Rorate Caeli is pleased to provide excerpts here from a 14-page abridged version of the report prepared by FIUV's executive president Leo Darroch. The report surveys positive developments as well as ongoing challenges and setbacks. One of the more important comments in the abridged report is found on page 7, in the second part of the report:
What is clear from these new reports is that there has been a mixed reception of Summorum Pontificum which includes a serious level of episcopal disapproval in many countries. The good will displayed by many bishops has been offset by concerted and continual attempts by many other bishops to thwart the will of the Holy Father.
The interest in the International Federation is growing, particularly in Latin America. We have just admitted new associations from Mexico, Chile, Peru, and Colombia. We have recently had requests for help from Cuba and Honduras. We are even getting requests from young men and women who are looking for traditional seminaries and religious orders.
Excerpts from "Tradition Restored," Part 1 of the abridged report (bolded emphasis added):
. . . During His teaching ministry the absolute concern of our Saviour was for the redemption and the salvation of souls – all souls. And for this purpose he left a legacy of epistles and gospels and a teaching authority under Peter and his successors. In this respect our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is exercising the teaching authority bequeathed to him by Jesus Christ in ministering to all the souls entrusted to his care.
Perhaps the greatest reason for the current crisis in the Church is that too many people in the Church, particularly in senior positions, no longer accept the authority of the Pope. Where there is dissent, and where personality and self-interest are uppermost, there is decay and lapsation. Where Christ and obedience are to the fore the traditional life of the Church is allowed to flourish unhindered and the spiritual life of the Church flourishes, parish life flourishes, priestly and religious vocations flourish, and the vitality of the faith flourishes. The evidence for this is becoming more clear as each year passes. Those who refuse to recognise this are allowing their own human rationale and agenda to blind them to the undeniable growth that is taking place before their very eyes. They wilfully refuse to see what is becoming incontrovertible.
Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum the signs, increasingly, are encouraging; tradition is no longer fighting a losing battle, it has been restored to its rightful place in the Church and is now making quite clear progress. It may not be evident in some places but the positive and confident public statements by an increasing number of senior prelates on the Missal of 1962, on a return to the celebration of Mass ad orientem, and on reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling are becoming more widespread.
Tradition is the lifeblood of the Church.
The iron grip of Modernism is finally being loosened. It is a movement that has no past and no future. It is of the present, selfish and self-centred, with a blinkered vision that does not extend beyond the minds of its adherents. On the other hand, tradition has a secure foundation, a history, a present, and a future; a continuity. . . . We refuse to loosen our grip and abandon the faith and traditions so dear to our parents and grandparents, our great saints and humble sinners. We are adamant that we will not consign their lives, their faith, their liturgy, their fortitude and sacrifice in times of adversity to the fading memory of history. Tradition is a living thing and cannot be cast aside; it is impossible. Tradition is the lifeblood that flows through the veins of the Church and without it the Church will die. Our faith lives in the vibrancy of tradition as it has lived for 2,000 years and we will not dishonour the memory and steadfastness of our forebears by casting it aside in favour of an experimental modern creation; no matter how many times we are told that the new model is better for us. We would not abandon our family in life and we will not abandon them in death. This is our mentality, our driving force, and we cannot, and will not, change it.
Leadership, patience, and wisdom.
It has been a mark of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI that he is leading, by patience and wisdom, in the example of the Good Shepherd in gathering together a scattered and disenchanted flock. All his actions are guided by one principle: restoration of true Catholic liturgy for the unambiguous worship of Almighty God through the sacrifice on the altar of his Blessed Son. For it is the restoration of true liturgy that will revive the flagging spirits of clergy and faithful and be instrumental in the salvation of souls. By his courageous action in promulgating Summorum Pontificum, our Holy Father has now generated a debate at all levels in the Church about what was actually authorised by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. For forty years it has been taboo to discuss any aspect of the liturgical reform as though it were to be seen as a sign of disloyalty to Blessed Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI; as an act of disobedience to the Council, and a desire to turn back the great progress we are told, ad nauseam, supposedly has been made under the revised liturgy. Debate has been ruthlessly stifled and the liturgy has deteriorated as the nebulous ‘spirit’ of Vatican II has permeated every aspect of liturgical life.
It can be said, with some justification, that a desire for a critical examination of the liturgical reform has been driven, in great part, by the laity. Countless millions of the faithful have given their opinion of the liturgical reforms by abandoning the practice of their faith. This fact is incontrovertible. Others, who have refused to abandon their faith, have fought unceasingly for a restoration of the traditions of the Church and an authentic application of the wishes of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Since the end of the Second Vatican Council the essential truths of the Catholic faith have been jeopardised in the headlong pursuit of ecumenism; a pursuit, for some, that desired unity at almost any cost. It is the leaders in pursuit of this all-consuming objective that resist any countenance of a restoration of such clearly identifiable ‘Catholic’ Latin liturgy as enshrined in the traditional Mass. Quite clearly, the Latin language, for example, is not ecumenical in the currently accepted understanding of the word but it is truly ecumenical, and universal, in the fact that:“It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favour any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all…” [Bl. Pope John XXIII, Veterum Sapientia, 1962].
In promulgating the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum the Holy Father has done a great service to the Church in the search for truth. In this respect the new publication, Vatican Council II: An Open Discussion, by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, is a timely contribution to the debate. Monsignor Gherardini concludes his book by asking that the Supreme Pontiff,“clarify definitively every aspect and contents of the last Council. Such omnia reparare [reparation of everything] could be accomplished through a great papal document, which would go down in history as a sign and witness of the vigilant and responsible exercise of His ministry as the Successor of Peter.”
Videre Petrum.
In recent Episcopal ordinations Pope Benedict XVI said to each candidate:“The Gospel must penetrate him, the living Word of God must, so to speak, pervade him…. The first characteristic that the Lord requires of the servant is fidelity….He is entrusted with a great good that does not belong to him. The Church is not ‘our Church’, but His Church, God’s Church. The servant must give an account of the way that he has taken care of the goods that have been entrusted to him. ….We know that things in civil society, and often in the Church too, go badly because those upon whom responsibility has been conferred work for themselves and not the community, for the common good.”
To have fidelity to the Lord also requires fidelity to Peter, and things are going badly in the Church because too many bishops refuse fidelity to Christ’s Vicar on earth in favour of temporary self-interest. But to “see Peter” is not a mere tourist, let alone administrative, endeavour. It is all too easy to go to the Pope in audience and be unaware of the tremendous graces attached to physical proximity with the Successor of Peter. That is why the Apostle Paul took great pains to write to the Galatians to assure them that, after three years of contemplative prayers in Arabia, he went to Jerusalem to “see Peter.” Since Paul was the only apostle who did not witness the Resurrection, nor even met Our Lord, it was important for him to prove that he was no less of an apostle. Therefore, he had to establish the moral authority upon which his Pauline doctrine would be based. Sin ce that time Catholics, have always yearned to Videre Petrum.
However, Paul went to “see Peter” for an even more important reason, upon which the first reason rests. The Apostle Paul wished to ensure that his doctrine was in perfect accord with the doctrine taught by Peter, Prince of the Apostles. . . .
Thus, the faithful bishop, or, indeed, any Catholic, will always have the desire to videre Petrum, to “see Peter”, to refine his faith and discern his role in the Church in the light of the faith. We cannot “see Peter”, beneath what is human in his successors, unless we look, listen and speak with the spirit of faith. On an even more concrete level, bishops must approach the audience of the Holy Father in a spirit of love, which will open the soul, attuning it to the wisdom of what one will hear. That is required both before and after the audience, to better ruminate what one has heard. Those many bishops who fail to act in perfect accord with Peter should think very carefully about their leadership under Peter and the adverse affect it is having on their priests and their flocks. Perhaps, at the second anniversary of Summorum Pontificum, and entering the third year at the end of which they have to provide “an account of the way that [they have] taken care of the goods that have been entrusted to [them],” it is an ideal moment to consider their fidelity to Peter and ensure that their teaching is in perfect accord with that of the Vicar of Christ. Therein lies the “interior reconciliation” and “peace and serenity” so desired by our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to Bishops that accompanied his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
39 comments:
Is it me or is Papa a fantastic Pope? What a gift, perhaps not fully realized in my generation but future ones that will benefit from exposure to the Latin Catholic Faith in all it Glory and Splendour. A compassionate, caring generation, nurtured by a firm Catholic identity can only bring good to a world with so much bad and hatred. God Bless our Holy Father and his Pontificate.
Anon 01:58 Let's see what he has to say at Fatima in May, shall we?
Well, yes to most of that; except the part that identifies the cause of the problems in the Church as disobedience to the Pope. This ignores the fact that the current modernist hegemony is to a great extent the result of the policy of Paul VI, who backed the modernists at the Second Vatican Council and adopted a policy of promoting them throughout the hierarchy. It also ignores the dilemma that faces the current Pope and will face the next one as well, which is that exercising papal authority to undo the damage in the Church is extremely difficult to do because of the responsibility of previous popes in creating that damage - Paul VI primarily, but also John Paul II in going along with the results of Paul VI's policy. How do you command people to do the opposite of what previous popes commanded, without discrediting the authority of the papal office? This will require very delicate handling, and will probably be impossible without undoing some of the key elements of ultramontanism - undoing them by getting Catholics to realise that there are limits to the authority of the Pope, and that his authority is in the service of the faith rather than being the source of it.
Well, yes to most of that; except the part that identifies the cause of the problems in the Church as disobedience to the Pope.
No, that part is right too.
How do you command people to do the opposite of what previous popes commanded, without discrediting the authority of the papal office?
The reforming Popes of the Council of Trent and the post-Tridentine era had to do just that in many areas of the Church's life. Yes, it was a delicate, dicy thing, but it can be done.
If you look at the inovations after the Council. Many of the inovations began as acts of disobedience to the Holy Father.
E.G. Communion in the hand, Altar Girls etc...
However whats most dissapointing is the Pope's failure to hold firm to the principles and the general collapse of Rome to the Liberals on almost all fronts.
But I think you could truly say that many of the problems originated from disobedence.
Jeff
And where's the part in the report urging His Holiness to celebrate the Traditional Mass in public, where it can be shown on EWTN to millions? That one act would throw the fight against modernism into high gear. Why won't he do it and why doesn't the report urge him to do so?
Phillyguy: has hit the nail on the head when he remarks that so far the Pope has not said the TLM in public perhaps he is has some reasons e.g. to see rather to observe which Cardinals and Bishops are with him and which are against. I note sadly that EWTN seldom show even recordings of the TLM. Why does EWTN not play fair and celebrate an equal number of TLM's as the OF ? One would think they are resisting Summorum Pontificum. Who makes these decisions at EWTN ? Is parity of esteem too much to ask for?
While we are talking the disobedience theme how about mentioning the disobedience of many modernist prelates to Holy Tradition and the de facto obrogation of the TLM for many, many years? Oh, I see, disobedience only cuts one way, doesn't it. No one with half a brain would advocate open disobedience to the Vicar of Christ except in the most extreme circumstances when the salvation of one's soul was at stake.
"Perhaps the greatest reason for the current crisis in the Church is that too many people in the Church, particularly in senior positions, no longer accept the authority of the Pope."
Even the pope no longer accepts the authority of the pope because the post-conciliar collegial system has been propagated to gainsay it.
In "The Great Themes of The Council" ("Il Concetto della Chiesa nel Pensiero Patristico," in I Grandi Temi del Concilio" 1965) Fr Ratzinger stated that the bishops are responsible for the purity of the word and communion and that the papacy is only a horizontal point of unity with the bishops in a church that is a network of churches in communion with themselves.
He continues, "With this as departure point, we can also realize the earliest meaning of the Primacy of the Roman Bishop .... It merely signified that the Roman Bishop of the 'sedes Sancti Petri' was the central point of orientation in the unity of communion ....
The Primacy of the Pope was not understood, therefore, in the administrative sense, but was wholly derived from a eucharistic ecclesiology. This means .... that Rome incarnates the true 'communio' and, therefore, is the determining point of the horizontal relationship, without which a community cannot remain truly 'ecclesia'"
Now amidst this anti-hierarchical hypothesis as Cardinal in 1982 in "Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique", he also thought that bishops exercised their truly democratic function as representatives of the people: "Their duty is, above all, to be the voice of the simple faith of the people, and of their affirmations in their native simplicity...."
As a basic tenet of post-conciliar thinking therefore as he claims he is continuing the point from which the councils ended, in a collegial government the pope no longer has the power to impose his will but as a 'primus inter pares' who merely represents, like all his brother bishops, the 'vox populi' in its simplicity.
Fr Yves Congar also said in 1975 "Jean Puyo interroge le Pere Congar" that "Some say that only the Pope has universal jurisdiction in the Church, and that the jurisdiction of the Bishops proceeds from him. In my opinion, this thesis is absolutely unnacceptable. It has the advantage of being simple and coherent, but it turns its back on many texts and facts of early Christianity." He continued advocating collegial governance because "He could not act by his own power as 'Vicar of Christ'."
The post-conciliar reality is therefore collegiality which subsumes any residual papal authority to that of the episcopal college.
This represents yet another rupture with the past. Small wonder so many bishops do not obey the pope since they consider that it is only within the collegial framework that he may act with any, if any, authority.
" it is the restoration of true liturgy that will revive the flagging spirits of clergy and faithful and be instrumental in the salvation of souls."
Indeed, in its full and entire restoration but NOT its hybridisation. Nor should there be any sharing of its unique place guaranteed to it in the liturgical tradition of The Church with a "fabricated" anthropocentric liturgy which realistically follows a protestant norm.
Because he does not appear to be a traditionalist, per se. His motivation appears to be justice and charity, not traditionalism for it's own value.
And since he's not, his opponents sense that and know he won't employ any nuclear options, so they can just wait him out.
Redundant I am, but I want to ECHO Phillyguy's good question:
"And where's the part in the report urging His Holiness to celebrate the Traditional Mass in public, where it can be shown on EWTN to millions? ... Why won't he do it and why doesn't the report urge him to do so?"
Indeed.
I would LOVE to hear SERIOUS reflection on this - and whether it seems just a matter of timing - i.e. we can expect it sooner or later ...
OR really he is not going to do it?
Does the report seem a little short on facts and statistics?
"Our faith lives in the vibrancy of tradition as it has lived for 2,000 years and we will not dishonour the memory and steadfastness of our forebears by casting it aside in favour of an experimental modern creation; no matter how many times we are told that the new model is better for us."
Indeed! Can you imagine the Cathedral toilers who wrought with stone, by generations, to create such a masterpiece as Chartres, doing so for a novelistic liturgy created in a liturgical think-tank under the direction of a suspected Mason and confirmed modernist?
The Cathedral was built to house a liturgy hundreds of years in the making. A liturgy formed through countless sacrifices by Martyrs and Saints, organically giving rise to the magnificent Traditional Latin Mass. A mass which, according to even a non-catholic like Agatha Christie, has inspired much of the greatest art known to man, and by far the greatest musical compositions: from Palestrina to Mozart. What would are forebears have thought about us throwing such a thing into the trash-bin, and replacing it with a 1960's "banal, on the spot" product factory-produced with the help of six protestants?
http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-ingmar-bergman-orson-welles-chartres.html
Considering the fact that many, if not all, of the dire conditions we face today are the direct result of the failure of the last 7 Popes to Consecrate Russia, by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in the manner prescribed by Her, it is ridiculous to assert that Benedict XVI is a "fantastic Pope". Let him obey the Queen of Heaven, thereby ushering in the promised period of peace for mankind, and all mankind will happily proclaim him "fantastic".
Phyllyguy asks a question I often wondered about myself. Can it be so as to deflect unwarranted accusations, bound to come, of reversing Vatican 2?
Still, those making such accusations are already on the fringes of the Catholic Church. We are likely to loose them not to another religion but to secularism one way or another.
I am not sure really what to think. Those of us remaining would be better off but....
Does the report seem a little short on facts and statistics?
No, it certainly isn't -- but statistics make for rather dry reading, and there's not room to reproduce all of the many facts and survey results of the report, so I decided not to excerpt from those parts of the report.
I would speculate (not actually knowing, of course) that the Holy Father does not celebrate the EF Mass in public in order to avoid factionalism. This Pope is serious about uniting the Church and restoring a common Catholic sense of identity; he does not want to squander all that hard work by coming to be seen as the political leader of the "EF faction" against the "OF faction". He has already written enough on the role of liturgy and on the EF in particular for that possibility to occur, should he celebrate the EF before its time (i.e., once the EF is seen as simply a liturgy of the Church and not a political statement).
Without stats, the report is emasculated. What has then to be reported that everybody doesn't know already ?
I'll check at Una Voce website to see if they provide some.
As for the request for a papal celebration of TLM, it is a long story.
However a French erudite in liturgy wrote in another group that the papal Roman liturgy is extremely demanding and involves numerous people if the rubrics are to be followed with precision. He thought it was nearly impossible today to meet the conditions.
Otherwise the pope would have to celebrate a "downgraded" Roman liturgy, sort of simplified papal Mass. Benedict XVI could be reluctant to do so.
But maybe other bloggers can have an opinion on the technical aspect of a papal Mass.
Alsaticus
LEON: You seem up on Yves Congar. Do you know if he actually said "The Pope speaks for the right but acts for the left"? I've often read this quote attributed to him.
PAUL HALEY: You're right - disobedience only cuts one way in the post VII Church. I'm becoming more and more convinced that when the Paul VI spoke of a "new Pentecost", he literally meant it.
Delphina
Alsaticus, Rorate Caeli cannot reproduce even the 14-page abridgement in its entirety, let alone the 95-page report. The point is to alert our readers to the report and share a few excerpts to whet the appetite. Those who want to learn more can follow the hyperlinks and inquire of Una Voce International.
Alsaticus:
I have been very frustrated in not being able to access the report. Given my computer ineptitude, I'm afraid that, should I download so many pages, my computer will crash and die.
I wonder if you could report on what Mgr. Aillet decided for the Diocese of Bayonne. I have been waiting for this but have not seen anything. He was supposed to decide on a schedule on All Saints' Day. Is there a report on this somewhere on a French website? I've checked some but can't find anything, and there's nothing on Wikimissa or other French listing sites.
P.K.T.P.
The Holy Father may have promulgated SP to promote unity but as one comment stated, it doesn't mean he is traditional. Remember Our Lord said He would pray for Peter to turn and when he did to convert his brethren. St. Paul confronted St. Peter "to his face" and rebuked him. So the Holy Father isn't always perfect in his personal faith. It is quite possible that he will turn (to the traditional, integral faith) and then convert his brethren. Let us offer multitudes of Rosaries to this end. We know that he will consecrate Russia, but "it will be late". So apparently there is a lot that will be happening to change the Holy Father's mind.
While we are talking the disobedience theme how about mentioning the disobedience of many modernist prelates to Holy Tradition and the de facto obrogation of the TLM for many, many years?
Because the disobedience of Fr. X, Bishop Y, and Archbishop Z does not free anyone else from the obligation of obedience.
"However a French erudite in liturgy wrote in another group that the papal Roman liturgy is extremely demanding and involves numerous people if the rubrics are to be followed with precision. He thought it was nearly impossible today to meet the conditions."
I don't mean to be contrary, but I find this rather difficult to believe.
M.A..
There actually would be some problems with the Pope celebrating a Pontifical High Mass...some of the orders of ministers involved no lnger exist and so there would have to be some alterations made. I am not an expert on this, but I have seen this discussed at length in places other than "erudite French websites"...
That said, I believe there will be such a Mass at some point...but I agree with those who say that this Pope is watching and gathering information. This is not something that you can go back and take a "re-do" on.
Anon 1:16 We do know that, eventually, a Pope will do the Consecration properly and Russia will be converted, thereby ushering in the Triumph of the IHM. We do NOT know that it will be this present Pope. I personally believe that events will outstrip all the diplomatic niceties, and the Pope, whoever he is, will see that he has no recourse but to do the Consecration. It will certainly be late and the world will see the Power of God at that time. God help us!
The Papal Mass is a different liturgy than Pontifical High Mass. It would cause division instead of unity, so pope Benedict XVI won't do it. What for?
A REALLY good way for the Pope to demonstrate his will and desire for the 1962 Missal to be viewed as an acceptable and honorable Rite is for HIM to celebrate it HIMSELF; and not just mention it. He is the Pope, he can cut through all this with one fell swoop.
Phillyguy asked: Why won't he do it and why doesn't the report urge him to do so?
Have you read the unpublished 95-page report submitted solely to the Holy Father? If not, how can you be in a position to tell us what it doesn't say?
I have been very frustrated in not being able to access the report. Given my computer ineptitude, I'm afraid that, should I download so many pages, my computer will crash and die.
FIUV's website hosts a 10-page abridgement of the report, a few pages shorter than the 14-page abridgement provided to Rorate Caeli. It is a pdf file, but not a large one and it shouldn't crash your computer. It doesn't include specific information of the sort you would desire, however.
I wonder if you could report on what Mgr. Aillet decided for the Diocese of Bayonne. I have been waiting for this but have not seen anything. He was supposed to decide on a schedule on All Saints' Day. Is there a report on this somewhere on a French website? I've checked some but can't find anything, and there's nothing on Wikimissa or other French listing sites.
I don't know anything about this, and anyway don't know French, but Rorate Caeli has been informed by FIUV that the 95-page report includes an individual report on the state of affairs regarding the traditional Latin Mass in France. But as you might expect, due to when the report was compiled nothing specific about Bishop Aillet could be included. The general tenor of what FIUV's report says about conditions in France is not positive, as you might expect.
Dear Blog:
Last evening, Wikimissa was updated and it reports that Bishop Marc Aillet of Bayonne did indeed institute an every-Sunday and holyday Mass and appointed a newish Ecclesia Dei group (the Fraternity of St. Thomas Becket) to say it. This is a HUGE victory for the Latin Mass, not only for France but for the world. There are 550,000 faithful in the Diocese of Bayonne and it has been one of the major hold-outs against tradition. I add that H.H. appointed Mgr. Aillet only one year ago and that he is in his early fifties.
I am expecting that the Pope's new man in the Diocese of St. Denis will soon do likewise. St. Denis is the only diocese left in the Paris region which does not offer the ancient Latin Mass. 'Brick by brick' as Fr. Zuhlsdorf would say, except that I would add that this brick from Bayonne is bigger than most. It would probably take two men to carry it!
I'm off to buy a bottle of Dom Perignon to celebrate this victory in France! I haven't done all the numbers yet but 84% of the French dioceses now offer the T.L.M. every Sunday. I believe that well over 90% of French faithful live in these dioceses (I'll have to check for that number.)
P.K.T.P.
Thanks for sharing the good news, Mr. Perkins. Truly a day of joy.
To P.K.T.P.
Bp Aillet decided to create 2 new locations in his diocese indeed. One has been announced, the other one is to be announced later.
Bp Delannoy, the new Bp of Saint-Denis, was before in the diocese of Lille. I seriously doubt that he could be more open to TLM than his trad-hating predecessor.
Contrary to what people can think, the nomination policy for bishops in France has hardly changed : few "Benedictine" bishops are pro-TLM.
Recently the Bp of Langres' words, Bp Gueneley, have been published :
“Monseigneur Centène, on l’a fait plier. Monseigneur Aillet, on lui donne trois ans. Après, nous verrons. Dominique Rey, son diocèse finira par couler !!!” (Bp Gueneley)
translation : Bp Centène, we crushed him. Bp Aillet we give him 3 years. Then we'll see. Dominique Rey [Bp of Toulon], his diocese will finally drown.
These 3 bishops are loyal Roman bishops and all of them openly pro-TLM. It's true that Bp Centène has adopted a very low profile after his ordination and even made a tepid statement when the motu proprio was made public. He is acting as a frightened bishop.
Cardinal Vingt-Trois launched an attack against bishops who call for new movements in their dioceses, an allusion either to Bp Rey or Abp Cattenoz (Avignon), a way to confirm the statement of Bp Gueneley.
Alsaticus
@ P.K.T.P.
Here you hvave an oficial communicate od Bishop Aillet - about application SP in his diocese
http://www.diocese-bayonne.org/spip.php?article1637
I expected a little bit more :-)
On AMDG site : http://www.amdg.asso.fr/lieux_messes_spv.htm (see deprtament 64 Pyrénées-Atlantiques – Diocèse de Bayonne) is also listed Pau - as a place of potential celebration TLM.
*****************
Porys
Thanks for the added information, Alsaticus and Porys. Still, Alsaticus, I note that the Diocese of Langres is one of the least significant in France. In population, it ranks 89 out of 93 (140,000 faithful). Its Catholic population has also dropped dramatically under our archliberal Mgr. Gueneley, losing at least 8 per centage points (from 80% to 72%) in the ten brief years he's been bishop. What do the people do there, drive fast cars away from Langres? I also note that he is 71 years old and therefore beyond a promotion. Lastly, I note that he's in the north-east, the one pocket in France which is resisting the Pope.
I wonder, then, can we worry much about Mgr. Gueneley? He is 71 years a liberal and in a nothing diocese which is declining fast. Mgr. Aillet, by way of contrast, is only 52 and governs 550,000 faithful--and he is a creature of Benedict XVI, never having been a bishop before.
In regard to St. Denis, I note that all the other dioceses in the Paris region have the old Mass every Sunday, and that will help the new bishop from Lille to do the same, I think. Between the Archdiocese of Paris and the Dioceses of Versailles, Evry-Corbeil-Essones, Créteil, Pontoise, Nanterre, and perhaps Meaux, there are about 35 every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses, making Paris the certain capital of the world for tradition. I can't see how anyone could stop Mgr. Delannoy if he wants to have just one for his diocese!
Really, as I see it, the Number One enemy of tradition in real terms in France is Mgr. Jordan of Reims. Also, I note that there is no T.L.M. at all in Cambrai. Why is Mgr. Garnier blocking it? Anyway, the centre agaisnt tradition is now clearly the north and north-east: Cambrai, Soissons, Reims, Langres, Verdun, and Chàlons.
P.K.T.P.
P.K.T.P.
"I can't see how anyone could stop Mgr. Delannoy if he wants to have just one for his diocese!" P.K.T.P.
You forget One powerful person : himself.
The curriculum of Bp Delannoy is speaking volume : he is one of the "Benedictine" leftist bishops who have been regularly appointed, like Abp Niederauer in the USA or the promotion of Abp Wuerl.
Many foreigners have not yet a good picture of the French episcopate : Bp Aillet is like a meteor, he is the one and only - I repeat the one and only - French bishop normally wearing a cassock.
You have around 10 to 20 French bishops who are not hostile to the pope and TLM, among over 120 bishops. The president of FrenChurch, cardinal Vingt-Trois, is openly hostile to pope Benedict XVI and a rabid trad-hater to a degree you can hardly imagine, let's say he hates TLM and trads as much as Abp Weakland did.
Even moderate "conciliar" people are aghast when they realize the extent of this trad hating feeling among the leadership of FrenChurch. I remind everybody that the French bishops were the most vocal opponents to the Motu proprio in 2006-2007. They are basically the same, don't expect a miracle to convert them all overnight.
Yes Bp Gueneley is soon to retire, sooner maybe than 75yo. But this is not the point : the point is the "we" he used. "we" means the large majority of FrenChurch. This anti-ratzingerian episcopal leadership is entranched so far : one Bp like Bp Aillet or 2 or 3 won't change this reality. These good bishops offer hope and issues especially for trad-minded seminarians. Some moderate or wojtylian bishops are tempted to join the "Roman" party : for ex. cardinal Barbarin, Abp of Lyons, is sending some positive signals.
But it will be the main job of the newly appointed nuntio, Bp Ventura, to really change the awful nomination policy for the bishops. Otherwise progress will remain marginal.
Alsaticus
Dear Alsaticus:
In opening, I wouldn't put any hope in Archbishop Luigi Ventura, formerly papal nuncio in my country, Canada. His behaviour here in the scandalous case of Fr. Raymond Gravel can only be interpreted as one of aiding and abetting a hater of all things Catholic. Fr. Gravel is, in my view, the greatest living scandal in the Church's history--and he continues to function as a priest. He was a former male prostitute and used the priesthood to support abortion and sexual perversion--publicly--even on television.
I appreciate the information you have imparted to this blog about the French episcopate. I was already aware of all of it but many here would not be. There is a huge problem in France but, on the other hand, traditionalism is hard to suppress there. There are more Traditional Latin Masses per person in France than anywhere on earth. It is certainly true that nearly all of these came under the indult of John Paul II and not under Benedict XVI. In fact (of the 93 French dioceses), only Metz, Blois, Limoges, and now Bayonne have gained a first every-Sunday T.L.M. under S.P. (and I'm not sure about Metz: it may have come just before S.P.)
Nevertheless, the French bishops have a problem. Should H.H. get exacerbated with them and publicly recognise S.S.P.X faculties, they will lose most of their power over the ancient Mass. The S.S.P.X has a greater presence in France by far than anywhere else. It is a situation completely different from that of the U.S.A. Even Langres has an every-Sunday Mass offered by the S.S.P.X. They are in almost every diocese.
Still, all your points are very informatiive and sound. We are seeing almost no progress in France under S.P., whereas we are seeing a lot of progress in some other countries, especially Germany and New Zealand. Under S.P., the following countries are doing quite well: the U.S.A., Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K., and especially (of all distant places), New Zealand.
Under S.P., we are seeing very little progress in France or Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Portugal, the Philippines, or Australia.
It is harder to tell in the case of Canada or Ireland, but Ireland is starting to look hopeful. Latin America is improving under S.P. now but it has very far to go.
P.K.T.P.
"Phillyguy said...
And where's the part in the report urging His Holiness to celebrate the Traditional Mass in public, where it can be shown on EWTN to millions? That one act would throw the fight against modernism into high gear. Why won't he do it and why doesn't the report urge him to do so?"
Reminder EWTN is under Bishop Robert Baker, the Execs. in charge, and it's Board Members...why not write to them and ask these questions.
Go to B'ham Diocese-http://tinyurl.com/ygm5l2h
EWTN:
http://tinyurl.com/3dvunk
Warsaw, Keck, & Hults
http://tinyurl.com/yjoj35d
Post a Comment