-vis Vatican II can be summarized as follows:
1) Unlike in Europe and North America, there was NO liturgical movement in almost all of the Latin American, Asian and African churches prior to Vatican II. Liturgical consciousness was nowhere near as advanced in these places as in Europe; so, when the radical liturgical reforms of the 1960's came around, the psychological impact on the laity and even the clergy was much, much less in the Global South than in the West. There was also much less attachment to the usus antiquior liturgy in the "south" than in the "West". In fact, church attendance in many Latin American countries and in the Philippines is much better now than it was prior to the 1960's (believe it or not).
2) In Latin America and Asia, the pious practices and the devotions of the Catholic faithful remained more or less untouched, even as many innovations were added to church life. This has a lot to do with the continued growth of vocations in Latin America and Asia, although it should be pointed out that even here the vocations are still miniscule compared to the growth of the Catholic population.
3) There were -- and are -- horrendous liturgical abuses and doctrinal heresies all over the Church, including Latin America, Asia and Africa. And liturgical and theological thinking in many southern countries remains stuck in the 1970's and 1980's. No less than Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith has complained that no worthwile theological work is currently being done in Asia.
However, the churches in these areas have had bigger fights to face since 1965 and have had no time to get involved in the kind of all-out destruction of Catholic identity that swept so many northern and western Catholic communities. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we did not have the kind of radicals that Europe had in the 60's and 70's; we did have them, it's just that our hierarchies had not much time for them given the terrible political turmoil of the 1970's and 1980's. For example, when an attempt was made in the Philippines in 1976 to totally replace the Roman Rite with the "Mass of the Filipino People", Cardinal Sin squelched the idea because he felt that stirring up a liturgical war in the Church was not conducive to the Church unity that was needed to face up to the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship.
4) I think that the Church in the West can be described as a series of black and white areas: huge areas in complete liturgical and theological disarray, interspersed with numerous beacons of shining liturgical purity and pure doctrinal light. The Church in Latin America, Asia and Africa is more of a mass of gray -- the utter darkness of the worst excesses of the West has not made it to these areas, but neither do these areas have as yet the beacons of doctrinal and liturgical light that Europeans and Americans have. God willing, this will change soon.
"Not all traditional Masses before Trent were in Latin, gentlemen."
Maybe you didn't say it, but this implies it.
I went to an Anglican "mass" at an Episcopal Church two weeks ago out of curiosity (before my regular Catholic Mass), and am not at all impressed. It's down the street form my house in Haverford, so I walked it.
It had the ornamentation of a classic Anglican parish (in England), the rood screen, Victorian style interior etc.
The the "mass" itself was nearly the same as the Novus Ordo...except that I knew that it had it's beginnings not at Vatican II as the Novus Ordo, but way back in the days of the infamous traitor-bishop, Thomas Cranmer.
The choir and the music was classical, and quite good....and the only part of the "mass" that was uplifting.
I was surprised by two things.
1). This Episcopal parish was 90% empty for the "mass". The church could hold about 250 people confortably, but there were only about 40 people in attendance with me sitting in the back. Probably it being odd to suddenly see a young Japanese/American guy in attendance at their services, I got alot of stares from the regulars as they came in. Some frowns. Kind of rude actually.
2). Nearly the entirely congregation was elderly. Not just middle-aged---but elderly (65+). Even in the Catholic liberal parishes, you see some families with kids. None here.
These were all very upper class establisihed WASPish people well past their 60's.
The "priest" was elderly too.
There was a layman in an odd costume holding a baton of some sort at the processional/recessional . I don't know what his job there is.
The choir almost outnumbered the congregation.
I understand that this parish has 2 "masses" per Sunday...and the one I attended out of curiosity is supposed to be the better attended one. If this was the better one at 10:00, I wonder what the 8:00 am service was like!
I knew from my stats I follow that the Episcopal Church in the USA, and the Anglican Church nearly everywhere else is dying, but it was never brought home stronger than seeing the nearly empty Church.
Uggh. The Washington Post's article on this focuses only on the Jewish reaction to Williamson. So, is the Church culpable for NOT excommunicating anyone who is anti-Semitic? Really.
Its the fact that Willamson is a bishop and potential leader in the Church that causes people to right;y focus on his views.
Fray Antonio,
The Holy Mass was never said in Gaelic either in Ireland or in Britain. All Catholic Masses in these Islands were celebrated in Latin . The First Gaelic Mass in Ireland and Scotland came after VII. There were some allownces made in 62 or thereabouts when parts of the other sacraments were allowed to have the vernacular.
Fr. Gabriel,
I think your comment is only part correct.
The distinctive Celtic liturgy, celebrated by the Irish monks of Skellig Mihail and Iona in the 7th and 8th centuries was in the Celtic/Gaelic language. It wasn't until the 11th century, when the "practically" independant Celtic Church accepted the Roman liturgy, disiplines, and traditions that Latin became the universal uniform. Also, before the 10th century, some priests in Ireland were actually married, as were monks. This was distinctly a Celtic innovation which was extinct by the year 1000. By then, all monks were celibate and lived in community, and most were Benedictine.
I took a class in Medieval History for fun last year (nightschool), so I know.
What about the Society of St. Josaphat, the Ukrainian Catholic traditionalists who rely heavily on the SSPX and had Bishop Williamson give Holy Orders to their deacons and priests?
Kenjiro
We have a saying in Ireland " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
I hate to pull rank but my thesis for my theology degree was "The Holy Mass in Ireland from the 6th to the 12th century.
Every thing you have stated is pure protestant propaganda. I live not far from Skelig about 1 1/2 hour drive and then the boat.
First there is absolutley no proof of a vernacular liturgy on Skelig. All evidence points to Latin. I have taken a keem interest in the archeological evidence of Skelig all point to a monastery no different from the others in Ireland.
Secondly to even think that Iona was a vernacular monastery is to do an injustice to Columba. Iona was an excellent school for Latin .
We had married priests but were the living as husband and wife or brother and sister? However a surname survives to this day in both Ireland and Scotland Mc Tagart deriving from Mac an tSagart son of the priest. We also have Mac Easpaig son of the bishop. As we know through the recent scandals in Ireland one does not have to be married to have a son either of a bishop or a priest
As for married monks you are mixing up the fact that the abbots of many monastery were infact Laymen. They became abbots because their families "owned" the office. This was why it was neccessary to reform the monastery in the 11th century and why many changed to the Benedictine, Cistercian and Augustinian rule.
Married clergy are not confined to Ireland and Britain. You will find it all over Europe. Dare I say it even to this day.
The Liturgy in Ireland before the norman invasion was a variation of the Roman Rite. It was basically a mixture of Roman , Gallican and Mozabaric. Central to all the variations was the Roman Canon although with interpolations of Irishness especially the lists of saints. In some Monastery the list of saints in the Canon went as far back as Adam.
You are also incorrect is saying most monastery became Benedictine. In Fact the majority of Monastery became Augustinian as the loosenes of the Rule suited the Irish mentality. The second largest grouping were the Cistercian as the penitential nature also suited the Irish mentality. even to this day Benedictines are the minority in Irish Monasticism. We have two male Benedictine Monastery and five Cistercian.
If I was you I would demand my money back from that night course for whatever history they taught you it was not of Ireland.
"A SIMPLE PRACTICAL QUESTION...gruffydd | 01.25.09"
A simple practical answer. The only change is the removal of the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops. The Mass at an SSPX chapel remains valid but illicit. At this point, nothing else has changed.
Nothing.
"Not all traditional Masses before Trent were in Latin, gentlemen."
Only in the "Glagolitic" areas (in modern Croatia and Slovenia) and in some parts of southern Italy (where TLM's in Greek were offered until the 19th century).
"We had married priests but were the living as husband and wife or brother and sister? "
Married priests prior to Trent were definately not living as brother and sister.
Neither did last officially married Pope, Adrian II.
HABEMUS PAPUM WE HAVE A POPE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT TO SAY THE LEAST. IN A FEW SHORT YEARS POPE BENEDICT HAS BEGUN THE HEALING BETWEEN THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X AND THE VATICAN, THE TRADITIONAL ANGLICAN CHURCH (TAC) WILL SOON ENTER THE CHURCH AFTER A 500 YR OLD SCHISM, BRINGING OVER 1000 ORTHODOX ANGLICAN PRIESTS AND BISHOPS AND WELL OVER HALF MILLION LAY ANGLICANS AND THAT IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE FLOOD OF ANGLICANS LEAVING THAT SAD "CHURCH". NOT LEAST 500+ SSPX PRIESTS, BISHOPS, RELIGIOUS AND UP TO A MILLION CATHOLIC LAITY AFFILIATED WITH SSPX, THIS IS NO SMALL ACCOMPLISHMENT. SINCE THE ELEVATION OF HIS HOLINESS PATRIARCH KIRILL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TO LEADERSHIP IN THAT CHURCH, AFTER 1000 YRS WE MAY SEE A REUNION OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE WESTERN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN OUR LIFE TIME.NO POPE FOR THE LAST THOUSAND YRS HAS DONE WHAT THIS MAN, BENEDICT 16 HAS DONE UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST. THE SOCIALIST-DEGRESSIVE,REACTIONARY-LIBERALS IN AND OUT OF THE CHURCH MUST HATE HIM WITH A BURNING PASSION BUT 1.3 MILLION CATHOLICS LOVE, SUPPORT AND PRAY FOR HIM---SHALOM POPE BENEDICT THE 16TH
CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT I MEANT 1.3 BILLION CATHOLICS
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
