Rorate Caeli

The liberalizing document in ... November ?

The French national newspaper Le Figaro reports today some interesting words from the first Superior of the new Institute of the Good Shepherd, said at Mass yesterday:

Father Laguérie is convinced that the Roman wind blows in the right direction. And he even believes he knows that "Rome is about to publish a document destined to restore the Traditional rite to its place, to liberalise its usage."
When would this document come? Just read Father Laguérie's exact words in the church of Saint-Eloi, in Bordeaux, transcribed by the Centre Saint-Paul of Paris (thanks to Le Forum Catholique):

"...one may say, I believe, that this giant step which has just been taken is, not only for us but for all the Church, is the sign, the preparation, the propaedeutics of this document which shall be released, certainly in November, in which the rights of the Traditional Mass shall be restored in all their dignity."
Well, Fathers Laguérie, Aulagnier, Héry, de Tanoüarn...have just returned from their latest Roman marathon, during which the new Institute was founded. It is probable that they are better informed on these details than most. The different "calendars" apparently seem to match right after October...

Let us pray.

P.S. Just to make it plainly clear: the affirmation is by Father Laguérie, which we cannot confirm nor deny. What we can confirm only is that he said it (which is the first time there is a clear and known source for the existence of such document and for the date of its expected release). It is not an anonymous rumor, but a quite identifiable declaration.


41 comments:

Jon said...

Let us pray indeed. Let us pray that Father Laguérie's perceptions pervail over Professor Perrin's, who posted the below at ctn-greg last night.

"They have to create this Good Shepherd Institute for 2 good reasons :
- TLM is NOT going to be freed in the coming months so they need to have an institute to be incardinated for their TLM apostolate : not a single French bishop is welcoming them as TLM diocesan priests, they don't have any choice.
- FrenChurch plus GermChurch and the anti-trad lobby has won another time and the pope is afraid, once again, to proceed and create at last a PAA. Trad faithful are left unattended once again.

So this creation is much more likely the beginning of the end : the end of a brave Pontiff who would have chosen to fight for the good of the Church rather than dealing with the ordinary affairs, without taking any serious initiative. The end for trads for the hope their pastoral problems are to be solved by an adequate canonical structure. Probably the end of any reform of NOM also.

Clearly Rome is back to ... 1988. I'm glad for the new institute and happy for the Good Shepherd priests joining us in the Lord's vineyard in full communion with the pope, but I'm very sad to consider this pope is likely to have surrendered to the anti-trad lobby and has chosen to ignore and recant what Joseph Ratzinger had so rightly written and said during so many years.

I wish I'm wrong and that bravery will come back later in the heart and mind of the pope, that Joseph Ratzinger will speak and act again through Benedict XVI. A year and a half nearly after his election this is still a ... wish."

Gaufridus said...

With all due respect, His Holiness was a very strong proponent of the Novus Ordo. Moreover, we was the man in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is really doubtful that he is going to suddenly repudiate something in which he had a hand in promulgating and enforcing.

To restore Tradition to the Church will take a miracle. Thankfully, ouor religion believes in miracles!


Dominus vobiscum

Matt said...

"His Holiness was a very strong proponent of the Novus Ordo"

He has been very critical about many of the changes of the Novus Ordo, precisely in the areas which most traditional Catholics are critical.

The Book Burner said...

I find it very unlikely this man would say there will be a documemt this November if he hadn't been promised it.

Moretben said...

Was not this the same Fathers Laguérie who was at St. Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris

Yes

which is why he was booted from SSPX?

No

And isn't this deacon whom Cardinal Hoyos is suppose to make a priest the same person whom...

No idea Proklos, but this comment looks very much like detraction and scandal-mongering. I hope New Catholic will remove it.

Jason said...

Even if the traditional Mass is "liberalised," the FSSPX will naturally remain a religious Order, as will the FSSP and ICK. It does not seem unreasonable to form an Order in which to incardinate defecting members of the FSSPX (the other Orders above-mentioned having, perhaps, too hostile a history with them?). For this reason I would be hesitant to claim that this move is simply one of subtle diversion.

New Catholic said...

I tend to agree with you, the book burner

sacerdos15 said...

I just watched the mass at the shrine of Altotting and the Holy father,at the offertory,incensed the offerings in the traditional way not the simplified way.Also as he placed incense into the thurible he blessed it and you could see his lips moving.Obviously he was saying the tridentine prayers which were dropped in the NO.When he visited my parish Cardinal Arinze incensed in the same way and said those prayers.When I discreetly inquired as to how he could do this in the NO,he said if it wasn't abrogated you can still do it. PopeJPII did the same thing. Goes to show you cannot remove the classic roman rite from the hearts of men of good will. I have confidence Benedict will "free" the classic roman liturgy despite the forces arrayed against him.As someone said in another blogg 'I have grown up with the NO and am happy with it and have never experienced the older rite or wanted to.Lately I have been wondering why so many people are so vehemently opposed to it and so I am curiousto see what it is.'

alsaticus said...

Freedom for TLM is a claim of trads naturally, of SSPX - one of their prerequisites -, of some diocesan priests who would like to have this opportunity.There are two ways to get it : one way is simple and was granted by John-Paul II in the Campos diocese, the S.S.J.V. Personal Apostolic Administration. This simple way was offered to Bp Fellay in 2000 for the whole world.
There is another way, much more complicated : what has been called "universal indult" or better the formal recognition of TLM as licit for all Latin rite priests. The second way is important at a symbolic level but is restricted by the present Canon law. Bishops can control the number of masses said by the priests.
Creating a new institute in September is an indication that the 1st easy way has been set aside.
The legitimacy of the 1962 missal could be proclaimed by the post-synodal document the pope is preparing. But if this document intends to "restore TLM in all its rights" as said by Fr. Laguérie, some canonical new provisions are requested to by-pass the predictable episcopal opposition. A crown of thorns anyway...

For those who still have a memory : 2003 such a document was announced, September 2005 freedom for TLM was sure after the Synod and ... we're still waiting for it in September 2006. Now the rumor mill is whispering "November" ... Wait and see, facts are better than any rumor.

New Catholic said...

Dear Alsaticus, how are you?

I agree with the need of being careful with rumors..., yet at least this time we know whom to blame if things do not turn out to be true... It is more than a rumor, it is an affirmation by Monsieur L'abbé!

Jim40 said...

Maybe there is confusion over Cardinal Ratzinger's statements at various TIMES.
1) He was (and perhaps remains) in favor of some "reform" of the TLM.
2) He was (and is) dismayed at the changes made under the few rubrics of the NOM.
3) He wanted (and still wants) some Latin and some local language in the NEW mass to be announced.

If all of the above fit, there may be some logic to this series of confusing statements.

Ad Orientem said...

I will repeat the words I have written here and elsewhere many times (after all the other rumors). I will believe it when I see it. In the meantime prayers for your church's health and recovery from the East.

With Peter said...

New Catholic- Just wanted to say that I've always admired your epistomological openess and cautiousness in evaluating the legitimacy and importance of various rumors and news reports.

To me, it is incomprehensible that Fr. Laguerie would expose this document if he was not certain that it was forthcoming. If it does not come, it will prove that he is either very inept or something very powerful has happened behind the scenes.

Ephraem said...

All this Vatican watching looks rather like Astrology. Mercury has gone retrograde in Pisces! Ha! That means the Old Mass in November!

old jack said...

I think that those of you who think that Father Laguerie knows something are being pretty naive. We are talking about the conciliar Vatican, after all. Why should anything at all, much less the truth, to someone whose only function from their perspective is to give another straw to those who persist in grasping at them -- and getting back St. Eloi for Monseigneur Ricard?

Furthermore, Father's judgment has to be questioned, since he thinks the Good Shepherd is a big deal, rather than a slightly bigger version of the Society of St. Philip Neri in Berlin. The better judgment is that of the SSPX's press release: nothing new here.

I would add to Alsaticus' lineup of possible ways of freeing the Old Mass, the simple declaration that the whatchamacallit of the Novus Ordo neither abrogated or obrogated the Old, and hence that every priest can say it if he's brave enough. Or does its absence just indicate Alsaticus' expectation that the conciliar Vatican would never let its yes be yes, and its no be no?

With Peter said...

Is there any concern among SSPX that the liberalization of the traditional order might cause it to be celebrated very poorly? As long as the new order is the primary one, I believe this will provide some protection the traditional (i.e. ensuring that it is celebrated by people who have a desire for and a commitment to seeing it done properly).

In truth, I'm actually worried that it might impoverish the new order even further by drawing those who do celebrate it properly up into the third heaven of the traditional order.

This story really exposes the cynical skepticism of those who have long been disappointed by rumors such as these. I feel like we all ought to pray together a good old fashioned Act of Faith and Hope. Nothing will come except what has been foreseen by God and planned for his own good purposes. We can all be confident in this.

Juan Manuel Soria said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Long-Skirts said...

The Book Burner said...

"I find it very unlikely this man would say there will be a documemt this November if he hadn't been promised it."

ANOTHER
NEW
fort

Such names they call us,
That's not what we are,
We are Roman Catholics
At the front of the war.

Some just go AWOL,
Others defect,
Copying our stance
Then call us a sect.

A lot like in England,
Saint John Fisher's day,
When his brothers said, "yes",
This Saint replied, "nay".

All alone in the Fort,
St. John Fisher stood,
Perservering, defending
For the whole, all that's good.

Not just for himself,
Those attached to what's old,
Or reformers, reforming
Pretending they're bold.

We're simply preserving,
Once again, the True Fort,
While those with new orders
Relinquish support.

And with promises made
To men hungry for power,
They mock, stand and point
At us in the tower.

Hoping for all
An ecumenical democracy,
When in fact their new fort
Is a catastrophic kleptocracy.

Gaufridus said...

He has been very critical about many of the changes of the Novus Ordo, precisely in the areas which most traditional Catholics are critical.

Until something substantial happens, it is all talk and no action. Defending the Novus Ordo was then-Cardinal Ratzinger's job. Hard to believe he is going to suddenly repudiate his life's work.

Even if the traditional Mass is "liberalised," the FSSPX will naturally remain a religious Order

By the grace of God, I hope so.

There are two ways to get it : one way is simple and was granted by John-Paul II in the Campos diocese, the S.S.J.V. Personal Apostolic Administration. This simple way was offered to Bp Fellay in 2000 for the whole world.
There is another way, much more complicated : what has been called "universal indult" or better the formal recognition of TLM as licit for all Latin rite priests.


Both so-called "solutions" completely miss the point because neither address the reality of the situation, namely: that the True Mass (the Mass of the Roman Rite) has never been suppressed, is still the Mass of the Latin Church, and no priest anywhere requires permission to celebrate it. To grant a "PAA" would be to marginalise the True Mass, making it in effect like a monkey in a zoo: go visit it if you like, then come back to what is (has become) "normal", i.e. the Novus Ordo.

As far as an "indult" goes... frankly, an indult (i.e. permission) is absolutely unnecessary and would be a slap in the face. To accept an "indult" would be to give legitimacy to the notion that one is necessary in the first place. I doubt that the SSPX will ever accept such an unorthodox offer.

This "Institute of the Good Shepherd" is very much like the PAA-concept: it makes the True Mass a museum or zoo exhibit. For that reason, it will not be successful.

I would add to Alsaticus' lineup of possible ways of freeing the Old Mass, the simple declaration that the whatchamacallit of the Novus Ordo neither abrogated or obrogated the Old

That would simply be admitting the facts of the matter. That is basically the Society's position.


Pax tecum

Matt said...

might impoverish the new order even further by drawing those who do celebrate it properly up into the third heaven of the traditional order


with_peter, this argument seems to lack reason. If all of the priests who are saying the Novus Ordo well, begin saying the Traditional mass, then so their faithful will be all the more edified. The common denominator of the Novus Ordo will drop, and make it all the more evident that change is needed.

Until something substantial happens, it is all talk and no action. Defending the Novus Ordo was then-Cardinal Ratzinger's job. Hard to believe he is going to suddenly repudiate his life's work.

gaufridus, you seem to have forgotten that it was YOU who made an assertion that Pope Benedict had been a major proponent of the NO, I responded that he has been much critical of it, especially in practice. The fact that he's only taken small steps since his papacy doesn't make him a proponent. Please concede my point or refute it.

alsaticus said...

to Gaufridus

Do you really think any pope could, today, abolish Novus Ordo Missae ?
I'm in favor of the "full recognition" of TLM as I wrote and as you are quoting but forgetting in your comment.
But this is in no way an easy way as you seem to believe, for obvious practical reasons : can you imagine the chaos if Latin rite priests could be free to use any missal at random ? Canon law is also strictly restricting the number of masses a priest can celebrate, and always with the bishop's approval.
A universal PAA or several PAA would then be the perfect solution and in no way a "zoo". Within a PAA, this coexistence problem is automatically solved and priests won't have to beg for a trad-hating chancery permission. If a universal PAA is a zoo, then what is SSPX today ?
By the way, you should be in agreement with SSPX Superior general who told publicly in 2001 that a PAA was a "Rolls Royce" status for the Society.
If the Society is always right as you seem to say, so follow the words of your leader ...

Gaufridus said...

you seem to have forgotten that it was YOU who made an assertion that Pope Benedict had been a major proponent of the NO. I responded that he has been much critical of it, especially in practice.

How critical of the Novus Ordo was then-Cardinal Ratzinger when he lead the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Just curious.

The fact that he's only taken small steps since his papacy doesn't make him a proponent.

Small steps... This man is in charge of the Catholic Church. Surely, if he were against the Novus Ordo he could simply suppress it. He has the authority to do so. He hasnt. Nor has he brought back Catholic tradition to the Church in any other substantial or decisive manner.

Time will tell, but right now things dont look too promising.


Pax tecum

Gaufridus said...

alsaticus,

Do you really think any pope could, today, abolish Novus Ordo Missae?

Yes, I do. He is, afterall, the Pope.

But this is in no way an easy way as you seem to believe, for obvious practical reasons : can you imagine the chaos if Latin rite priests could be free to use any missal at random?

I dont recall having advocated allowing Latin Rite priests the freedom to use whatever missal they wanted to use at random. Surely, prior to Vatican II, all the Latin rite priests and bishops of the world used a standard missal. Just reprint and reissue those.

Canon law is also strictly restricting the number of masses a priest can celebrate, and always with the bishop's approval.

Sure, it might restrict the number of Masses, but it does not restrict the use of the True Mass.

A universal PAA or several PAA would then be the perfect solution and in no way a "zoo". Within a PAA, this coexistence problem is automatically solved and priests won't have to beg for a trad-hating chancery permission.

Perhaps as an interim solution, a PAA might be a good start. But, to reduce the True Mass to merely an "option" is not, in my opinion, a valid, long-term strategy if the overall objective is to restore Tradition to the Church.

If a universal PAA is a zoo, then what is SSPX today?

"...An international priestly society of common life without vows, whose purpose is the Priesthood and that which pertains to it" (http://www.sspx.org/). Since you asked.

By the way, you should be in agreement with SSPX Superior general who told publicly in 2001 that a PAA was a "Rolls Royce" status for the Society.

I am aware of His Excellency's opinion. As I said, maybe as a temporary, tactical objective, a PAA might be a good start.

If the Society is always right as you seem to say, so follow the words of your leader...

The Society is not always right -- and I have never (to my recollection) made that claim -- although I have yet to observe where the Society has been wrong. The Society's Superior General's opinion might be more prudent, given the current circumstances.

However, I see things a little more plainly:

* The Pope is in charge.
* He can order the Bishops to do restore the True Mass.
* Therefore, if he is in favour of Tradition and wants to see it restored to the Church, he merely needs to give the order.
* If the bishops dont obey, he should discipline them.
* If they do obey, he should reward them.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, like maybe he is in the process of stacking his Curia so that when he does give the order, he'll have his Cardinals loyal and behind him. One can only hope.


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum

dcs said...

So, in short, the restoration of the traditional Missal should be accomplished by the same dastardly means by which it was suppressed?

Moretben said...

SSPX Superior general who told publicly in 2001 that a PAA was a "Rolls Royce" status for the Society.

Yes - but you only quote half of the metaphor. Mgr Fellay compared the proposed structure to a Rolls Royce - which we could have, provided "we undertake to sit inside it and eat rotten apples" (the poisoned fruit of the Council).

Gaufridus said...

So, in short, the restoration of the traditional Missal should be accomplished by the same dastardly means by which it was suppressed?

Not in the slightest. The Novus Ordo Missae (Paul IV) was foisted upon the Church de facto, not de jure. The Mass of the Roman Rite (Pius V) still remains the actual Catholic Mass of the Latin Rite church de jure.

The problem is that most of the hierarchy is ignoring that fact because they cant get around the fact that the "Mass of St. Pius" is still (and must remain, if you accept Quo Primum) "on the books".

So, all that needs to happen is for the hierarchy to start "enforcing the law", so to speak.

It's kind of like the immigration problem in America. Or the Gun Control problem. The modernist/liberal answer to these problems is to write more laws. The traditional/conservative approach is to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

By that analogy -- if you choose to buy the Modernist line that the the Church needed reforming -- the Modernists chose to "write another law".

Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time. I dont know. One can only form an opinion based on the results of their tinkering with our religion (which they arent authorised to do; the hierarchy and the magesterium are only permitted to clarify it, not change it).

The results? Homosexual priests, clown masses, lay/female Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, rock bands, Gothic masses, a drop in vocations, closed Catholic schools, etc. ad nauseam infinitum.

The traditional approach (which is, by definition, the true approach since Scripture and Tradition are the two pillars of the Faith) is to "enforce the law" that was already on the books.

The rest of the world doesnt like the Faith? Tough. They havent liked it since the Crucifixion: they need to get on board or get over it. Why did we need to water down our religion to try and make ourselves "more relevant" to the Modern, heretical age? Think about it: it makes no sense, from a Catholic point of view.

(Where was I going with this...? Oh, yeah...)

The thing is, if the hierarchy enforcing the (traditional) Mass of the Roman Rite is considered to be "dastardly", then I guess I just dont really know what "benign" is.


Pax Domini sit semper tecum

Long-Skirts said...

Gaufridus said...

"Small steps... This man is in charge of the Catholic Church. Surely, if he were against the Novus Ordo he could simply suppress it. He has the authority to do so.'

I agree with you Gaufridus, but that's the difference between a man and a SAINT.

RED

Vestments of red,
Altar cloth too,
Martyrs who bled,
Did this for you.

Gold Tabernacles,
Veiled in red's hue,
Martyrs in shackles,
Hung for this view.

Red mums full bloomed,
In water and brass,
Martyrs consumed,
Burned for this Mass.

Red rays of sun,
Rose-streak the nave,
Their suf'ring done,
Now, red, we must crave!

With Peter said...

Guidonis writes "He is, after all, the Pope."

I just point out that you seem very selective in applying this principle.

Matt- This is not a popular thing to say on this website, but I have seen the new order done well and have great fruits. I have seen it and have become convinced that the traditional order is NOT in every imaginable way superior to the new. The new certainly seems in grave need of correction, but the simplified rubrics, expanded lectionary, and increased use of the vernacular and other such material participation are all capable of bearing the fruit foreseen by Paul VI.

My hope is that restoring privileges to the traditional order will produce a "rising tide" within the Church, giving impetus to stamp out abuses, correct aspects of the reform and cause a universal improvement in the celebration of the Mass.

My fear is that those who celebrate the new order well will abandon it all together and the potential of the new order, which I have seen realized with my own eyes, will be lost.

Does this still seem to lack reason? Can you be more specific about showing the contradiction in my thinking?

Gaufridus said...

Long-Skirts,

I agree with you Gaufridus, but that's the difference between a man and a SAINT.

I think I take your meaning. Well, I can only pray that our current Pope will begin to act "Saint-like" and do the right thing. The situation isnt hopeless, afterall.

BTW, I like your poetry. You seem to write a lot of it.

I wrote this, last year when I was overseas. I call it the "Lament for the Faith of Our Fathers". It's written after the manner of one of the poems I recall JRR Tolkien to have written in The Lord of the Rings (I think it was called "Where Now the Horse and the Rider"):

Where now the Faith of our Fathers? Where is the bell that was tolling?
Where is the Mass of All Ages, and Our Lord's Grace flowing?
Where is the Host raised to Heaven, and the Real Presence glowing?
Where is goodwill among Christians, and the true Faith growing?
Have they passed like dreams upon waking, like the wind through the willows?
A darkness has covered the West; our folk lie under the Shadow.
Who shall practice the Faith of the Martyrs' burning,
Or behold the Peace of God from the Christ returning?


Not very original, I'll grant you. I've never written poetry before. I should probably stick to ranting and raving and curmudgeonry in general. [laughter!]


Pax tecum

Long-Skirts said...

with Peter said:

"Where is the Mass of All Ages, and Our Lord's Grace flowing?
Where is the Host raised to Heaven, and the Real Presence glowing?"

"Amidst a mighty folk"

Beautiful, with Peter, beautiful...

STARKENBURG
The Holy Mass, that cannot die,
Was said amidst the oaks,
While pin-oak leaves came floating down
Around the simple folks,

Who knelt upon the acorn floor,
All dotted nutty brown.
The acorns cracked and old knees snapped,
Yet still there was no sound...

But the tinkling of the golden bells
As the White Host Son rose high,
On priestly limbs, like mighty oaks,
They branched up to the sky.

And in that wood, I laughed with joy,
Amongst the souls bowed down,
For the mighty oak was once a nut
That merely held it's ground.

So Christian souls, like acorn nuts,
Must burrow all around
And be the seed that sprouts new oaks
On consecrated ground...

Where the Holy Mass, that cannot die,
Is said around the oaks,
While pin-oak leaves come floating down
Amidst a mighty folk!

Gaufridus said...

Long-Skirts:

"Beautiful, with Peter, beautiful..."

I think you meant me, but thanks nonetheless! ;-)


Pax tecum

Matt said...

Matt- This is not a popular thing to say on this website, but I have seen the new order done well and have great fruits. I have seen it and have become convinced that the traditional order is NOT in every imaginable way superior to the new. The new certainly seems in grave need of correction, but the simplified rubrics, expanded lectionary, and increased use of the vernacular and other such material participation are all capable of bearing the fruit foreseen by Paul VI.

With_peter,

The fact that some good fruit has been found since 1970 does not mean that it can be attributed to the radical changes which were made in spite of the cautions made in Sacrosanctum Concillium (SC). In fact the rubrics where not really simplified, they were made banal, the expanded lectionary is not really expanded, it's watered down the doctrine... I could go on. One could argue that the changes called for in SC would be good, but what was done bears no relationship to it.

My hope is that restoring privileges to the traditional order will produce a "rising tide" within the Church, giving impetus to stamp out abuses, correct aspects of the reform and cause a universal improvement in the celebration of the Mass.

My fear is that those who celebrate the new order well will abandon it all together and the potential of the new order, which I have seen realized with my own eyes, will be lost.


If you think that the changes which were made that were not called for by SC are good, and fruitful, then I understand your position now, and recognize that it doesn't lack reason... it lacks prudence.

What I think that would be fruitful is a reform of the reform to make the Novus Ordo what was actually authorized by SC. That would be virtually identical to the TLM, with some very minor modification, which would probably be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of traditional clergy, and laity.

With Peter said...

It seems to me clear that the "Reform of the Reform" can, should and will in many ways retrace its steps to Sacrosanctum Concilium. Many bishops, even in our own country, are increasingly adopting this position. This path seems both prudent and full of possibility for an authentic renewal of the Church's liturgical fervor and doctrinal orthodoxy.

This being said, the magisterially approved changes made since SC must nevertheless be considered legitimate and valid expressions of the Church's ordinary authority to teach, govern and sanctify the Catholic Church. A position contrary to this would certainly be incompatible with the Church's dogmas regarding the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The fruitfulness or non-fruitfulness of these liturgical changes is not a closed circuit equation. Since the Feeney condemnation, the ascension of Dorothy Day and the election of JFK, American Catholicism has been afflicted with a predominent ideological liberalism which has prevented a faithful interpretation of Vatican II and the various directives eminating from the Council and post-conciliar Magisterium.

In those places where faithfulness and obedience have been preserved, however, these directives have been able to bear fruit. The new order, which--even when done faithfully--is far more superficial and desacralized from the angelic traditional order, has fulfilled Paul VI's expectations. Among modern lay people who have families and professions, the new order (if well-celebrated and catechized) has great ability to catch their attention and turn their mind toward sacred realities.

I have seen it time and time again with my own eyes. While I myself appreciate and prefer the traditional order, I have come to realize the great benefit and fruitfulness of the properly celebrated new order. It is a liturgy that helps evangelized pagans be transformed into thorough-going Catholics. The traditional order is only accessible to those who have been catechized and who hunger for more.

Matt, your picture suggests that you are a young man. Did you pass from a fairly well-celebrated, but somewhat abusive new order parish into the traditionalist community?

At any rate, regardless of your individual experience, this seems like a common story among young traditionalists, and I think it points to an almost universally overlooked compatibility between the two orders. Amazingly, even when the new is celebrated only somewhat well (i.e. with the intenion of being orthodox), it still has tremendous power.

MacK said...

The church authorities in Chartres, France are not happy at the prospect of such an institution within its boundaries.

Let us hope November does not bring yet more empty rumours. Little wonder many remain sceptical.

MacK said...

This issue demonstrates once again how far the French episcopate has betrayed The Roman Catholic Church; squandered in a scandalous manner its heritage as "daughter" of the church and how it has pandered to every modernist cause and trend to achieve the near total collapse of attendance at church on Sunday which is less than 5% of Catholics (87% of the population) as opposed to about 80% in 1960 and the closure and emptying out of seminaries throughout France. Furthermore, dioceses have been seriously downsized such as Lyon which was reduced from over 500 parishes into 40 or so in the face of a much reduced number of aging priest and the perilously few young replacements for them. I read a report that parishes there share priests, as consequence.

Anyone who has seen pictures of some of the liturgies that take place in France must wonder why it threw away its traditional inheritance so rapidly.

Considering that Cardinal Lustiger considered himself both a jew and a christian, in a public statement, and saw no difference between being either, perhaps answers to such questions come more easily than we think.

With Peter said...

Mack, St. Paul also considered himself a Jew and a Christian: "For I could wish to be anathema myself from Christ for the sake of my brethren who are my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rm 9:3).

In Romans 4, he makes the case that all Christians are made descendents of Abraham according to faith. One cannot find Christ except through the Old Testament. And one cannot become Christian unless he has made himself first a Jew. For if Jesus is born of Judah, and we are members of his body, guess what that means? If his mother is our mother, his Jewishness is our Jewishness.

MacK said...

St Paul was literally a Jew who became a Christian. He also lived at a time when the new covenant era had begun. This is understandable.

Lustiger, on the other hand, is a typical post-conciliar cardinal who is confused about his proper identity. Even two Chief rabbis of Paris disabused him of this particular piece of obsequious claptrap.

The two characters bear absolutely no comparison apart from both being male.

With Peter said...

It goes without saying that there are extremely profound weaknesses in an analogy between St. Paul and Cardinal Lustiger. But for the record, Lustiger was born Jewish; I think he was 13 when he converted to Catholicism. His mother died at Auschwitz if I am not mistaken. He is an ethnic Jew.

But as to the larger point, to become part of Christ's body LITERALLY means that his mother becomes our mother and his Jewishness becomes our Jewishness. The world does not recognize the Jewishness of Christians, but this is its mistake. Christians have received the entire patrimony of the Old Covenant and all that implies.

MacK said...

I am aware of his origins. Lustiger did not mean it in this sense which was pertinently picked up and criticised by two chief rabbis of Paris since they could see his comment for what it is.
St Paul was not indulging in ecumenical obsequiousness typifying many a post-conciliar cardinal these days. Had he meant otherwise perhaps the previous Supreme Pontiff John Paul (RIP) II might make similar claims.

With Peter said...

Yes, I think you are right. I have been interpreting his words according to their most orthodox possible meaning, but your suspicion of "ecumenical obsequiousness" (nice phrase, btw) seems justified. I think we are in agreement, Mack.

Peace,

MacK said...

Et cum spiritu tuo, Peter.

Honestly, Peter, every time that man opened his mouth I had nausea.
He developed problems with his voice later on in his career. I always thought that was mightily symbolical of a man who had a rabid dislike of "integristes". His power of speech was taken from him.