Rorate Caeli

Preparing for the Third Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum
An ongoing worldwide report
UPDATED FOR ALL CONTINENTS


Our dear friend and reader Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins has prepared the following report, which will be updated in the comment box. All readers who wish to add new and up-to-date information are welcome to do so.
[DIOCESAN AND SSPX COMPARISON - UPDATE AT THE END OF POST]
_____________________________

As the doctrinal talks with the S.S.P.X continue, many might wonder what effect a public recognition of Society Masses (and preferably all faculties) might have. It is unlikely that Bishop Fellay can ask for regularisation (even on provisional grounds) owing to firm statements about this in the past. He will not do so until agreements have been reached on doctrine, and the other leaders of the Society would likely not accept a regularisation before this time.

In the past, it is likely that Rome did not recognise the ability of Society Masses to fulfil the Sunday obligation mainly because this might cause the faithful to abandon the New Mass in large numbers. It might have caused great division. So Rome let time pass, during which most faithful came to accept, even if sometimes reluctantly, the New Mass. Then, starting in 1984, by a number of initiatives, Rome gradually ‘let out the rope’ to permit a return of the T.L.M. as an option. The result is that, today, there are far more regularised Latin Masses than there are Society Masses. The rate of growth of the Society has also declined markedly, although it continues to grow quite surely. It is very difficult to estimate the extent to which the growing numbers of approved Masses have taken support away from the S.S.P.X. Approved Masses have been very few in some of the poorer countries but the Society cannot easily afford to offer Masses in such places: the financial costs are great for this.

What we can estimate is the impact a recognition of Society Masses might have if done today, this year. Would this cause a grave crisis? Would there be an enormous exodus from the New Mass to the Society Masses, or even from regularised Traditional Latin Masses to Society Masses? I argue here that the effect of such a recognition would be small in the short term but very important in the longer term. Therefore, it is safe for Benedict XVI to proceed with this, since he will not be Pope when the real effects are felt! The main effect of creating a ‘free-ranging’ S.S.P.X is secondary; It would induce obstructive bishops gradually to allow their priests to offer the T.L.M. without being penalised for doing so (e.g. by transfer to poor parishes or hospice chaplaincies). No bishop wants to have his authority undermined. Therefore, no bishop wants to have a free-ranging supplier of Masses to entire *his* bailiwick and attract people out of *his* Novus Ordo Masses (which are often singalong travesties). Most bishops in Western countries are already allowing a few Traditional Latin Masses. They would quietly encourage a few more to keep the S.S.P.X at bay.

My first point is that Benedict XVI has nothing to fear from liberal bishops if he announces publicly that the Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation to assist at Mass. In fact, he could even recognise Society faculties and the response from liberal bishops would be muted and not very effective. The main reason is that regularised Masses are now very common and as widely distributed in most countries as are Society Masses. I invite comment as I provide some statistics for various countries over the coming days. Before turning to specific countries, I here show changes in numbers of dioceses per country having at least one every-Sunday Traditional Latin Mass. These figures are all for regularised Masses, celebrated in full unity with local bishops:

I compare figures for 2005, when this pontificate began, and 2010. In each row I name first the country, then the number of dioceses offering at least one every-Sunday T.L.M. in 2005, then the same figure for 2010. Note the changes:


France: 65, (74 in 2008 & therefore little increase since S.P.), 78.

Italy: 15, (41 in 2008), 52 (more than a trebling since 2005).

Germany: 10, 23 (more than a doubling since 2005).

Spain: 3, 12 (quadrupling since 2005).

Poland: 6, 14 (more than a doubling since 2005).

Portugal: 0, 1.

Austria: 5, 7.

Switzerland: 3, 4.

Belgium: 5, 6.

Netherlands: 1, 3 (important increase but loss of Rotterdam, the one in 2005).

England: 9, 17 (almost a doubling and about to be complete [news coming from Arundel & Brighton]).

Scotland: 2, 3.

Ireland: 4, 6 (like Canada and the Philippines, Ireland is a ‘treading water’ country with ups & downs).

Wales: 0, 1.

Philippines: 5, 5 (there was a substantial increase and then a fall back to 5!)

Australia: 10, 11.

New Zealand: 2, 5 (huge increase: only one more diocese to go!)

U.S.A.: 112, 149 (substantial increase mostly from 2007 to 2009).

Canada: 11, 15 (after a rise to 17 in 2009)

Mexico: 1, 4.

Brazil: 7, 21 (trebling of numbers and not at all comparable to any other country in Latin America)

Argentina: 2, 2 (real obstruction from Bergoglio and company)

Colombia: 1, 2.

Peru: 1, 2.

South Africa: 0, 1.

Gabon: 1, 2 (credit to the I.C.R.)

Nigeria: 1, 1.

Hungary: 1, 3.

Czech Republic: 1, 4 (Olomouc just added this week).

Slovakia: 0, 1.

Ecuador: 0, 1.

Sweden: 0, 1.

_____________________________

TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS REPORTS FOR
EVERY-SUNDAY, REGULARISED & S.S.P.X,
BY CONTINENT, COUNTRY AND SEE, 2005, 2008 & 2010
[EUROPE, AMERICAS, AFRICA, ASIA, OCEANIA]
  • A. EUROPE

  • 1. BELGIUM (8 sees)

2005 - Regularised: 5 sees
2008 - Regularised: 13 Masses in 6 sees
S.S.P.X: 9 Masses in 5 sees
2010 - 15 Masses in 5 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees

  • 2. NETHERLANDS (7 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see
S.S.P.X: 4 Masses in 3 sees
2010 - Regularised: 5 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

  • 3. LUXEMBOURG (1 Archdiocese):


2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see
S.S.P.X: no presence

  • 4. FRANCE (93 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 65 in 78 sees
2008 - Regularised: 85 Masses in 75 sees
S.S.P.X: 214 Masses in 73 sees
2010 - Regularised: 201 Masses in 78 sees
S.S.P.X: 215 Masses in 75 sees

89% of the faithful live in a see having an approved every-Su. T.L.M.
This would rise to 96% if the S.S.P.X Masses were recognised by Rome

  • 5. GERMANY (28 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 10 sees
2008 - Regularised: 50 Masses in 22 sees
S.S.P.X: 59 Masses in 22 sees
2010 - Regularised: 54 Masses in 23 sees
S.S.P.X: 64 Masses in 19 sees

  • 6. AUSTRIA (9 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 5 sees
2008 - Regularised: 10 Masses in 7 sees
S.S.P.X: 10 Masses in 7 sees
2010 - Regularised: 13 Masses in 7 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 7 sees

  • 7. SWITZERLAND (6 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 3 sees
2008 - Regularised: 27 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 39 Masses in 5 sees
2010 - Reguarlised: 29 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 40 Masses in 5 sees

  • 8. LIECHTENSTEIN (1 Archdiocese)


2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see (same as 2008)
S.S.P.X: No presence (same as 2008)

  • 9. ITALY (214 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 15 sees
2008 - Regularised: 67 Masses in 41 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 10 sees
2010 - Regularised: 52 sees
S.S.PX: 15 sees

49% of the faithful live in a see having an approved every-Su. T.L.M.;
26%, in one having an every-Su. S.S.P.X Mass.

  • 10. SPAIN (69 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 3 sees
2008 - Regularised: 13 Masses in 9 sees
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 16 Masses in 11 sees
S.S.P.X: 4 Masses in 2 sees
35% of the Spanish faithful live in a see that has an approved every-Su. T.L.M.

  • 11. PORTUGAL (20 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 diocese
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 1 patriarchal archdiocese

  • 12. ENGLAND & WALES (22 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 9 sees
2008 - Regularised: 23 Masses in 14 sees
S.S.P.X: 16 Masses in 12 sees
2010 - Regularised: 38 Masses in 19 sees (1 Mass in Wales)
S.S.P.X.: 18 Masses in 12 sees (none in Wales)

98% of faithful in England & Wales now live in a diocese having an every-Su. T.L.M.

  • 13. SCOTLAND (8 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 2 sees
2008 - Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 3 sees (the same three, including Aberdeen)

  • 14. IRELAND (26 sees)


2005 - Regularised: 4 sees
2008 - Regularised: 4 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees
2010 - Regularised: 6 or 7 Masses in 6 or 7 sees (status of Tuam uncertain)
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 5 sees

  • 15. POLAND (40 sees)

2005 - Regularised: 6 sees
2008 - Regularised: 9 Masses in 9 sees
S.S.P.X: 15 Masses in 10 sees
2010 - Regularised: 16 Masses in 12 sees
S.S.P.X: 12 Masses in 10 sees

  • 16. CZECH REPUBLIC (8 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 1 Mass in 1 see
2010 - Regularised: 7 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: none listed every Sunday

  • 17. SLOVAKIA (6 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.

  • 18. HUNGARY (12 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: none.

  • 19. SLOVENIA (6 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 see
S.S.P.X: none.

  • 20. LITHUANIA (8 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

  • 21. ESTONIA (1 Apostolic Administration)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 A.A.
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Unchanged.

  • 22. BYELORUSSIA [BELARUS] (4 sees)

2005 -
2008 - Regularised: none.
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.
  • 23. SWEDEN (1 diocese)
2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 diocese
S.S.P.X: none.
2010 - Unchanged.


  • 24. OTHER


Eastern Divine Liturgies are available every Sunday in Malta (Greek Use), Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine (Ukrainian & Ruthenian Uses), Russia, Finland (Hungarian Use), Latvia (perhaps Russian Use), Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia.


  • B. NORTH AMERICA
  • 1. CANADA


2005 - 11 sees.
2008 - Regularised: 23 Masses in 13 sees
S.S.P.X: 18 Masses in 13 sees
2010 - Regularised: 28 Masses in 14 sees
S.S.P.X: 19 Masses in 14 sees

  • 2. U.S.A.


2005 - Regularised: 112 sees
2008 - Regularised: 295 Masses in 137 sees
S.S.P.X: 108 Masses in 64 sees
2010 - Regularised: 358 Masses in 149 sees
S.S.P.X: 116 Masses in 62 dioceses

  • 3. MEXICO


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: 9 Masses in 6 sees
2010 - Regularised: 11 Masses in 5 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 7 sees

  • 4. GUATEMALA


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 1 Mass
2010 - Unchanged.


  • 5. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


2005-
2008 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

  • C. SOUTH AMERICA
  • 1. BRAZIL (260 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 34 Masses in 16 sees
S.S.P.X: 7 Masses in 6 sees
2010- Regularised: 39+ Masses in 22 sees
S.S.PX: 9 Masses in 6 sees

Special Note: The real number of Masses offered by the personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney is mostly unpublished. The real number of approved Masses for Brazil today could be estimated to be about 50, but keep in mind that many of these are concentrated in the Campos area.

  • 2. ARGENTINA (64 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: no presence (briefly before that in 2 sees)
S.S.P.X: 19 Masses in 8 sees.
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: 18 Masses in 9 sees

  • 3. CHILE (26 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 7 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 6 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 2 sees

  • 4. COLOMBIA (74 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 4 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: 5 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 6 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 4 Masses in 2 sees

  • 5. PERU (44 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: no presence every Sunday despite having a chapel there
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: still not every-Sunday Masses at their chapel.

  • 6. ECUADOR (23 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: no presence
2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass in the Diocese of Guayaquil.
S.S.P.X: no presence

  • 7. PARAGUAY (15 sees)


2005 -
2008 - Regularised: S.S.J. does not publish a schedule, D. of Ciudad del Este
S.S.P.X: no presence published every-Sunday
2010 - Unchanged.


  • 8. URUGUAY (10 sees)


Reports of the regularised Sunday Masses now being offered every Sunday at Montevideo remain unconfirmed.

  • 9. BOLIVIA (18 sees)


There were reports of one priest offering our Mass privately (regularised). It seems he wants to keep the details private.

  • 10. OTHER


Nothing to report for Venezuela or the Guyanas. The S.S.P.X has Masses in Trinidad & Tobago at Port-of-Spain but they are every day *except* Sunday. Nothing for the Falkland Islands, of course.

  • D. ASIA
  • 1. PHILIPPINES

2005 - Regularised in 5 sees
2008 - Regularised: 7 Masses in 6 sees in 2007
S.S.P.X: 8 Masses in 2 sees
2010 - Regularised: 12 Masses in 7 sees
S.S.P.X: 5 Masses in 4 sees

  • 2. INDIA
No presence on any basis for regularised Masses
2008 - S.S.P.X: 7 Masses in 5 sees
2010 - S.S.P.X: 12 Masses in 7 sees

Current sees: Bombay, Madras & Mylapore, Goa & Damão, Kotar, Trivandrum, Tuticorin, Palayamkottai.

  • 3. CEYLON [SRI LANKA]


No every-Sunday Masses from any source but two diocesan priests of the A. of Colombo are now in training or offering our Mass privately. The S.S.P.X has occasional Masses.

  • 4. SINGAPORE


2 Masses in the Archdiocese from the S.S.P.X
No regularised Masses


  • 5. CHINA


1 regularised every-Su. Mass at Hong Kong.

  • 6. JAPAN


1 Mass at Tokyo, status uncertain.

  • 7. LEBANON


2 Regularised every-Su. Masses at Beirut.

  • E. AFRICA

  • 1. NIGERIA


2005 - 1 Mass regularised
2008 - Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: no presence
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: no presence

  • 2. GABON


2005 - 3 Masses in 1 see
2008 - Regularised: 4 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in the Archdiocese of Libreville
2010 - Regularised: 4 Masses in 2 sees (A. Libreville; D. Mouila)
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in the Archdiocese of Libreville

  • 3. BENIN


2008: 2 Masses in the D. of Natitingou
2010: unchanged
No S.S.P.X every-Sunday presence.

  • 4. SOUTH AFRICA


2008 - Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 7 Masses in 3 Archdioceses
2010 - Regularised: 1 Mass in Johannesburg
S.S.P.X: 7 Masses in 2 Archdioceses (Pretoria lost, it seems)

  • 5. ZIMBABWE


2008: S.S.P.X, 1 Mass, A. Harare
2010: S.S.P.X, 2 Masses, A. Harare
No regularised presence

  • 6. KENYA


2008 -
S.S.P.X, Mass at Nairobi, A.
2010 - S.S.P.X, 2 Masses at Nairobi
No regularised presence

  • 7. OTHERS


There are Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies every Sunday in Egypt, the Sudan (at Khartoum), Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

  • F. OCEANIA

  • 1. AUSTRALIA


2005 - Regularised: 10 sees
2008 - Regularised: 21 Masses in 10 sees
S.S.P.X: 12 Masses in 8 sees
2010 - Regularised: 25 Masses in 11 sees
S.S.P.X: 19 Masses in 9 sees

  • 2. NEW ZEALAND


2005 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 dioceses
2008 - Regularised: 10 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees
2010 - Regularised: 9 Masses in 5 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees

S.S.P.X Masses include D. Hamilton, where there are no every-Su. regularised Masses. 5 of 6 N.Z. dioceses have every-Su. regularised T.L.M.s; 91% of New Zealanders live in these.

152 comments:

Anonymous said...

Colombia Mass Update

In late May 2010 the Bishop of Zipaquira announced there would be a weekly latin mass in his diocese ( 1 hour north of Bogota). The mass location was not announnced. The diocean priest that will say it is older and was originally trained to say the mass when he was ordained.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

In the Philippines, there are 7 dioceses with every-Sunday TLM's:

http://tplb.ecclesiadeiphilippines.org/tlm-venues-schedules/

Anonymous said...

Mr Perkins,

Thank you for the hard work you have put in to logging the progression of new TLM's in the world.
Your tireless efforts are most assuredly appreciated.
I would like to make one comment on your post and one statement.

Firstly, the comment:
You rightly state that approved TLM's are outstripping FSSPX Masses in number, yet we must look at the real situation here.

Aside from the Ecclesia Dei Societies ie; FSSP, ICRSS, IBP, etc., most of the new TLM's take place in a regular diocesan parish which offers primarily the Novus Ordo Mass.
As such, the TLM, in many of these instances is offered at an inconvienant time, and all you get is the Mass[as awesome as this is]
You do not have a thriving community of traditional Catholics who have the devotional, or catechetical practices every Sunday that most FSSPX communities offer. Such as Devotions to the Sacred Heart prayed by the Archconfraternity of St. Stephen, the Legion of Mary and the Ladies Sodalitys, Altar Boy training and guilds, Baltimore and Trent catechisms for youngsters and converts, not to mention regularly scheduled confessions offered before every single Mass.

You rarely see these very essential elements of the Faith offered at the numerous diocesan TLM's springing up around the world.
All you seem to get here, is the TLM [sometimes only once per month]...and then everyone runs for his car to make the 2-3 hour drive home at 4pm Sunday afternoon.

Until these new diocesan TLM'S also develop some form of community around them that offers more than the sometimes only occasional Mass, then there will always be a need for the "vibrant" and "dynamic" "faith community" that the FSSPX and other Ecclesia Dei communities offer on a regular basis.
Secondly, I would like to make a comment on the licity of FSSPX priests offering Mass in "regularised" churches.
In this months issue of the monthly periodical on happenings in the FSSPX, there is a front page article on a group of FSSPX girls and two priests who attended the Anti-Abortion March this past January in Washington DC.
Apparently the FSSPX priests were permitted, by Basilica authorities, to offer the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in the US Capitol.
I have included a link here that shows a photograph and the article of an FSSPX priest offering Mass at the Basilica:
http://www.sspx.org/RCRpdfs/2010_rcrs/june_2010_rcr.pdf

So, apparently it is licit for FSSPX priests to offer Mass in public diocesan churches...or at least in the largest Catholic Church in the United States, the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception.
God bless
D.P.H.

Vox Cantoris said...

Is it fair to say that despite everything else, it is Catholics in the United States that will, through the Holy Spirit and Our Lady of America, be integral to leading the Church out of its present situation?

God bless America!

Anonymous said...

D.P.H. makes quite execllent comments, and I will only add a thing or two. What he says about communites is *very* important.

1. While it is true that regularised T.L.M.s are often at poor times (and I have done a study of this on one occasion), many S.S.P.X Masses are at poor times as well, although not nearly as many and for a different reason. Since S.S.P.X priests must cover large areas, they will often have a Mass at a good time and then travel some distance to offer Masses and less convenient times. It's all about manpower.

2. On liceity: this is not the first instance of dioceses allowing S.S.P.X priests to offer Mass at their sacred places. It has also happened in Venice, Italy, at Lourdes (I think) and elsewhere. When it does happen, the local bishop has given permission and liceity must be assumed, but not otherwise.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To answer Vox Cantoris:

It is true that American faithful are vital to the process of restoration. After France, America is likely the most important country in this process.

As to diocesan and S.S.P.X Masses, the diocesan Masses have long outnumbered Society Masses. I believe that it was by a factor of three to one the last time I checked, and the gap is much grater now than before. This is because American bishops, for all their faults, are far more co-operative with the Pope than are most of their European counterparts.

In France, it is quite different, and there are still more S.S.P.X Masses than regularised Masses. This provides me with an opportunity to move into the next subject here: specific statistics for France. Next post.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

Thanks for the correction. I fear that I may have consulted an outdated version of your site.

I note that, the Philippines is one of those countries that has had its ups and downs in numbers of T.L.M.s. Before 2000, there were none (except for brief durations). The numbers climbed impressively and then fell back, and now seem to be on the rise again. We can see similar up and down and up patterns for Masses in Canada and Ireland. These three countries seem to form a rather disappointing set. In contrast, the U.S.A. and Germany just go up and up and up with the numbers, while France went up and up and then stabilised at a flat line. New Zealand had a flat line for a very long time (years and years) and this was followed by a sudden surge that has not yet ended.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon. 15.44:

Thanks for the update on Colombia. I have a particular interest in Masses in Latin America.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

Please check again. Note that the numbers in that last are for dioceses that offer our Mass at least once on the every-Sunday basis, and not oeverall numbers of Masses.

P.K.T.P.

Gideon Ertner said...

Very good work. Since I am too lazy to look up catholic-hiearchy.org myself, could someone perhaps also give the total number of dioceses in every country - perhaps even calculate a percentage of dioceses with every-Sunday Masses as this would prove more comparable?

Anonymous said...

As another comment has pointed out, there is more to Parish life than just the Rite of Mass.

The data of P.K.T.P is misleading. The only reasonable comparison is between the Extraordinary Form Parishes (i.e. an FSSP personal parish) and the "parishes" of the SSPX.

If I am not mistaken there are less than 20 personal parishes in the entire world (I am not sure if that includes Campos, or not)

Freedom is at the core of this dilemma. If you are within the Catholic Church than you suffer in the current crisis. If you are outside the Catholic Church, you are free to create parishes anywhere you like. If the SSPX are within the Church than they would not be able to establish the "parishes" they have. Do the Russian Orthodox answer to Rome? The whole notion is absurd.

It is the same with the laity. If you are Catholic then you are militant and suffer. To take refuge at an SSPX "parish" is desertion.

Anonymous said...

Mr Perkins,

I know for sure of at least two other diocesan parishes where the FSSPX has been permitted to offer Mass recently: The Diocese of Rome, The Vatican [San Pietro] and the Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina.
D.P.H.

Paul Haley said...

The whole matter could be summed up by one very important question -- what has Rome done to recalcitrant bishops who refuse to establish a Traditional Parish in their dioceses? I say "parish" because as has been pointed out it's more than just a Mass once a week; it's about the catechesis that goes along with it. Until and unless the directive to do so comes from the top down, bishops will be able to minimalize TLMs in their dioceses.

But there is and added dilemma involved and that is - how does one marry the TLM and the Faith that it inspires and signifies with the banal products that are celebrated in many, in fact the vast majority, of catholic churches in any one diocese of the country? It is impossible for me to see how this marriage of "forms" can be sustained with the vast majority of bishops preferring the "Ordinary Form", that is, however, unless the Holy Father establishes the worldwide juridical structure for the Traditional Mass and catechetics that guarantees no interference from modernist bishops.

Now I don't mean to throw cold water on the ecclesia dei movement but IMHO numbers only tell part of the story. The intransigence of the modernist hierarchy is the real problem and the only way IMHO to deal with it is to circumvent it with a worldwide juridical structure for Tradition. This is the only way to consolidate existing Traditional orders, including the SSPX, under a structure with its own bishops and places of worship. It is also the only way the SSPX will ever agree to reunification.

I realize, of course, that many will not share my point of view and consider me a separatist, or some other slur, for espousing such a thing but it's my view for better or worse.

Anonymous said...

Special Note on Indonesia:

Has anyone noticed that H.H. retired Cardinal Darmaatmadja of Djakarta this morning? Cardinals who are good boys (like Vidal in Cebu, for instance) get an extra five years after 75. Cardinal who are baaaad boys (like Baloney of Los Angeles) get removed just after they blow out all 75 candles on their cakes. Darmaatmadja was the prelate who said that "Summorum Pontificum" was not intended for his country. He was only 75½. Of course, bad health may have been the reason for his early departure. But I wonder ....

At any rate, this is like a warning to other cardinals. That means you, Policarpo of Lison.

P.K.T.P.

Athelstane said...

First, thanks as always to Mr. Perkins for gathering this information.

Second, DPH notes that a great many of the TLM's offered are by diocesan priests (this is the case for myself as well), and the result is too often that only the mass is offered, in isolation (usually just once a week), without the full sense of a traditional community. Which is certainly true. And unfortunate.

But it seems unlikely and (unfortunately) unreasonable to expect such full-fledged communities to emerge in anything but Ecclesia Dei parishes. And in reality, Ecclesia Dei orders like FSSP and ICRSS have expanded as fast as opportunities have emerged, often to the point of stretching them thin; if 50 U.S. dioceses decided tomorrow (mirabile dictu!) to invite either order in, neither could accede to more than a handful, I expect. I can think of a handful of exceptions to this, where traditional or (more often) semi-traditional communities have emerged in a diocesan parish run by an exceptionally energetic and traditional-leaning priest with the indulgence of his ordinary; and this gives me hope that down the road more of this kind of thing will be possible. But for the time being, alas, the diocesan priests of this temper and training are few and far between. This will change gradually as more young traditional-minded priests are given their own parishes by (hopefully) supportive bishops.

Mr. Perkins' statistics are striking. On the one hand, they remain pitifully small, even in the U.S. and France - virtually nonexistent in most of the Catholic world. On the other hand, the progress is real and substantial, and in many ways unthinkable a mere decade ago. Traditional orders have grown and multiplied by leaps and bounds. It is also clear how much the U.S. leads the way. Even if traditionalism is greater proportionally in France, the episcopacy there remains mostly opposed, whereas in the U.S. a number of sympathetic bishops have been recently appointed and have made their impact felt. As bad as it is in the U.S., it's probably the best (or rather least bad) bench in the world at this point. So we may hope that America will set a positive example for others.

As for the SSPX: Unfortunately I see no prospect of any provisional arrangement, even a quiet announcement that Society masses fulfill the Sunday obligation; it will be hard to resist the logic that other sacraments can be licitly received there as well. But both sides seem serious about at least trying to reach a doctrinal concord, so we must take hope in that and continue to pray.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins has been making this argument in season and out for some time now. Unfortunately, it isn't getting any more coherent.

Its basic premise is that the Holy Father can be sold on the following: SSPX is not really that much of a much, and so the Holy Father can safely say that its Masses are OK.

(Of course, Mr. Perkins doesn't really believe that the SSPX isn't much of a much. He believes that if it can get the papal blessing, so to speak, the muscle of the SSPX will produce a great increase in the force of tradition. Otherwise, why would he care whether or not the SSPX gets recognized?)

But how can anyone convince the Holy Father to unleash the SSPX lion by telling him that it's just a lamb? If it is a lamb, why should he waste his time?

Or is the point that the Pope wants, if not victory for tradition, at least a strong comeback for tradition, so that he can work it into his synthesis of old and new?

I myself see no evidence of this.

Furthermore, if it were true, and the Pope could OK the SSPX Masses without much trouble, why hasn't he long since done it? What is he waiting for?

He hasn't done it because, quite apart from everything else, he maintains that the Society is not in "full communion" with the Church, and that the shortfall is at bottom doctrinal -- the refusal to accept Vatican II. That's what the Vatican-SSPX conversations are all about. What sense would it make to OK the SSPX Masses while simultaneously continuing to maintain that the Society is not in "full communion" with the Church because it does not accept the full dcotrine of the Church?

On the other hand, what sense would it make for the Society ot accept Vatican II and thereby destroy its raison d'etre? Go take a look at a year's worth of back issues of the Angelus: the anti-Vatican II vollies continue unabated, as unanswerable as ever.

I am a strong supporter of the SSPX, and one of my sons has just finished his fourth year at Winona. But the real issue is not the size of the SSPX, or even the SSPX itself. It is the defense of the whole and unadulterated Faith. The Mystical Body of Christ will not die. The issue is who will remain its members by persevering in the Faith, and where they can best go for assistance in persevering.

Anonymous said...

I agree emphatically with Mr. Haley's comments about the need for a juridical structure.

In terms of episcipal obstruction, I have very good contacts in some places and could relate some nasty stories, like the one about the bishop who threatened to remove a priest's right to binate and trinate if he didn't stop offering the T.L.M. There are others--many others.

In most countries, there is a gradual accepatance of the motu proprio as bolder priests become more insistent. But the bishops are often slowing down the process markedly. Just two examples from the Old South U.S.A. are in order: those of the Archdiocese of Mobile and the Diocese of Beaumont. In both cases, locals are having to go through all the procedures just to get a Mass. You'd think they were seeking licences to kill babies. They, the petitioners, have just been contemned and ignored by their spiritual pastors.

In France Mgr. Gueneley of Langres and company have been trying to put a stop to any new locations for the T.L.M. Month after month after month now, the traditionalists in France report no new locations. Their websites mostly only indicate small changes in times or moves from one venue to another. The Pope is simply not doing anything about this group of obstructors. There is an area in the north-east of France--six contiguous dioceses--which have no every-Sunday T.L.M.s. I refer to the Archdiocese of Reims and the Dioceses of Cambrai, Soissons, Verdun, Chålons, and Langres. Something needs to be done.

There is a similar area in the U.S.A., consisting of four dioceses in West Texas plus the Diocese of Las Cruces, governed by mad Bishop Ramirez. I have received information recently about how this archenemy of tradition has taken direct action to prevent his priests from offering our Mass or inviting other priests to offer it. It is time for him to go, along with Gueneley. The Sixties are over but they don't realise this yet.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To the annonymous (brave?) soul who
refers to SSPX laity as deserters:

The purpose of the Universal Church is the salvation of souls. How does it save souls by knowing that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated but continued to act as though it was for over twenty years. Permission for it through the indults have been bogus for that amount of time. we did not need an idult. We needed the truth. The SSPX was correct in maintaining it was never forbidden all along. The indults were used as carrots to those who wanted the Old Mass if they would buy the Vatican II package and the NOM.

Please tell me how by supporting the only religious order that was able to get the truth about the Old Mass and discussion started to get to the crux of our problems with Vatican II I am a deserter to the Catholic Faith. Did the Holy Ghost talk to you or are you just another Liberal Catholic posing as a neo con?

A.M. La Pietra

The reason for the success

Anonymous said...

In answering Mr. McFarland, I would say, first, that the S.S.P.X is neiher a lion nor a lamb. It is very much in-between.

My view is not that the S.S.P.X will die as the regularised Masses continue to take over. On the contrary, the Society has a strong phalanx of loyal supporters; it wiil perdure indefinitely into the future--for as long as our Lord needs it. But I think that its direct influence will wane as regularised Masses continue to outnumber Society Masses. I write 'direct' becuause, much as some bloggers here will deny it, the entire regularised 'indult' movement owes its very existencde to Abp. Lefebvre and the S.S.P.X.

In the 1970s and 1980s--and even beyond--Rome did not dare to 'approve' the S.S.P.X for fear of a repudiation of NewMass as people abandoned that sad clown singalong liturgy. But forty years have now passed. The Pope figures that he can now *afford* to unleash the Society because most of the Baptized have come to accept NewMass as the norm, howsoever reluctantly. All of us combined--indult and S.S.P.X and unaffiliated--are less than one-third of one per cent of those who call themselves Catholic.

Moreover, the Pope needs to use the S.S.P.X to get the local liberal bishops to stop obstructing his motu proprio. Most of the liberal bishops are governed by pride. The one thing they don't want is the appearance that they do not control their sees. So they will reluctantly admit T.L.M.s to keep the S.S.P.X at bay. The way for this is now being prepared by making provision of the T.L.M. a norm. Consider that there are now every-Sunday T.L.M.s in 85% of American sees and 84% of French sees, and these are mostly the more populous dioceses, so that over 95% of the faithful in both countries live in a diocese that has at least one every-Sunday T.L.M. The story is similar now for Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the U.K., New Zealand, Belgium, Australia, Gabon, and even Poland and Spain are now catching up to this.

This is all in the interest of the S.S.P.X, which does not exist for itself but for the Church. It wants an increase in Traditional Masses and an increasing influence from Traditional Masses.

Again, what I am arguing is not that the regularised Masses will finish the S.S.P.X. I am saying that, should the Holy Father recognise Society Masses today, the short-term effect would be very small but the long-term effect would be--or could be--significant. The Society lamb would become more and more robust in his regularised lambkins, and eventually become ... a lion. But not during the time of this lot of Bolshevik bishops. Unfortunately, Benedict XVI is determined to let them all die in peace. He believes that a pacific policy is necessary so that liberals can be gradually deliberalised and re-catechised. He wants to avoid a schism on the left at all costs.

This Pope is concerned about the future and not just the present. His time here below is nearly at an end and he needs to do something to help restore the Holy Faith. I think that he wants this and senses a need to advance tradition, despite his own attachment to erroneous theological ideas from the foolish Sixties.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note:

The episcopate most favourable to tradition is clearly that of New Zealand, and I may comment more on this in the future. At present five of the six Kiwi dioceses have at least one T.L.M. every Sunday. (The Diocese of Christchurch has both the F.S.S.P. and the Orphans--um, I mean, Sons--of the HOly Redeemer.) The hold-out is from the Diocese of Hamilton, govened by one of the last Pauline bishops in all of Oceania--Bishop Browne. He has about two years to go, unless he slips on a banana peel before them. (Are there bananas in N.Z.? No, well one could slip on some sheep dung, I suppose.)

P.K.T.P.

porys said...

Some corrections about Poland,
In 2005 there were 5 locations with every - Sunday TLM e.g.: Kraków, Wrocław, Warszawa, Lublin, Poznań.

In 2010 there are 14 - Kraków, Wrocław, Warszawa, Lublin, Poznań, Bytom, Rzeszów, Toruń, Bydgoszcz, Gdańsk, Owińska, Józefów, Zielonka, Łódź.

As to Slovakia - there is no any Sunday TLM - in Mosty near Bratislava TLM is celebrated Saterday evening

porys said...

Sb has asked about TLM parishes. Here is the list: http://traditionalparishes.net/

Updating and corcting P.K.T.P's list

- Brasil - in 2005 there were at least 12 locations with every Sunday TLM (all parishes of Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney).

- Hungary - in 2005 there were no any regular TLM, and in 2010 there are 2 Sunday TLM (Budapest and Szeged - where is the third?).

- Czech Republic - there were no any Sunday TLM in 2005 and now there are 4: Prague - Old Town (OP), Prague-New Town OCist, Pilsen (OP), Litomerice. I haven't heard about incresing times of celebrations in Olomouc - which are actuly 2 sundays in month.

There is also localisation (and even TLM personal parish) in Benin, It also existed in 2005

Nigeria - FSSP also celebrates every Sunday TLM in Port Harcourt (apart of their parish in Orlu).

Mexico - I think there were no any regular celebrations in 2005. Where are now TLM regulary celebrated besides FSSP location in Guadalajara?

Plese update also wikkimissa - which is international date base of TLM.

Attende said...

I would be amazed if it is really true that the New Zealand bishops are the most "open to tradition". I also believe PKTP is doing a serious injustice to the bishop of Hamilton. And I would also be staggered if there is really a Sunday Mass in the diocese of Palmerston North at all apart from the SSPX in Wanganui.

The reality is that the New Zealand bishops liturgical sense has been largely limited to imitation of the style of the New Zealand Anglican service book which attempts to localise the liturgy by linguistic tokenism in the form of occasional use of Maori words and phrases.

With the exception of the Christchurch diocese the EF masses are in out of the way places and so far from being welcomed they are marginalised. Contrary to the notion that they are the fruit of SP most are survivors from Quattuor Abhinc Annos in 1984.

Anonymous said...

Some precisions :
"n France Mgr. Gueneley of Langres and company have been trying to put a stop to any new locations for the T.L.M. Month after month after month now, the traditionalists in France report no new locations. Their websites mostly only indicate small changes in times or moves from one venue to another. The Pope is simply not doing anything about this group of obstructors. There is an area in the north-east of France--six contiguous dioceses--which have no every-Sunday T.L.M.s. I refer to the Archdiocese of Reims and the Dioceses of Cambrai, Soissons, Verdun, Chålons, and Langres. Something needs to be done."

- Apart from Reims, these are quite small dioceses (especially Soissons, Verdun, Langres) : for Americans, imagine Idaho or North Dakota ...
In 1998, HALF of the French dioceses had no TLM.
So the improvement has been huge for the whole French Church. By the way, there is a TLM in Reims not all Sunday but there is one where there was none.
- in the past 3 years, TLM locations have increased notably
- more spectacular, diocesan priests/deacons are ordained by Bp Rey (Fréjus-Toulon) for TLM which is unique in the world. Only one French diocese I agree but one of the most fruitful in vocations.
- for the first time in history, the cardinal-abp of Paris (though quite a trad-hater) took part to the Pentecost Chartres Pilgrimage this year

Oh yes French Tlmers are far from being accepted everywhere ; blockades and various types of obstruction are still used widely but there is no doubt that S.P. has been a booster for TLM in France.
There are still progress to be made and numerous petitions left unanswered locally. Priestly training to celebrate TLM is still in infancy.

I also think that S.S.P.X Mass locations are no more the majority of TLM locations in France.

It is crystal clear that P.C.E.D. under cardinal Hoyos and now C.E.D. have done nearly nothing to implement the Motu proprio where trad-hating bishops/pastors are deliberately turning it down.
Can I say I'm not surprised at all.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Dear Attende:

I am well aware of the fact that the N.Z. bishops are liberals, but they seem to be liberals who will at least tolerate the T.L.M. And, yes, the T.L.M. is now available on the every-Sunday basis in the Diocese of Palmerston North. I can post the churches (it is split between two in rotation) if you wish.

As for Bishop Browne, facts are facts: his diocese stands alone in not having Sunday T.L.M.s apart from those of the S.S.P.X, and he is indeed one of the last remaining bishops consecrated to the episcopate by Pope Paul VI. By the way, can you explain why he was demoted from Auckland to Hamilton? I have always wondered about that--not that I mind. The more demoted he is, the better.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus has some useful comments. Let me respond to them one by one:

"- Apart from Reims, these are quite small dioceses (especially Soissons, Verdun, Langres) : for Americans, imagine Idaho or North Dakota ...
In 1998, HALF of the French dioceses had no TLM.
So the improvement has been huge for the whole French Church. By the way, there is a TLM in Reims not all Sunday but there is one where there was none."

First of all, Reims is one of the most important sees in France, an archdiocese which was once the royal captial. It has the T.L.M. only one Sunday per month by the I.C.R. and this has not changed now for YEARS. What on earth is going on there?

Secondly, Cambrai ranks number 8 out of 93 for populationi in France. Is that like Idaho? Not. There are no T.L.M.s in that diocese, not even from the S.S.P.X. Change is needed there: fast and now.

Third, it might interest you to know that Idaho is one diocese that has the F.S.S.P. all over. As for North Dakota, the Diocese of Fargo has THREE every-Sunday T.L.M.s. So these are not the best examples! (It is true that the other half of N.D. is not served, in Bismarck.)

Verdun has only one Sunday Mass per month and it uses the 1969 lectionary. The Bishop there is not a friend!

It is true that Châlons and Langres have low populations but Langres has S.S.P.X Masses every Sunday--so why not diocesan T.L.M.s?

More to come!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus writes:

in the past 3 years, TLM locations have increased notably
- more spectacular


Yes, this is true, and I was coming to this! It is true even for the past two years, but not for the past one year. Something is now slowing everything to a crawl. I wish to elaborate on this in my next post, on France.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

MORE DETAILED REPORT FOR FRANCE

France is the most important country in the traditionalist movement. It is both the centre of tradition and also the very centre of reform; France is where the conflict lies above all, where the Vendée meets the Revolution. This might also explain why the best books on this conflict are written in French, so it helps to have read some of these. It is from France that the S.S.P.X came and mostly from France that liturgical reform came before the 1960s.

Just two years ago, in July of 2008, there were 214 every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses being offered in France by the S.S.P.X. In comparison, there were only 85 being offered by the dioceses and approved socieities (I call these 'regularised'). So the S.S.P.X Masses outnumbered the regularised Masses by more than two to one.

Today, almost exactly two years later, the number of Society Masses has risen from 214 to 215: only by one. In wild contrast to this, the number of regularised Masses has risen from 85 to 202; it has more than doubled! Even more remarkable is the fact that this huge increase mostly came from July of 2008 to October of 2009: about fifteen months. There have been additions since then but at a very slow rate in comparison. Mgr. Gueneley is perhaps having his influence. Alsaticus might comment on this.

It is clear that, given this huge change, the numbers of regularised every-Sunday Masses will soon outnumber those offered by the S.S.P.X. The two are almost equal now: 202 for the regularised and 215 for the S.S.P.X (plus its affiliates at Morgon & Avrillé, &c.).

PART TWO ON FRANCE COMING: COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF DIOCESES.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PART II ON FRANCE: THE DIOCESES


There are 93 Latin dioceses in France. In comparing numbers to the U.S.A., we must keep in mind that France is many times smaller geographically but has fewer faithful (although the numbers overall are close).

What my analysis finds is that the distribution of Masses across dioceses makes regularised and S.S.P.X Masses about equal. For example, in very underpopulated dioceses such as Mende and Viviers, there are no every-Sunday Masses either regularised or from the S.S.P.X.

Even three years ago, when the overall number of Society Masses was more than double regularised Masses, slightly more dioceses had regularised every-Sunday Masses in their territories.

Three years ago, 75 dioceses had regularised Masses every Sunday; 73 had S.S.P.X Masses every Sunday.

Today, the number of dioceses having every-Sunday T.L.M.s is up from 75 to 78; for the S.S.P.X, it is up from 73 to 75.

If Society Masses were recognised by Rome tomorrow, the following French sees would gain every-Sunday T.L.M.s:

Reims, Soissons, Langres, St-Denis, Rodez (by combination of Society and non-Society Masses), La Rochelle, Tulle (Abp. Lefebvre's old see), Ajaccio (on Corsica), St-Claude.

At present, 89% of faithful live in dioceses in which there is at least one every-Sunday regularised T.L.M. That per centage would rise to 96% if Society Masses were publicly recognised by Rome.

My overall conclusion is that (a) regularised Masses will soon outnumber S.S.P.X Masses in France and (b) regularised Masses and Society Masses are distributed throughout France about equally across the dioceses. This means that, if S.S.P.X Masses were recognised by Rome tomorrow, it would have only a very small effect in the short term. Nearly all S.S.P.X people would continue going to Society Masses, and only a small number of non-Society traditionalists would go to Society Masses owing to convenience of location.

Short-term, recognising Society Massees would have little effect: it would not challenge the authority of very many French bishops.

The problem in France remains the cabal of Bolsheviks in the north-east. They are keeping the Mass of Tradition out of an entire area of France, a veritable spiritual desert, I might add. Meanwhile, the S.S.P.X can help by sending priests especially to the very populous Diocese of Cambrai and from thence to Verdun.

The French Episcopal Conference should consider one small change to its policy: every diocese should have at least one T.L.M. every Sunday if the faithful ask for this. Please, just one!, and the problem would be solved because most have more than one already. The average French diocese already had 2.5 every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I thought that the new code of canon law removed the language specifying that a catholic rite had to be licitly celebrated for it to satisfy Sunday obligation.

The Canon Law Society of America has taken the view that this removes the requirement.

Knight of Malta said...

"...not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS."

Now who wrote those words? A member of FSSPX? Nooo, none other than Msgr. Gherardini, a Canon of St. Peter’s Basilica, a secretary for the Pontifical Academy of Theology, a professor emeritus at the Pontifical Lateran University, and the editor of Divinitas, a leading Roman theological journal.

Sooo, things are stirring in Rome, and I believe the TLM as well as Vatican II are being seen in a new, improved light. Reports are that the Pope has received and read a copy of the book by Msgr. Gherardini, "Vatican Council II, A Much Needed Discussion." If there are any liberal blowhard boobish bishops reading this, I've very sorry for the pain this must cause you!

http://hospitallers.blogspot.com/2010/06/ecumenical-vatican-council-ii-much.html

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Dear Mr. Palad:

Please check again. Note that the numbers in that last are for dioceses that offer our Mass at least once on the every-Sunday basis, and not oeverall numbers of Masses.

P.K.T.P."

Yes. I know that the list of Philippine TLM's is somewhat confusing (I was by the side of our webmaster as she was tweaking it and for some reason it was difficult to format it well). To make things clearer: there are every-Sunday TLM's in the Archdioceses of Jaro and Cebu, and in the Dioceses of Cubao, Baguio, Military Ordinariate, Bacolod and Bukidnon.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone how a realistic idea when the F.S.S.P.X. will be regularised, across the board?
D.P.H.

C. said...

The goal should be one EF Mass in every Latin parish.

The alternative, an OF Mass--vernacular or Latin--celebrated completely according to the books, is laughable. Not even the Pope celebrates according to the OF books. It is done in maybe a few places in the United States.

Without the EF, we are being denied the Roman Rite.

Anonymous said...

Porys:

First of all, the numbers for countries are numbers of dioceses, not numbers of Masses (e.g. in Brazil).

Hungary: there is also Veszprém, offered on Saturday evenings, I believe.

Benin: Yes, I knew about that but I was only presenting a partial list for the lesser countries.

Nigeria: THANK YOU! I DID NOT know about the one at Port Harcourt for the F.S.S.P.. I shall add this to my list.

Czech Republic: Yes, I am aware of the number of them in Prague which until a few months ago, had none at all. But my list lists numbers of sees, not numbers of Masses there. The Masses at Olomouc are new and are private but with open doors and invited guests. Yes, I have confirmed this one.

On Poland, I have relied mostly on Wikimissa.

For Mexico, the every-Sunday sees now are Guadalajara (F.S.S.P.), Monterey, Cuernavaca, and Mexico City (F.S.S.P. private Masses as a mission from Guadalajara). Those at Cuernavaca, to my recollection, are on Saturday evenings. While I regard these as bad times, I accept them because we must work under one Code at one time.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Porys:

Whether 5 or 6 in Poland may have depended on the exact date when I collated the figrues. It is close enough! Yes, I have 14, as you say, for today.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Palad:

In terms of names of dioceses, for every Sunday (including Sa. evening) Masses, I have these regularised:

Cebu

Davao

Cubao

Sorsogon

Tagbilaran

Military Ordinariate in Pasay City (with which diocese is this, by the way?)

Corrections?

John Lamont said...

John McFarland writes about Benedict XVI:

'He hasn't done it [regularisation of the SSPX] because, quite apart from everything else, he maintains that the Society is not in "full communion" with the Church, and that the shortfall is at bottom doctrinal -- the refusal to accept Vatican II.'

I'm not sure that this is fair or true. The Pope knows a) that there are no new infallible teachings pronounced by Vatican II, b) that very many bishops, priests and religious now in good legal standing with the Church deny far more Church teachings than the SSPX do, and that unlike the SSPX, the teachings they deny include many that are infallibly taught, including foundational aspects of the Christian faith, c) that the SSPX do not simply reject some teachings of Vatican II as false, but they reject them as false because they hold them to contradict other, more authoritative Church teachings.

This means that although he does not know that the SSPX position is in fact correct, because he is a progressive theologian, he does know that the SSPX position is a legitimate or at least defensible one to take, and that it is unjust to punish them for it when far worse and more damaging offenders go unpunished. I think that the doctrinal conversations are for him partly a check to see that the SSPX does in fact hold defensible positions, but more importantly a face saving public relations exercise to preserve the authority of the Holy See. It does not look good to just say 'sorry we treated you unjustly for 40 years, now we will stop'; it undermines the confidence of the faithful. It looks better to say 'now that you have carefully explained yourself and made some modifications to your views we are willing to regularise your position'. The fact that the modifications are unimportant or not even really existent need not be emphasised; the important thing is that the face of the Holy See is preserved before the faithful and the bishops, which latter group do need to be carried along with papal policy as far as that is possible.

Roland de Chanson said...

While I most vigorously commend Mr. Perkins for his industry in compiling these illuminating statistics, I must also caution against the resultant tendency to optimism in light of the fact the that bishop of Rome has yet to celebrate the True Mass since his motu proprio. Indeed, why a paltry motu and not an Apostolic Exhortation or an Encyclical?

One might infer this is naught but a papal shell game unless and until the pope puts his money where his mouth is and celebrates the TLM frequently and publicly. And then decrees its diurnal use in all dioceses of the Roman confession,

Until that happens, kiss the TLM good-bye. The masonic mass will triumph.

Adeodatus said...

So nothing in Malta or Lithuania?

Attende said...

@ P.K.T.P

It's certainly an agreeable surprise to find that there is a Sunday EF mass in the Palmerston North diocese - much as I would like to know where I won't ask as I wouldn't be able to attend there any time soon and I can't be sure that, wherever they are, they haven't been told not to publish them.

I originally wrote because I have several times seen New Zealand held up as some kind of brilliant example of the application of SP. However this is just not true. Some of these diocesan masses are not allowed to be publicisedand are effectively secret; in general the attitude of most of the bishops seems to be to give it to them and they will go away. No traditional order has been invited to serve any of these communities. It is to be hoped this will change but there are few signs of spring. The only positive that I can see is that the bishops have been significantly set back in their project to adapt a 'New Zealand liturgy' by the forthcoming new translation.

However the abolition of parishes continues apace - many churches only have one mass on Sundays - despite having enough priests to say more - meaning bad news for any shift workers or anyone trying to find a mass after 10 am. The continuing efforts to stop kneeling happening have had their effect in many places with a rigour that would make Cardinal Mahony look like a raving trad. In one case of a new church being built it was, I understand on good authority, stipulated in the contract with the architects that the pews were to be constructed so that kneeling would not be possible - and it isn't. (Of course it's more common for churches to be sold than to be built).

On the situation of Bishop Browne it's hard to see why there should be such animus against him. Technically his translation from Auckland to Hamilton was not a demotion as they are sees of equal rank - Wellington being the metropolitan see. I suppose Auckland, being a larger city and an older see may, because of those things, have more worldly prestige. The fact that he is one of the few remaining Pauline bishops is not particularly significant as only four people achieved diocesan rank during Pope Paul's reign and of those Bishop and later Archbishop Delargey was initially consecrated as auxiliary (and effective coadjutor to the redoutable Liston of Auckland under John XXIII)

For those who recall the church in the days of Cardinal McKeefrey the intellectually moribund and popularly deserted church in New Zealand now can only be a cause of great grief.

Anonymous said...

Adeodatus:

The list was not meant to be comoplete. Yes, we have the T.L.M. every Sunday in Vilnius, Lithuania. No, we have zero in Malta.

Incredibly, we have two every Sunday in Estonia (where there are almost mo Catholics) and one in Byelorussia, where there are some Ukrainian and Polish Catholics.

P.K.T.P.



P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Sweden,

There is no regular every Sunday TLM in the entire diocese, only in Gothenburg and at the Franciscan convent of Jonsered.

In Stockholm and in Lund, the diocese provides the TLM two Sunday a month, with exception for june, july and august.

The SSPX also celebrates TLM in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmoe two Sundays a month, the hole year.

In addition there are occasional TLM celebrated by individual diocesan priests, the FSSP and the ICK.

//D.

Gideon Ertner said...

While I most vigorously commend Mr. de Chanson for his industry in believing the Catholic Faith, I must also caution against the resultant tendency to optimism in light of the fact that Jesus Christ has yet to come again since He promised to do so. Indeed, why leave us with a paltry Pope and not a glorious kingship visible to all men on Earth?

One might infer this is naught but a divine shell game unless and until the Lord puts his money where his mouth is and comes again on the clouds accompanied by angelic trumpets. And then establishes His eternal reign over all the Earth.

Until that happens, kiss the Catholic Faith good-bye. The Devil will triumph.

[/parody]

Anonymous said...

"No, we have zero in Malta."

This really surprises me!
Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Malta always a very Catholic country?
D.P.H.

J. Luke said...

PKTP,

The TLM in Ecuador, is that in the diocese of Guayaquil?

Thanks for your work on this.

J. Luke

porys said...

@ Adeodatus - there were every Sunday TLM in Vinius but priest had very serious surgery and now he is too weak to celebrate. There is no any other priest who can/want to do it. So number of the regularised TLMs in Lithuania is zero.

It is strage for me because card Sladkevicius was big traditionalis, every year pilgrimage Paris - Chartres has Lithuanian group and in 2007 just after 7.7.07 St. John the Cantius Society performed workshpos for priest interested in celebrating TLM - which were very fruitfull.

Joe B said...

The goal needs to be the elimination of the Novus Ordo masses. Nobody can defend them (not talking about validity, but production of priests, saints, and Catholic vibrancy in the pews). They are the product of a rebellious mindset which has done immeasurable damage, even if indirectly.

Only then will the TLM be able to reestablish Catholic piety, especially in the priesthood, so that the many other elements of Catholic life can have the foundation they need to prosper in the hearts of the faithful.

Having seen several FSSP and FSSPX masses and communities, I believe there is a consistent difference between them. The FSSP is a halfway house to the goal, and the SSPX is knocking at the door of the goal. I can predict with fair certainty that Holy Communion will be given to some lady in a nightgown or miniskirt at FSSP masses. This is why FSSPX faithful won't be satisfied with them. They don't want their children in that mindset. Sure, you can get the mass and sometimes the other sacraments, but when does the moral message get seriously defended? When the bishop is SSPX, that's when.

Anonymous said...

"When the bishop is SSPX, that's when."

Yes, oh yes Indeed!!!
When we get FSSPX Ordinaries of diocese, then and only then will you see manly and orthodox changes in the "lex orandi lex credendi".
Bring it the motha on.

Cruise the Groove.

Gideon Ertner said...

"I can predict with fair certainty that Holy Communion will be given to some lady in a nightgown or miniskirt at FSSP masses."

Nightgown, I think not, and as for miniskirts, we're far out into the ridiculous when we're measuring priestly orthodoxy by the skirt lengths of the women that are admitted to Communion.

Jamie said...

Mr Perkins, regarding your comment about New Zealand (28 June, 2010 19:48).

While the increase may be real, I recently attended a Mass said by the newly introduced Wellington Diocese's "EF" priest.

He said the Mass facing the congregation. He said the readings in English. There was no kneeling for communion, and the entire congregation (most of whom probably hadn't been in a Catholic Church for years - it was a funeral) went up to receive (except for me).

It was heart-breaking.

New Zealand is in a terrible way - a truly terrible way and most don't seem to know it.

A few years ago, before his retirement, Cardinal Williams (Wellington Diocese - now retired non-elector) stated on national radio that EENS was a heresy and that there is absolutely salvation outside the Church. I wrote to him about it and received a nasty reply basically telling me to go away.

Not much later the Bishop of Christchurch wrote in the national paper that if teens were going to have sex, they should "contracept up to the eyeballs" - that really is a direct quote.

That is the true state of the Church in New Zealand. I thank God that we have no cardinals that can vote in a conclave.

Anonymous said...

Anon 29 June 17:11 said: "The FSSP is a halfway house to the goal, and the SSPX is knocking at the door of the goal."

We are a fraction of 1% of Catholics and we still cannot stop taking pot shots at each other?

I firmly believe that Traditional parishes staffed by Traditional Orders, FSSP, ICRSS, SSPX, etc, are the only way to restore Catholic Tradition but this sniping is not at all helpful or charitable.

As for diocesan clergy dabbling in Tradition with the occasional or even weekly Sunday TLM, it is fraught with problems. I've witnessed "TLM's" in the US Southeast where everything from the epistle to the Gospel was done in English, including the response, "And also with you"(sic); where a TLM Low Mass was accompanied by organ and choir and was turned into four hymns and a feel good sermon, very much like a NO Mass; and a Solemn High Mass at a cathedral that was treated more like an evening at the opera or symphony by the congregation rather than an act of divine worship. All of this because diocesan priests who are not properly formed in Tradition are dabbling in Tradition.

I have met many FSSP and ICRSS priests, visited their seminaries, attended their Masses, etc, and they are solidly formed in Tradition and lead their flocks in a Traditional Catholic manner. They are most certainly not the problem.

ATW

Jamie said...

Oh - further to my previous comment - here is something about the Archbishop who replaced Cardinal Williams as Archbishop of Wellington:

"Dew achieved some prominence at the Bishops' Synod on the Eucharist at the Vatican in October 2005 when he advocated divorced and remarried Catholics being able to receive the Eucharist."

Hardly a bastion of tradition.

Anonymous said...

"...and as for miniskirts, we're far out into the ridiculous when we're measuring priestly orthodoxy by the skirt lengths of the women that are admitted to Communion."

Mr Ertner.

Actually we are not that far off base when women wearing short skiirts causes not only impure thoughts to males but scandal to all.

I have been at the Sacrifice and have caught sight of short skirted girls and get very lustful thoughts before I can let them evaporate into Gods heart.
And I have the same from others.

By the bye, I actually saw a woman at the Sacrifice wearing a pink and white nightgown once.
It was not an FSSP Mass,[diocesan Novus Ordo] and I think she might have had mental problems because all during Mass she was hugging the walls and licking the plaster

Cruise the Groove.

Knight of Malta said...

Mr. Perkins,

You mention that there is no regular TLM in Malta. That, to me, is a bit of a mystery. After all, they've hosted very reverent TLMs in recent memory, are extraordinarily devout as a people, etc. Perhaps their NO masses are so "reverent" that they just don't see a problem. But the problem is systemic, and not always local (as if there is a distinction in the Universal Church!)

As for myself, I have been so beaten-down by liberal priest after liberal priest, and liberal bishop after liberal bishop that, in recent years, I've started to do a thing I never contemplated (and even judged others for doing): going to FSSPX Chapels. After all, they do satisfy one's Sunday Obligation:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

Anonymous said...

Dear Knight of Malta:

First, to my recollection, there is a Greek Rite Catholic Church in Malta (others are in Corsica and at Leghorn, Marseille, &c.) This is a Greek Byzantine Divine Liturgy under the authority of the local Latin bishop.

I agree with you that Society Masses fulfil the obligation but, unforunately neither my opinion nor that of Msgr. Perl is adequate in law. The matter therefore remains disputable. Until something on this is published in the A.A.S. or a finding is made by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts or by a tribunal, we so not have certainly on this matter.

If you have a letter from Perl, then you are covered in Moral Law (i.e. you do not sin by attempting to fulfil the obligation at a Society Mass). However, whether or not a Society Mass fulfils it objectively is still a disputed matter. If Canon 1248.1 allows this, then it also means that Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgies fulfil the obligation.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Does anyone how a realistic idea when the F.S.S.P.X. will be regularised, across the board?
D.P.H.


When a worldwide structure is announced by the Holy Father to include all traditional orders with its own bishops and places of worship and with a guarantee of non interference from bishops not affiliated with same. I firmly believe we will see this happen before the end of this year else the doctrinal talks will go up in flames and the Anglicans and Orthodox will go their separate ways.

Anonymous said...

On New Zealand:

As one other blogger has remarked, the same abuses can be found elsehwere, such as in some Masses in the south-west U.S.A. So we can only gauge progress on the grounds of numbers of Masses. I'm sorry but that's fair.

I never argued that the Kiwi bishops were paragons of orthodoxy or that they were conservatives. I merely point to the number of T.L.M.s they have permitted. The F.S.S.P. and Orphans, um, I mean Sons of the Holy Redeemer are now active in Christchurch. Auckland, on North Island, has something like four every-Sunday Masses, more than any other see in all of Oceania.

Look, Austria has great access to the T.L.M. but there is also one 'shrine' to Judas Iscariot there. There are abuses everywhere. But all things considered, N.Z. bishops have been much kinder to the T.L.M. as a group than have most others. It's a fact.

Comapre N.Z. to Australia. There are T.L.M.s in every see in N.Z. (on Fridays & Mondays in the case of Hamilton and at least every Sunday everywhere else). In contrast, the MAJORITY of Australian sees do NOT have the T.L.M. on any basis whatsoever. It's a fact. Let's stick with the facts.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Joe B writes:

"The goal needs to be the elimination of the Novus Ordo masses. Nobody can defend them (not talking about validity, but production of priests, saints, and Catholic vibrancy in the pews). They are the product of a rebellious mindset which has done immeasurable damage, even if indirectly."

My personal goal is also to win $10,000,000 in the lottery.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"I suppose Auckland, being a larger city and an older see may, because of those things, have more worldly prestige"

Auckland has 181,000 faithful and is more populous than even the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Wellington. It is the most populous see in N.Z. by far.

Hamilton, by contrast, has 40,000 faithful. Moving Browne from Auckland to Hamilton was definitely a demotion. IT WAS A DEMOTION as far as I can see. I admit that there may have been other reasons for it. For example, he may have asked for this demotion for personal reasons, but, materially speaking, yes, it is a demotion.

The same writer says that there are no traditionalist orders in N.Z. Wrong again. The F.S.S.P. and Sons of the Holy Redeemer are both in the Diocese of Christchurch and the latter is now also serving the Diocese of Dunedin. Meanwhile, the F.S.S.P. has been offering Masses in certain other dioceses on North Island (not yet regularly).

Believe it or not, I actually know what I am writing about and have spent some time over the years compiling the data.

COMPARED to other countries, N.Z. is one of the best places to be for the T.L.M. The fact that its nutty bishops do other wild and crazy things may be true but it is NOT MY POINT.

I do comment the report on the Wellington Mass. A Mass facing the people is definitely a bad thing in most cases. Having the lections in the vernacular is legal, although I deplore it.

P.K.T.P.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

P.K.T.P:

Here's the corrected list:


"Mr. Palad:

In terms of names of dioceses, for every Sunday (including Sa. evening) Masses, I have these regularised:

Cebu -- Yes. Two regularly-scheduled Masses on Sundays.

"Davao" -- Discontinued.

"Cubao" -- Yes.

"Sorsogon" -- Reduced to one Sunday per month

"Tagbilaran" -- Discontinued; daily and Sunday TLM reduced to some weekdays.

"Military Ordinariate in Pasay City (with which diocese is this, by the way?)" -- Pasay is located within the Archdiocese of Manila, but the church where the every-Sunday TLM is celebrated is under the Military Ordinariate.

Corrections?"

Add the following:

Archdiocese of Jaro -- actually one of the oldest "TLMs" in the Philippines. However, the people who attend it say that the Mass is often full of abuses and is hybridized (1969 lectionary, chasu-alb, etc.)

Diocese of Bacolod: one chapel with daily and 3 Sunday TLM's, and another chapel with a Sunday TLM

Diocese of Malaybalay, Bukidnon: daily and Sunday TLM in the monastery of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Diocese of Baguio -- two Sunday TLM's in a chapel in the cathedral

All in all, seven dioceses with every-Sunday TLM's.

I've been trying to update the Wikimissa list but I always get "error" messages, or my changes don't get saved.

Attende said...

@ P.K.T.P

I didn't start the correspondence about New Zealand to get into an argument and I concede your point about the FSSP in Christchurch as being invited there. Not the Sons of the Holy Redeemer though as they arrived there before they had 'returned' to Rome and were certainly not invited. Christchurch is the exception however. Yes members of these orders have said masses in other dioceses (the FSSP and Fr Oppenheimer) often as guests of traditional groups, but they have not been asked or allowed to stay in any as yet.

I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about on the issue of numbers but the fact is that you know more about how many EF masses there are in New Zealand than any New Zealander is easily able to find out. That is telling because the point I was trying to make is that it is extremely difficult to for an ordinary catholic in New Zealand to find out where these are because the general attitude is that they are not to be advertised.

As neither you nor I know anything about the reasons Bishop Browne moved to Hamilton it has seemed unfair from the start to single him out with your mean suggestion that he might slip on a banana peel and presumably die so that his see may be relieved of him. Despite your argument that Auckland being bigger means that moving to Hamilton was a material demotion, the simple fact is that size doesn't actually matter in that respect - regardless of relative size Wellington is the pre-eminent diocese, the others all being equal. It was a translation not a demotion and may in fact be a testament to Browne's skills being needed there and a tribute to him that he humbly accepted what to some might seem to be a demotion.

I rejoice of course that you have found such a variety of EF masses in new Zealand - I only wish that ordinary New Zealanders were able to do the same.

Mar said...

Mr. Perkins said: In contrast, the MAJORITY of Australian sees do NOT have the T.L.M. on any basis whatsoever.

According to the article at this website you are wrong, Mr. Perkins.

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=75&articleID=
7063&class=&subclass=Bite-size%20Vatican%20II

It says that in Australia there is a Traditional Latin Mass in every parish every Sunday :))

Start quote - The traditional Latin Mass is the Mass which has been handed down through the ages and preserved by the Church and authorised by its highest authority.

This Mass is the Mass of Paul VI.
That is the Mass celebrated in every parish every Sunday - End of quote

See, you have failed to take into consideration the hermeneutic of continuity! The Catholic Weekly is Australia's biggest Catholic paper and they should know.

Anonymous said...

Attende writes:

"the fact is that you know more about how many EF masses there are in New Zealand than any New Zealander is easily able to find out. That is telling because the point I was trying to make is that it is extremely difficult to for an ordinary catholic in New Zealand to find out where these are because the general attitude is that they are not to be advertised."

All the N.Z. Masses are listed both on the website of the Ecclesia Dei Society of N.Z. and on Wikipedia--and elsewhere. Anyone who knows how to do a google search can find them in a flash.

I won't question your assertion about advertising but I know of many other cases in other parts of the world where advertising is forbidden, so why single out N.Z.?

One archbishop sent an e-mail to threaten a webmaster in Canada that he had bloody well remove a certain listing or the celebrant of that Mass (who was offering it privately) would suffer for it. In another case, the celebrant asks that we not post his Mass so that he won't be transferred. In another, for months and months (but no longer), the bishop tells the celebrant he may proceed but must not advertise. And then the most infamous trad-hating bishop in the U.S.A. tells one celebrant that he will remove his right to binate or trinate if he does not stop offering T.L.M.s. The priest responds by inviting a priest from an Ecclesia Dei society to celebrate that Mass. Then the Bishop forbids that society from entereing his see. So this is nothing new. Liberal abuse of the worst kind and this sort of persecution is everywhere. It remains the fact that the ratio of T.L.M.s to faithful in N.Z. is higher than it is almost anywhere else. Facts are facts. I'm just being fair.

Yes, it is possible that Browne was transferred for a legitimate reason but, normally, when someone leaves governance of a populous see and is transferred to the outback, it is a demotion. Auckland has more than four times the populstion of Hamilton. If anyone here can find a published reason for his transfer, please do post it. Are you trying to tell us that the Pope puts the same sort of man in, say, the Diocese of Pittsburgh as he puts in the Diocese of Sioux Falls? That they two sees are equal? That suggestion is fatuous.

I've noticed over the years that Paulines (those consecrated or appointed bishop under Paul VI) tend to resist the T.L.M. the most. It is because they were charged with suppressing it and/or advancing the revolution. They don't want to look inconsistent. It's all about pride. Browne, Mataca of Fiji and Hesse of P.N.G. are the last three Paulines in all of Oceania (including Australia). I wager that this is connected to the reason why there is no every-Sunday T.L.M. in the D. of Hamilton. Browne is now 73 years old. Tick, tock.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

Mr. Perkins, as always your comments are most insightful, here is more as to whether Society Masses fulfill the Sunday Obligation:

Sunday Obligation

If, say, on a particular Sunday one knew that almost completely naked dancers were going to dance around the altar and through the pews (as has happened at the Cathedral in Santa Fe during the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, where, literally, almost naked "Aztecan" dancers parade through the church) and if there were no other place to go to Mass, one would be dispensed from the Sunday Obligation. Likewise, a person living in, say, Estonia, 500 miles from a Catholic church, but 10 meters from an Orthodox liturgy, may attend the liturgy and fulfill his Sunday Obligation. These things are very nuanced! But again, I must say I greatly admire your contributions to this blog, which I've read for some time!

Attende said...

P.K.T.P writes:
"I won't question your assertion about advertising but I know of many other cases in other parts of the world where advertising is forbidden, so why single out N.Z.?"

It was PKTP who singled it out saying:

"The episcopate most favourable to tradition is clearly that of New Zealand, and I may comment more on this in the future."

If any comment can be described as "fatuous" it is this as I have tried - obviously unsuccessfully - to demonstrate. PKTP responds by quoting equally or more egregiously ant-traditional acts in other countries. So what? I am from New Zealand: I spoke of what I know in response to a statement about the New Zealand episcopate's tradition- friendliness which is unsupportable.

It is great that there are more every Sunday masses in New Zealand - but with the exception of Dunedin and Christchurch none of these is in a central place. I think it is quite disputable that the Palmerston North masses qualify as every Sunday since two are in Wanganui and the others in Ashurst two towns quite distant from each other, the latter of which is a remote rural village. But if you want to count them as such fine.)

Finally - in a correspondence which must be as tedious to other readers as it is becoming to me, PKTP asks: "Are you trying to tell us that the Pope puts the same sort of man in, say, the Diocese of Pittsburgh as he puts in the Diocese of Sioux Falls? That they two sees are equal? That suggestion is fatuous."

Well the real answer is that history frequently shows better sorts of men are put in provincial places as St Augustine, St John Fisher and others, even in our day, are testimony. Was a colonial archbishop of Dakar with 5o-thousand or so catholics a better man than an Archbishop of Paris? Time will judge - though I suspect many already have - and correctly.

Anonymous said...

Attende:

If the Masses are in the see, they count.

On your last comments, my point is that appointment to very populous suffragan dioceses normally shows more confidence in the appointee than appointment to less populous suffragan dioceses. Why dispute this obvious fact? Translation from 180,000 subjects to just 40,000 does normally suggest demotion and is not very common.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PART II: Firgues for Europe


10. ITALY (214 sees)

2005
Regularised: 15 sees

2008
Regularised: 67 Masses in 41 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 10 sees

2010
Regularised: 52 sees
S.S.PX: 15 sees

49% of the faithful live in a see having an approved every-Su. T.L.M.;
26%, in one having an every-Su. S.S.P.X Mass.



11. SPAIN (69 sees)

2005
Regularised: 3 sees

2008
Regularised: 13 Masses in 9 sees
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 2 sees

2010
Regularised: 16 Masses in 11 sees
S.S.P.X: 4 Masses in 2 sees
35% of the Spanish faithful live in a see that has an approved every-Su. T.L.M.


12. PORTUGAL (20 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

2010:
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 diocese
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 1 patriarchal archdiocese


13. ENGLAND & WALES (22 sees)

2005: Regularised: 9 sees

2008
Regularised: 23 Masses in 14 sees
S.S.P.X: 16 Masses in 12 sees

2010:
Regularised: 38 Masses in 19 sees (1 Mass in Wales)
S.S.P.X.: 18 Masses in 12 sees (none in Wales)

98% of faithful in England & Wales now live in a diocese having an every-Su. T.L.M.


14. SCOTLAND (8 sees)

2005: Regularised: 2 sees

2008
Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

2010:
Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 3 sees (the same three, including Aberdeen)


15. IRELAND (26 sees)

2005: Regularised: 4 sees

2008
Regularised: 4 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees

2010
Regularised: 6 or 7 Masses in 6 or 7 sees (status of Tuam uncertain)
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 5 sees


16. POLAND (40 sees)

2005
Regularised: 6 sees

2008
Regularised: 9 Masses in 9 sees
S.S.P.X: 15 Masses in 10 sees

2010
Regularised: 16 Masses in 12 sees
S.S.P.X: 12 Masses in 10 sees


17. CZECH REPUBLIC (8 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 1 Mass in 1 see

2010
Regularised: 7 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: none listed every Sunday


18. SLOVAKIA (6 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.


19. HUNGARY (12 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 2 Masses in 2 sees
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 3 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: none.


20. SLOVENIA (6 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 see
S.S.P.X: none.


21. LITHUANIA (8 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees


22. ESTONIA (1 Apostolic Administration)

2005

2008
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 A.A.
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 A.A.
S.S.P.X: none.


23. BYELORUSSIA (4 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: none.
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 1 Mass.
S.S.P.X: none.


24. SWEDEN (1 diocese)

2005

2008
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 diocese
S.S.P.X: none.

2010
Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 diocese
S.S.P.X: none.


25. OTHER

Eastern Divine Liturgies are available every Sunday in Malta (Greek Use), Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine (Ukrainian & Ruthenian Uses), Russia, Finland (Hungarian Use), Latvia (perhaps Russian Use), Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia.

Anonymous said...

I now begin publishing some figures for comparison. Please note that I use the same standards everywhere. Masses in remote villages in Argentina are given exactly the same value as Masses in remote village in New Zealand.


Here goes:

A. EUROPE


1. BELGIUM (8 sees)

2005
Regularised: 5 sees

2008:
Regularised: 13 Masses in 6 sees
S.S.P.X: 9 Masses in 5 sees

2010: 15 Masses in 5 sees
S.S.P.X: 6 Masses in 4 sees


2. NETHERLANDS (7 sees)

2005

2008
Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see
S.S.P.X: 4 Masses in 3 sees

2010
Regularised: 5 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees


3. LUXEMBOURG (1 Archdiocese):

2010
Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see
S.S.P.X: no presence


5. FRANCE (93 sees)

2005
Regularised: 65 in 78 sees

2008
Regularised: 85 Masses in 75 sees
S.S.P.X: 214 Masses in 73 sees

2010
Regularised: 201 Masses in 78 sees
S.S.P.X: 215 Masses in 75 sees

89% of the faithful live in a see having an approved every-Su. T.L.M.
This would rise to 96% if the S.S.P.X Masses were recognised by Rome



6. GERMANY (28 sees)

2005
Regularised: 10 sees

2008
Regularised: 50 Masses in 22 sees
S.S.P.X: 59 Masses in 22 sees

2010
Regularised: 54 Masses in 23 sees
S.S.P.X: 64 Masses in 19 sees


7. AUSTRIA (9 sees)

2005
Regularised: 5 sees

2008
Regularised: 10 Masses in 7 sees
S.S.P.X: 10 Masses in 7 sees

2010
Regularised: 13 Masses in 7 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 7 sees


8. SWITZERLAND (6 sees)

2005
Regularised: 3 sees

2008
Regularised: 27 Masses in 3 sees
S.S.P.X: 39 Masses in 5 sees

2010
Reguarlised: 29 Masses in 4 sees
S.S.P.X: 40 Masses in 5 sees


9. LIECHTENSTEIN (1 Archdiocese)

2010
Regularised: 1 Mass in 1 see (same as 2008)
S.S.P.X: No presence (same as 2008)

More to follow, in Part II

Anonymous said...

Here is Part III on figures for North America. I stop here for a while to enable comments.

I wish to make it clear to the poster from N.Z. that I am not questioning his report of the situation there. But I can only deal with the numbers at this point. There are abuses everywhere. It is also hard to compare countries because some have larger dioceses than have others. But the diocese at least allows us to have some very rough standard of situations. After all, the diocese is, in the words of Holy Church, 'a section of God's people'.



B. NORTH AMERICA

1. CANADA

2005: 11 sees.

2008
Regularised: 23 Masses in 13 sees
S.S.P.X: 18 Masses in 13 sees

2010
Regularised: 28 Masses in 14 sees
S.S.P.X: 19 Masses in 14 sees


2. U.S.A.

2005: Regularised: 112 sees

2008
Regularised: 295 Masses in 137 sees
S.S.P.X: 108 Masses in 64 sees

2010
Regularised: 358 Masses in 149 sees
S.S.P.X: 116 Masses in 62 dioceses


3. MEXICO

2005

2008
Regularised: 1 Mass
S.S.P.X: 9 Masses in 6 sees

2010
Regularised: 11 Masses in 5 sees
S.S.P.X: 11 Masses in 7 sees


4. GUATEMALA

2005

2008
Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 1 Mass

2010
Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 1 Mass


5. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

2005

2008
Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 3 Masses in 2 sees

2010
Regularised: no presence
S.S.P.X: 2 Masses in 2 sees

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Knight of Malta:

I submit that matters are not quite as simple as you suggest.

One must carefully distinguish between the subjective and objective obligation to assist at Mass. Objectively, we have an obligation to assist at a Catholic Mass. Period. If we fail to do so, even though we have a valid excuse, we fail to satisfy the obligation. Period. However, we do not sin in doing so.

There is no sin involved if it is 'morally or physically' impossible to attend. Then ecclesiastical law lists the circumstances that qualify for each. We are never 'excused' from the obligation; rather, our failure to fulfil it is not sinful if there is a valid excuse.

As far as I know, attendance at a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy can never fulfil the obligation, although Canon 1248.1 suggests otherwise. Attendance at a Liturgy of the Word can never fulfil the obligation, although it can be morally right (in the view of some authorities) to attend one if we are unnable to attend a Mass on Sunday.

In my view, attendance at a S.S.P.X Mass does fulfil the Sunday obligation. But my opinion on the matter has no authority whatsoever. Zero. Those who honestly believe that such attendance fulfils the obligation do not sin in doing so. But that does not answer the question in terms of objective law.

Because it does not settle it, it remains possible for local bishops to claim that Msgr. Perl and the P.C.E.D. are simply wrong. Msgr. Perl cannot make law and cannot interpret it authoritatively; it is not his competence so to do. We do not yet have a decision at law that is incontrovertible. As long as we do not, bishops will continue to say what they please on this matter and huge numbers of faithful will 'prefer to err on the side of caution' and not attend Society Masses. So the matter needs settling.

P.K.T.P.

Chris said...

Great data collection... just a thought for some further study:

The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales has some data posted on their website about the decline of Church sacraments (baptism, mass attendance, marriages, vocations, etc.) since Vatican II.

Is there any way to compile comparative statistics for TLM Personal Parishes (including SSPX).

Finding result would show HUGE statistical increases in baptism, mass attendance, marriages, vocations, etc.

Anonymous said...

And again, I would like to state:


Mr Perkins,


I would like to make one comment on your post and one statement.

Firstly, the comment:
You rightly state that approved TLM's are outstripping FSSPX Masses in number, yet we must look at the real situation here.

Aside from the Ecclesia Dei Societies ie; FSSP, ICRSS, IBP, etc., most of the new TLM's take place in a regular diocesan parish which offers primarily the Novus Ordo Mass.
As such, the TLM, in many of these instances is offered at an inconvienant time, and all you get is the Mass[as awesome as this is]
You do not have a thriving community of traditional Catholics who have the devotional, or catechetical practices every Sunday that most FSSPX communities offer. Such as Devotions to the Sacred Heart prayed by the Archconfraternity of St. Stephen, the Legion of Mary and the Ladies Sodalitys, Altar Boy training and guilds, Baltimore and Trent catechisms for youngsters and converts, not to mention regularly scheduled confessions offered before every single Mass.

You rarely see these very essential elements of the Faith offered at the numerous diocesan TLM's springing up around the world.
All you seem to get here, is the TLM [sometimes only once per month]...and then everyone runs for his car to make the 2-3 hour drive home at 4pm Sunday afternoon.

Until these new diocesan TLM'S also develop some form of community around them that offers more than the sometimes only once per month TLM, then there will always be aneed for FSSPX Masses and confessions.
D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

"...it remains possible for local bishops to claim that Msgr. Perl and the P.C.E.D. are simply wrong. Msgr. Perl cannot make law and cannot interpret it authoritatively;"

Mr Perkins,

So I ask again, Is Msgr Perl lying when he says that "the faithful may fulfill their Sunday and Holy Day obligation at an FSSPX Mass"?

Why would he even give a yes or no answer to this question,[FSSPX Masses fullfilling the obligation] or answer it at all, if he has not the authority to do so?
Is it possible Msgr Perl does not know this, and yet you do?
I do not ask this to be confrontational, I just want to know why Monsignor Perl, who apparently answered all correspondence mail for the PCED while he was there, would, in writing, state that "THE FAITHFUL MAY FULFILL THEIR HOLYDAY AND SUNDAY OBLIGATION AT AN FSSPX MASS"
Notice he said"the FAITHFUL" not just me the addressee, or another singular person, but rather THE FAITHFUL",which I am pretty sure means every faithful Catholic, which is more than just me, or whomsoever any particular letter might be addressed to.
D.P.H.

Trond said...

Norway has been forgotten.
The SSPX celebrates every third month, starting every second month from July.
There are diocesan TLMs every second Sunday in Oslo and allmost every Thursday in Porsgrunn (diocese of Oslo)

Varus

Anonymous said...

Dear D.P.H.:

While I am no fan of Msgr. Perl, I do not call him a liar. The question is whether or not he is mistaken. I can't answer that question with any authority. The fact remains that his declaration does not, in itself, make law. Yes, he may have been hearing it from a higher authority but that is speculation. I tried to get the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts to answer the question but they bounced it back to Perl's commission.

I suppose that someone could write to the P.C.Legislative Texts and ask about the ability of a Greek Orthodox Mass to fulfil the obligation. Then this would not fall into the competence of the P.C.E.D. and we could extrapolate backwards. But I get the feeling that the P.C.L.T. might just decline to return the letter! (No, I haven't tried yet.)

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

D.P.H. makes good points about communities for the T.L.M. It is my experience, however, that these tend to develop slowly once a bishop allows his priests to offer the T.L.M. at local parishes. This takes time and I would never suggest that these numbers tell the whole story. What concerns me more here is to extrapolate from the figures where we are going. My general conclusion is that the numbers of approved Masses now outnumber S.S.P.X Masses in most countries and are catching up very fast in France & Germany. In another year, France and Germany should have more approved Masses than S.S.P.X Masses.

This situation will create 'groups of faithful' attached to the T.L.M. under the terms of S.P. This, in turn, will mean the spread of the approved societies (e.g. F.S.S.P., I.C.R.) to meet the new demand. Over the decades to come, people will be able to take their tea 'with' or 'without' but more commonly with--with papal approval. Given that choice, most will prefer tradition 'with'.

This does NOT mean the decline and fall of the S.S.P.X. In no way am I suggesting that. The Society has a very determined phalanx of supporters who will remain loyal because they put doctrine before liturgy. But the influence of the Society will wane somewhat as this process continues apace. This is not a failure for the S.S.P.X but a succees: the Society want the T.L.M. to spread as quickly as possible because faith with follow liturgy TO SOME EXTENT.

There are a few places where the Society rules supreme as a provider of the T.L.M., but they are a dwindling group. The most important of them is Argentina, as we shall see. That is because the loser in the last conclave, Cardinal Bergoglio, is keeping approved T.L.M.s out of his country. Others are India, South Africa and Singapore. But while the Society rules supreme in these countries, it does not provide much in terms of numbers of sees in South Africa and, above all, in India.

More to come.

P.K.T.P.

Adeodatus said...

Splendid work, Mr. Perkins. Very informative.

Overall, I think that things are looking up.

Anonymous said...

FINLAND: There are no Hungarian rite masses since 2005 when the last byzantine Catholic priest died.

Tridentine Mass situation: We have irregular visits 2-4 times a year by a FSSP priest in Helsinki and Tampere, 2-3 weekday masses yearly in Turku, and irregularly a bi-weekly to bi-monthly Mass at the Dominican chapel in Helsinki (Sunday Mass on Saturday evening).

No solemn masses, no regular parish schedules.

The Society of Saint Gregory the Great, an liturgical association within the Catholic Diocese of Helsinki has been negotiating with the local ordinary, and his wish seems to be to establish a monthly Sunday Mass in the Cathedral, but so far there is nobody to celebrate the Mass.

It would be good that the contacts with the FSSP (or ultimately, something similar) could be deepened and at least part of the responsability could be given to them if they are interested in the apostolate. It seems clear that the local clergy is not willing or able to help much.

There is a good number of young adults and families interested in the old rite and formation according to "old methods".

Prayers,

a Catholic Finn

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all this interesting information!

If you ever get to the Far East, a pleasant surprise: one of the largest cities on earth, Tokyo, has one TLM *every day*, offered by a retired priest in his home.
This and (most) other relevant info on

http://honneurs.free.fr

Best,
Carl

Anonymous said...

Correction about regular traditional Masses in ESTONIA.

1. There are every Sunday Masses in traditional Rite only in Valga in Holy Ghost Church
2. In Tallinn in cathedral are Sunday Masses every 1st and 3rd Sunday of month
2. In FSSPX chapel in Tallinn there are Sunday Masses on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of month.
So some catholics in Tallinn can participate every Sunday at traditional Mass.
3. There are Sunday Masses in traditional Rite on every 2nd and 4th Sunday of month in Võru too.

Father Ivo Õunpuu, parish priest of Holy Ghost Parish, Valga

Anonymous said...

I just hope and pray that someone in authority will confirm that the FSSPX priests are validly able to absolve sins because they have supplied jurisdiction visa-vis "Common Error of Law", which the 1983 Code of Canon Law makes provision for.
Many of the faithful do not have access to diocesan priests but they do to FSSPX priests.
D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

I believe that in his heart the Holy Father has already granted faculties to the SSPX.

In his beautiful letter of March last year to the Catholics worlwide (another letter to perplex Catholics?) he called for every Catholic of good will to collaborate with him for the unity of the Church.

How long, most Holy Father, must the most important traditional order be left outside normal Church structures?

Everyone knows to whom we owe being able to attend the TLM...

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Fr. O. from Estonia! You are one of my heroes! It is so wonderful that there are every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses in Estonia, of all places. I imagine that the Estonian people must be 99% Lutheran and the ethnic Russians there are about 99% Russian Orthodox (except for atheists, of course).

I am wondering if there are any Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies in the country, probably of the Ukrainian Use.

I presume there are no every-Sunday T.L.M.s in Latvia.

I've heard about the Hungarian Use Byzantine Catholic Church in Finland. Truly amazing!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Carl:

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I understand that he works in co-operation (a word that must always have its hyphen on pain of death of my students) with the S.S.P.X in Japan. But is he in good standing with his bishop? If so, he has a right under S.P. to offer Traditional Latin Masses once per diem in a sacred place. If no sacred place is available, he can use a fitting place.

I know that he is not llving in the diocese in which he is incardinated but that should not matter if he has faculties. Comment?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

A Catholic Finn:

I am heartbroken to hear of the death of that priest of the Hungarian Byzantine Use. I mean this deeply. It was so good to have him there to provide an alternative. I agree that it is crucial to get the T.L.M. into Finland. Finland is an amazing country and has/had a Latin radio broadcast!

Prayers for your situation are recommended to all on this blog.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The situation in Latin America is appalling, even after SP. Progress is being made in the English speaking world and perhaps soon in the French, but still no real gains in what amounts to the present-day heart of Christendom.

Louis E. said...

I have suggested before that the Pope say to all the Bishops under his obedience,in as many words,"I instruct you on your oath of obedience to grant faculties to such priests of the SSPX that request them of you." Let the bishops who would respond with "non serviam" and the priests who see schism as indispensable to their charism exclude themselves and let the rest go forward together.

T said...

19. SLOVENIA (6 sees)
2010 - Regularised: 2 Masses in 1 see
S.S.P.X: none.

This data is erroneous; currently, the only TLM in the entire country is being celebrated by an independent (i.e. non-regularised) priest, who is close to the SSPX...

Anonymous said...

Anon. 23.00:

Oh, there is real progress in Latin America but it is starting at almost a zero to begin with.

I think that S.P. is unto Latin America what Ecclesia Dei Adflicta was unto Western Europe & Northern America

There is real progress in Brazil and now, just starting, some for Mexico. It is tiny when you consider that these are a few dozen Masses for millions upon millions of faithful in the most important part of the Catholic world. Yes, more provision from Rome is needed.

I put access to the T.L.M. into three rough categories:

1. Western Europe, Northern America, Australia, New Zealand: entrenched communities.

2. Latin America, the Philippines, and Eastern Europe: emerging onto the map.

3. Africa and the rest of Asia: only a few isolated points of light.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

So the danger of people leaving for the SSPX has passed, because of the proliferation of MP Masses?

I doubt that there was ever any such danger, but let's assume arguendo that you're right.

Can you now explain to me what reason the Holy Father would want to recognize their Masses now? What does he gain by that?

By his lights, the Society is not in conciliar "full communion" because it does not accept Vatican II.

So why would he ever want to strengthen the hand of an organization not in "full communion" just as he is in the process of trying to bring it into "full communion"?

Anonymous said...

Nothing new in the Diocease of Brooklyn. And we have some beautiful Churches that are well suited to both the Novus Ordo and Tridentine Mass. Bishop DeMarzio, please introduce those who do not know of the TLM, to it. And move the one out of the cemetary. The Moto Proprio is not visible here. I think the few Masses there are, are from the Indult era.

Anonymous said...

Venezuela, Zero ! ...We need the clarifiaction document and more focus on Cardinal Hoyos statement about our Holy Father wishing the Tridentine Mass available alongside the NO in EVERY parish. More needs to be spoken about that and for a real reform and re- balancing of the Novus Ordo. If it is not seen in your home parish it will not be known. It is simply that simple.

Anonymous said...

Regarding peru is incorrect...there is an every sunday Mass in the Cathedral of Callao which is the port of Lima.

Louis E. said...

When Bishop DeMarzio was ordinary of Camden he established the exclusively-pre-Conciliar Mater Ecclesiae Mission...why has he done nothing similar in Brooklyn?

Hoanyeon said...

In Korea, there is none regularized. I wish that the SSPX did more work in Korea, so that the bishops would take note.

Anonymous said...

regarding Trinidad and Tobago - also incorrect. SSPX has no presence. There used to be an old priest who offered the TLM but he was a diocesian priest.

New Catholic said...

"Regarding peru is incorrect."

This is a tentative report, and we welcome all "corrections" and new information.

Thanks!

NC

Anonymous said...

Why no comparison with the Ordinary Rite? What percentage of all Masses celebrated do these TLMs constitute?

mjstro said...

I frequently attend SSPX Msses throughout the U.S. I must say that most are standing room only. The local Novus Ordo parishes are being closed and combined due to poor attendance. The SSPX also are scheduled to ordain 30 new priests this year, compared to the four ordained by our local ordinary. I hardly see that "The rate of growth of the Society has also declined markedly" as stated by the author.

Paul Haley said...

A worldwide juridical structure for all traditional orders including the FSSPX is a matter of Justice. Why would this be considered anything but the right thing to do? It boggles my mind. Only then with its own bishops and places of worship would Tradition be given its rightful place in the Church.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Some updates from my end:

"In Korea, there is none regularized..."

There is a group working to ensure that there will be a Sunday TLM in Korea (under diocesan auspices) before the year ends.

In the Philippines, a dramatic increase of TLM's under diocesan auspices is in the works. The TLM in the Diocese of Novaliches (at the FFI convent on Sundays, 7 AM) is now regular, so that increases the number of Filipino dioceses with regular every-Sunday TLM's to eight. Furthermore, I've just been informed that the Diocese of Paranaque is set to regain its every-Sunday TLM by August. The Diocese of Pasig is also set to have an every-Sunday TLM in the cathedral. There are also unconfirmed reports of every-Sunday TLM's in at least 3 more dioceses.

In short, we hope to have at least 10 Filipino dioceses with a regularly-scheduled every-Sunday TLM before the year ends.

Anonymous said...

On the by constitution Catholic island of Malta the Archbishop does not allow communion on the tongue, not to mention the T.L.M.

Gustavo Ráez-Patiño said...

Regarding Peru, let me clarify a little: in the Archdiocese of Lima there is 1 every-Sunday regularised TLM. It has been celebrated for many years, but at a private chapel. Only since last year it is being celebrated at a public church, with full ecclesiastical approval.

In the diocese of Callao there is an every-Sunday Mass, celebrated in latin, ad orientem, but it is Novus Ordo. It is celebrated at the Military Cathedral, which is in the territory of Callao but not under its jurisdiction, and of course it is not "the Cathedral of Callao".

I would very much like to know which one is the other peruvian see with an every-Sunday TLM mentioned in the report.

M. A. said...

"We need the clarifiaction document and more focus on Cardinal Hoyos statement about our Holy Father wishing the Tridentine Mass available alongside the NO in EVERY parish.....If it is not seen in your home parish it will not be known. It is simply that simple."
___________________
Yes, we need that promised clarification. The statistics are welcomed news, but as someone "working in the trenches", who for years has been trying to bring the Tridentine Mass to my parish, those statistics are immaterial. I will get nowhere without clear, incisive declarations from Rome.

"They" are just waiting for me to tire, and leave as have all the rest of my like-minded, fellow parishioners. But, here I am, still waiting for the cavalry. I will rejoice when his Holiness himself starts celebrating the old Mass and when he issues the clarifications he promised.

Anonymous said...

"...and more focus on Cardinal Hoyos statement about our Holy Father wishing the Tridentine Mass available alongside the NO in EVERY parish."

The above does not jive with the following statement from the Holy Father, which makes it clear that the TLM will simply not be offered in widespread fashion:

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often...te new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Why would the Holy Father insist (supposedly, according to Cardinal Castrillion) that the TLM be offered in each parish when the Holy Father made it clear that the TLM won't be offered "very often"?

bedwere said...

I understand that it is a lot of work, but if somebody had the time, it would be great to display the data on Google Maps, like they did for Italy:
http://lnk.nu/maps.google.it/1ckn

wsxyz said...

The complete omission of Korea from this report is pitiful. Korea is one of the most Catholic countries in Asia apart from the Philippines. Information about the state of the Catholic Church in Korea is not difficult to find in English. Furthermore, the website of the Asian district of the SSPX has information about their activities in Korea.

Failing to include Korea is like forgetting to include England when considering Europe.

Gideon Ertner said...

Re: the Holy Father's statement that liturgical formation and knowledge of Latin are not found "very often":

He was simply stating a fact.

Now what he would like the situation to be is a completely different matter.

Granted, I don't believe he wants to see the TLM being made normative again - I think it is clear that his vision is that the two missals influence each other over the next many decades so that a synthesis incorporating the 'best of the two' can emerge (personally I don't think there is a whole lot of good in the New Rite but that's not the point).

But in order for this to happen, the Holy Father knows that the majority of the faithful must be exposed to the TLM in some way or another. If 99% of the Catholic world keep rejecting the TLM, it is because they reject his liturgical vision which is very dear to him, as can be seen from his writings. Even as gentle a Pope as he cannot let that pass, and even for as base a reason as pride he will be forced to remedy the situation.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"Can you now explain to me what reason the Holy Father would want to recognize their Masses now? What does he gain by that?"


First of all, the Pope would gain the co-opeartion and spirit of the S.S.P.X. The Society has a coherent direction; the numerous approved Masses are not connected one to another very well. They have little effect psychologically (spiritually, I do not comment); they just exist.

More importantly, as I've eplained before, a very large number of bishops continue to obstruct "Summorum Pontificum". This makes the Pope's motu proprio look ineffective, and it makes it harder to 'reform' NewMass in the traditional direction: how can traditon have such an effect if it has little effect to begin with?

There is only one quick way to make the bishops more oo-operative. That would be a recognition of Society Masses. If Society Masses were suddenly recognised (in law) to fulfil the Sunday obligation, they would suddenly be a 'free-ranging' source of Masses not under the control of local bishops. Bishops don't like that idea owing to their pride: it makes it look as if the bishop is unable to control his own bailiwick. To keep the S.S.P.X at bay, bishops will grudingly allow more approved Masses in these circumstances; they will obstruct the m.p. less and less.

A greater toleration of the motu proprio will not really hurt the S.S.P.X. For one thing, it has a solid ground of support. For another, 'there is more than enough' opportunity to go around for everyone because the Society and regularised Masses combined cannot even begin to meet internatinal demand for the Traditional Latin Mass. Also, the S.S.P.X is not offering only a Mass but also sound dogma and a social dimension in which to live the Faith.

The Pope wants a greater freedom for the T.L.M. partly as a device for encouraging a reform of the disastrous NewMass. Franklly, he palns to merge the two Missals. But while that may be his plan, God might have different ideas.

Lastly, I think the Pope genuinely wants unity with the S.S.P.X, which he knows quite well is legitimately Catholic. Bishop Williamson might say that the Pope has a Catholic heart even if he lacks a Catholic mind.

Now that approved Masses have outnumbered Society Masses in most countries in which there are both, and given how this will soon also be true for France and Germany, the 'danger' is gone. The question Mr. McFarland should be asking himself is why the last Pope did not unleash the S.S.P.X. The reason is that, at that time (and particularly in the 1970s), it was thought that a return of TrueMass would mean a sudden abandonment of NewMass. That 'danger' has passed, since most churchgoers have now become accustomed to NewMass and do not know about or have forgotten TrueMass.

Once the curialists realised that a restoration would be needed, they also realised that, to save face, they would need to do it slowly. The problem, of course, is that the Church is not declining slowly but quickly. We are now having to wait for the death of these old liberal heretics in the prelacy just to restore the Faith. Not good--but better than no action at all.

P.K.T.P.

crusader88 said...

Now, this is one interesting report! Thank you for the reading!

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

what if the Pope simply DOESN'T WANT too much Tradition, and that's the REAL reason for not recognizing the SSPX Masses in law?

Hoanyeon said...

" wsxyz said...
The complete omission of Korea from this report is pitiful. Korea is one of the most Catholic countries in Asia apart from the Philippines. Information about the state of the Catholic Church in Korea is not difficult to find in English. Furthermore, the website of the Asian district of the SSPX has information about their activities in Korea.

Failing to include Korea is like forgetting to include England when considering Europe."

I would be more pessimistic. This is like saying your average American parish is "Catholic." The liturgy is Korea is dismal. Liturgical dancing is THE NORM in so-called "Youth Masses." The "other language" for Mass is English -- since Koreans are crazed with becoming Americans -- rather than Latin.

Anonymous said...

On Korea:

My list pertains to *every-Sunday* Masses. As far as I know, there are no Masses of the S.S.P.X on that basis. No insult to Korea was intendned.

P.K.T.P.

Peter Kim said...

Confraternity of Traditional Latin Liturgy is preparing for offering TLM in September, 2010. The members have been having monthly meetings of studying and practicing TLM. CTLL is a small group of Catholic Koreans who have interest in traditional latin liturgy. Surprisingly, many of them are young, in their ages of early twenties.

A guiding priest in CTLL has been very vigilant in prohibiting any influence from SSPX in Korea.

Anonymous said...

Anon. asks:

"what if the Pope simply DOESN'T WANT too much Tradition, and that's the REAL reason for not recognizing the SSPX Masses in law?"

Why is he holding talks with the S.S.P.X then? Why did he withdraw the declarations of excommunication? Why Summorum Pontificum? Anything is possible but not everything is likely. Why cannot some Society supporters consider another possibility? The Pope really does want to end the separation caused with tradition in the 1970s? He's the Pope. It's his job to keep Catholics together. Maybe that's it....

Moreoever, as I have PROVED before despite the errors of 'Romanus', the Pope has offered the Society total immunity from the local bishps in an international and personal apostolic administration, one modelled on the Campos structure but embracing the whole world. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos repeated the offer and the "Angelus" mentioned this in its January, 2008, issue. It is the S.S.P.X that has refused to take the offer, not the Pope who has refused to make it.

There is now only one way left for the Pope to effect a reconciliation. That is by a unilateral declaration that their Masses count, and possibly a complete grant or recognition of faculties. Has Rome prepared the way for this? Of course she has. the P.C.E.D. has been saying (without force of law) that their Masses fulfil the obligation SINCE 2002. Why would Rome be saying this, even if unofficially, if the Pope was trying to stop tradition.

Guess what? People can change their minds sometimes. I have on some things. It's a miracle that people can change their minds! Perhaps the Pope's own view of things has changed somewhat since he was a besuited Rahnerite peritus at Vatican II. Oddly, I haven't seen him wearing suits lately. He seems to prefer elaborate vestments. Could he have changed his views on some things? Noooooo.


P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Peru:

The other see is Callao and I was relying on Wikipedia for that one.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

mjstro writes:

"I hardly see that "The rate of growth of the Society has also declined markedly" as stated by the author."

I was referring to the rate of increase for numbers of Masses and for ordinations. I did an analysis of ordinations a few years ago. The S.S.P.X is continuing to attract vocations but at a slower and slower rate. This is expected and does not really indicate a declinle in support. During the early period (1970s and early 1980s, there was no alternative to the S.S.P.X Masses in most places and so the *rate*, I repeat, RATE of growth was much higher from year to year.

The rate of growth of the S.S.P.X has likely been diminished by a greater and greater provision of the regularised Masses. The Society could move further afield and start re-evangelising more in the poorer countries except that this is a costly enterprise, obviously. If and when regularised Masses move into the poorer countries, they will have the advantage of infrastructure and finanical help from the episcopal conferences.

None of this means 'failure' for the S.S.P.X. On the contrary, the Society WANTS more and more regularised T.L.M.s. This could mean a gradual conversion of many priests from Novus Ordo to T.L.M.--and a conversion away from the revolutionary theology of the 1960s. This is a good thing.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to thank Gustavo Ráez-Patiño for clarifying the situation in Peru. I want to know the situation there. It is very important. A Dominican priest offers the Mass in Lima. I did not know that the one in Callao was a N.O. Thanks for that information.

The information for Slovenia is also appreciated.

Thanks especially for the good news on Korea and the Philippines from Mr. Palad. This is crucial information.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Kim:

Are there definitive plans for a schedule? If so, could you please let me know the names of the places and dioceses that are relevant? I am particularly interested in every-Sunday Masses, even if they be only private. I have been waiting for progress in Korea for a very long time. My e-mail address is

pkperkins@telus.net

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

The basic question is whether the Holy Father is going to recognize SSPX Masses as long as it does not accept Vatican II and hence is not in “full communion” with the Church.

He has made quite clear that the problem with the SSPX is doctrinal, which is why his representatives are conducting doctrinal discussions with SSPX representatives.

He is a man of Vatican II. How could he possibly give quasi-official recognition to those who refuse to accept the teachings of Vatican II?

Can you offer any precedent for his giving recognition to those he deems not in “full communion” with the Church by virtue of rejection of the teachings of Vatican II?

To anyone who knows the situation and is not blinded by wishful thinking, the answer to these questions are: he couldn’t possibly give such recognition, and there are no such precedents.

The Pope has done two "traditional" things: liberated the traditional Mass, while simultaneously making the obviously absurd statement that the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo are two forms of the same rite; and lifted excommunications whose existence the purported beneficiaries of this act deny. Although we are all grateful for the Motu Proprio, and the SSPX bishops thought the "lifting" was a nice gesture, this isn't much the track record of a paladin of tradition.

All of your thinking seems to revolve around the idea that the last two popes are looking for a means of getting back to tradition without all hell breaking loose.

This is not a description of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul the Great. It is a description of you.

On the weighty issues that face us, you are entirely dedicated to finding and proselytizing a scheme or combination of schemes to sneak tradition back into the Church.

But there is not a scintilla of evidence that either of the Holy Fathers shared or shares this view. They want union, but union in Vatican II.

Pope Benedict has not publically celebrated the traditional Mass. Not even once.

There's a gesture that would take very little effort, but have a tremendous impact.

He does not do it.

The only answer I can think of is that he does not want to do it, because he is a man of Vatican II. Traditionalists are people that he talks about in the third person. Recall what he said about the SSPX in his letter to the bishops.

Do you have another explanation?

Bishop Williamson speaks of the Holy Father's having a Catholic heart and a modernist head.

But he also says that as long as the head is modernist, the heart doesn't count for much.

Faith is a matter of the head, not the heart.

Anonymous said...

In the Diocese of Charleston, as we near the third anniversary of SP, the weekly TLM at Prince of Peace parish was dropped entirely "for the summer." Reasons given include the following:

+Not being able to cover the music for the 11 a.m. High Mass (couldn't have a Low Mass for 11 a.m.)

+Lowering of attendance since its installation one and on half years ago. FACT: Attendance has remained steady from 150-225 and sometime more for nine years now when it has been offered weekly, quarterly, monthly, bi-monthly, weekly and now NO ATTENDANCE because of no TLM during the summer.

+Collection not in keeping with an 11 a.m. diocesan parish Mass. FACT: Two of the first four Sundays after dropping the Mass, the weekly collection for the parish dropped by $7,000 and $10,000.

CONCLUSION: When you really don't want to do something, any kind of an excuse will do.

God does not take off the Summer. Those faithfuly TLM adherents are now attending the Maronite rite or SSPX Masses for the summer awaiting a request from our Bishop to provide a personal parish.

Jordanes said...

Can you offer any precedent for his giving recognition to those he deems not in “full communion” with the Church by virtue of rejection of the teachings of Vatican II?

To anyone who knows the situation and is not blinded by wishful thinking, the answer to these questions are: he couldn’t possibly give such recognition, and there are no such precedents.


Except for the "Feeneyites," that is.

Faith is a matter of the head, not the heart.

Wrong. It's a matter of both. Faith has an intellectual component, but it is not solely an intellectual thing. If it were, the demons would be saved.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland now raises ridiculous ojbections. There is only large group which 'does not accept' Vatican II. He then asks what precedent there is for reconciliation with groups which 'do not recognise' Vatican II. This is absurd, although I might point out, perhaps, that the I.B.P. did not have to 'swear' to any acceptance of 'Vatican II'; nor did it have to accept NewMass as normative. Not that this matters.

Vatican II was not a dogmatic council and did not propose any *new* dogmatic teaching. Exactly what one must accept in it is a very good question. The Holy See has on several occasions suggested that the S.S.P.X is already Catholic and that its reconciliation to the Holy See is an internal matter. Then the P.C.E.D. says over and over and over again that Society Masses fulfil the obligation. It is careful to do so without making this a legally-decisive declaration. But is this preparation for more? I think that it is.

Why would Rome move towards this instead of just making it so in one step? The reason is the desire to placate the liberals and do this gradually. We've been through this all before. This is the contention I've made which Mr. McFarland does not really deny; instead, he just ignores it. He just doesn't get it: the Pope wants to reconcile traditionalists but without causing a revolt from the crazy left. He wants to bring everyone in under one umbrella. It is not my plan and I've not said that I support it. But it seems to me that this is what the Pope is trying to achieve.

Has Mr. McFarland seen the latest interview of Bsp. Fellay? He now seems uncertain about the prospect of some sort of reconciliation. When asked, he said "I don't have the answer". That seems to me to be a new tack. I get the feeling that something is coming. It would likely be a unilateral action by the Holy Father in exchange for the 'good faith' shown by the S.S.P.X in participating constructively in these doctrinal talks.

Bsp. Fellay might want to go for complete regularisation but I doubt that the other Society leaders would permit it at this point. So it might be merely a 'thank you' for recognition plus some partial note in favour of Rome, such as agreeing to accept Vatican II in light of traditon but without saying what this 'tradition' entails (we all know about that one).

Mr. McFarland need not fear. His precious Society will not decline and fall. There is a difference between a reduction in growth (which is now constant) and a decline. The two are not one and the same. If anything, a papal recognition of Society Masses and even faculties will help the Society a bit.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland now raises ridiculous ojbections. There is only large group which 'does not accept' Vatican II. He then asks what precedent there is for reconciliation with groups which 'do not recognise' Vatican II. This is absurd, although I might point out, perhaps, that the I.B.P. did not have to 'swear' to any acceptance of 'Vatican II'; nor did it have to accept NewMass as normative. Not that this matters.

Vatican II was not a dogmatic council and did not propose any *new* dogmatic teaching. Exactly what one must accept in it is a very good question. The Holy See has on several occasions suggested that the S.S.P.X is already Catholic and that its reconciliation to the Holy See is an internal matter. Then the P.C.E.D. says over and over and over again that Society Masses fulfil the obligation. It is careful to do so without making this a legally-decisive declaration. But is this preparation for more? I think that it is.

Why would Rome move towards this instead of just making it so in one step? The reason is the desire to placate the liberals and do this gradually. We've been through this all before. This is the contention I've made which Mr. McFarland does not really deny; instead, he just ignores it. He just doesn't get it: the Pope wants to reconcile traditionalists but without causing a revolt from the crazy left. He wants to bring everyone in under one umbrella. It is not my plan and I've not said that I support it. But it seems to me that this is what the Pope is trying to achieve.

Has Mr. McFarland seen the latest interview of Bsp. Fellay? He now seems uncertain about the prospect of some sort of reconciliation. When asked, he said "I don't have the answer". That seems to me to be a new tack. I get the feeling that something is coming. It would likely be a unilateral action by the Holy Father in exchange for the 'good faith' shown by the S.S.P.X in participating constructively in these doctrinal talks.

Bsp. Fellay might want to go for complete regularisation but I doubt that the other Society leaders would permit it at this point. So it might be merely a 'thank you' for recognition plus some partial note in favour of Rome, such as agreeing to accept Vatican II in light of traditon but without saying what this 'tradition' entails (we all know about that one).

Mr. McFarland need not fear. His precious Society will not decline and fall. There is a difference between a reduction in growth (which is now constant) and a decline. The two are not one and the same. If anything, a papal recognition of Society Masses and even faculties will help the Society a bit.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes: "Although we are all grateful for the Motu Proprio, and the SSPX bishops thought the "lifting" was a nice gesture, this isn't much the track record of a paladin of tradition."

The S.S.P.X ASKED for these things and Benedict XVI delivered them. It is the track record of someone who is actively responding to the S.S.P.X in order to effect a reconciliation.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland now raises ridiculous objections. He writes this:

"Can you offer any precedent for his giving recognition to those he deems not in “full communion” with the Church by virtue of rejection of the teachings of Vatican II?"

Look, the only signifcant group that rejects the teachings of Vatican II is the S.S.P.X. So how can there be precedents for reconciling many others? And yet there is a precedent: the I.B.P. never had to swear any acceptance of Vatican II to be reconciled; nor does it have the New Mass as normative. The Pope has offered the S.S.P.X a structure that would make it independent from the bishops as well. Why would the Pope do this?

And what acceptance of a non-dogmatic Council is required? Can you provide us with any evidence, Mr. McFarland, that the S.S.P.X will be required to accept what the I.B.P. was not? Where, exactly, were the Campos priests required to accept the idea that tradition must be a 'living tradition'? I must have missed that.

Mr. McFarland is dead wrong that it is only I who want a reconciliation without all hell breaking loose. For years, I've wanted all hell to break loose. I want to see the liberals condemned, excommunicated and deposed. Frankly, what they deserve is Smithfield, although this is not for me to recommend!


No, it is the Pope who has a warmer heart than I. He wants to reconcile the S.S.P.X without causing a huge revolt on the left. I have never said that this is what I want or that I think it to be best. I think that the Pope's position is understandable, however. As Supreme Pastor of souls, he wants to reconcile everyone and keep everyone in under the tent. Like many 'conservatives', he no doubt feels that a slow and gradual accommodation can bring the liberals back to Catholic dogma, for instance.

Mr. McFarland cannot see this becuase he does not think politically. What I see is a 25+ period of gradual integration (from 3.10.1984) of tradition while the lions of the council die off. Recent signals from my home cathedral illustrate this trend. To my surprise, I've heard that our Bisahop here has recently re-introduced the sacring bell to signal the Consecration at the New Mass. He has also banned applause in the cathedral and has restored some statues. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and adorations are returning. They think that they can ease the liberals back to tradition if they move slowly enough. That is what is going on here. The Pope recognises that a large problem is the pride of liberal prelates. So you retire them and make only small changes before they die off.

What has the P.C.E.D. been saying for nearly ten years now?: that the Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. That is sure as hell not what Rome was saying in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr. McFarland, like many, also overlooks the fact that, in the declaration that the T.L.M. was never abrogated, "Summorum Pontificum", 2007, directly contradicts "De Missali Romano", 1971 (not to be confused with the apostolic constitutino "Missale Romanum", 1970). How often does one Pope directly contradict another!

Yes, Mr. McFarland, some sort of papal action is coming. It will be a public recognition of what the P.C.E.D. has been saying since 2002: Society Masses fulfil the obligation. Will the Pope go further? I think that he will surprise you. I think that he will grant or recognise Society faculties--and for the reasons I have suggested in my statistical analysis.

If I'm proved wrong, I accept that. In the mean time, please stop looking for reasons for the Vicar of Christ to reject you. It seems to me that you want a Pope who is a liberal peritus, whether he still is one or not.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

This apparent discussion about numbers & the rather undignified speculation about which "side", Confraternity or Indult Society, demonstrates statistical superiority is reductionist at its most graphic.

Having attended Holy Mass at venues for SSPX & Indult Societies, the one poignant differentiating indicator, personally, has been to find SSPX Holy Masses far more complete liturgically speaking & altar servers and choirs of higher standard.

The FSSP Masses I have been to are frankly speaking a poor compromise of elements with vernacular songs during the consecration, not usually Latin; altar servers who are frequently ill-instructed; "High Mass" excludes the Proper of the Sunday with endless repetition of the VIII de Angelis Ordinary week in week out. During the proceedings I have found different members of the congregation simultaneously sitting, standing & kneeling at various parts of the liturgy. There are other observations I could make but this suffices for the moment.

At SSPX Masses I have not been aware of such disparities on this scale. Both Celebrant, servers & most of the congregation congregation seem to know what they are doing.

While I admit my evidence is anecdotal and do not wish to generalise my experiences, quality of liturgy has to be preferred over quantity. To attempt to imply the future lies with such societies as FSSP & the Institute among others based on apparent statistical patterns is insufficient of itself.

If the Holy Mass in Latin is reduced to widely differentiated practice with significant signs of inattention to necessary detail, then based on what I have witnessed and noted I shall avoid any other but Holy Mass at SSPX centres since I am fairly sure what to expect at them.

We have been through an absolutely shocking period of liturgical chaos which thankfully continues to decimate the NO. I sincerely hope & pray this does not occur with what is personally the only authentic Roman Catholic liturgical expression of The Latin Rite Church.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please clarify the position of the SSPX? As far as I knew Archbishop Lefebvre said that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of Tradition. Is this not the position of the Society?

Enoch said...

I'm confident that the Holy Father will do the right thing in regards to the regularization of the SSPX, if such a regularization is forthcoming soon.

My own opinion (which doesn't really matter, since the Church is not a Democracy, and cannot operate as such) is that the SSPX should be subject to the local diocesan bishop, if they are regularized.

In an SSPX chapel, of which I'm a former attender, you'll find that women are better at dressing modestly, the families generally have more children.
But my concern is that at least two generation have grown up in the older SSPX
chapels, and they have no concept of what it's like to be a part of a diocesan structure, because they are completely independent of the diocese. Young people in these chapels think that a Catholic bishop is someone who lives in another country. They have the idea that they operate as an independent church, but the Church has never operated in this way regarding attendance of the faithful. The Church has always operated as a hierarchical structure, and for good reasons.

Even if the local bishop is not sympathetic to the TLM, it's still a bad idea for Catholics to detach themselves from the hierarchy.

Just my two-cents worth, and I'm sure that many here will disagree.

John McFarland said...

Jordanes,

Father Feeney's reconciliation took place during the pontificate of Paul VI -- in 1976, I believe. By that time, Father Feeney was non compos mentis, and his strange little cult had split into several factions, chiefly if not exclusively over non-doctrinal issues. So whatever the particulars of the reconciliation (about which I know nothing), I don't think it has much precedential value.

For the angels as with us, the first step is knowledge. God's plan was revealed to them, and their choice was to accept it and their role in it, or not. I am not competent to discuss the theology of faith, but for current purposes it doesn't matter. My only point is that if you have an incomplete or adulterated understanding of the Faith, then even if you accept the Faith, you are the religious equivalent of a one-legged man trying to kick down a door.

Paul Haley said...

Not all of us who claim to be Traditionalists would espouse the views of Mr. McFarland when it comes to what the SSPX would or would not accept. I'm not even sure that all members of the SSPX would reflect Mr. McFarland's views with respect to Vatican II. Vatican II was a legal council of the Church and to the extent that it proclaimed doctrines and dogmas previously held and proclaimed by Holy Mother Church, it can be said to be infallible and part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Of course, we know that this was hardly ever done at Vatican II because the liberals were intent on pushing their propositions of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, humanism, etc. They found a fertile ground in the societal changes that were occurring in the 60s and made the most use of those changes to advance their agenda or propaganda as a better word.

But to contend that our current Holy Father is the same liberal priest of Vatican II seems to be a stretch, considering SP and the remission of the excommunications, the moves towards sanity in papal liturgies, the doctrinal discussions, and his whole attitude with respect to the SSPX, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, etc. I sense further an attitude in Bishop Fellay that seems more attuned to agreement with the Holy Father on core issues rather than a complete rejection. That remains to be seen, of course, but one inescapable fact remains - the Holy Father can by himself regularize the Society with one fell swoop of the pen (worldwide juridical structure) whether they like it or not. What are they going to do then - refuse to be a part of what the Vicar of Christ in his apostolic authority has established? Methinks not!

Of course, the Pope won't do this because he wants all hands to be on board before any structure is established formally. That is his prerogative as the Vicar of Christ and one I cannot argue with as impatient as I am with the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Um, Enoch, are you new to this movement?

Rome has on several occasions offered the S.S.P.X its own international and personal diocese. Do you honestly think that the Society will be made subject to the local bishops? That would be a disaster. Many of these bishpos are outright heretics. In a previous age, they would have been burnt, and rightly so.

In 2002, Rome granted the traditionalist Priestly Union of St. John-Mary Vianney its own personal apostolic administration, which is equivalent in law to a diocese. Why would Rome grant less to a group that has about 20 times as many priests as the Campos did? I say this *only* as a joke (don't take offence), but I wonder if you've been smoking the same weed that I smelled last evening about four doors down from me.

The Pope has just exempted the incoming Angliccans 100% from the local Latin bishops and given their own bishops and other personal ordinaries under Rome. Why would he give less to traditional Catholics than he is giving to incoming Anglicans?

I am certain--certain--that the S.S.P.X will be offered 100% independence from the local bishops. Thank God for that! Whether this independence will come in regional ordinariates for the T.L.M. or in one international structure, it will come. We can debate the form it might take but it is definitely on the table.

If Rome were ever to insist on putting the S.S.P.X under the local bishops, I would defect to the S.S.P.X in a flash.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

No offence Enoch, but your two-cents' worth is only worth two cents.

The S.S.P.X can be integrated into the hierarchy of the Church without being subject to the local bishops. Even one Vatican II document mentions the possibility of 'personal dioceses'. Are the incoming Anglicans being separated from the hierarchy when they are given their own bishops under the Pope? What about the Campos? Do you think that it is integrated into the Church? If not, you'd better contact Rome. It would be news to them.

While I favour a de facto international diocese for the S.S.P.X, and while Rome definitely has offered this (pace 'Romanus', who is too chicken to identify himself), the Society will not accept it until doctrinal talks have been concluded. So we can just forget it. For Fellay to accept such an offer, he'd have to contradict his constant word and he'd split the S.S.P.X in two. I trust that won't happen.

What may happen is that the Pope may simply recognise Society Masses and/or faculties unilaterally. Is this what you are referring to? It would be considered to be an interim step, one that does not require any concession from the S.S.P.X (or perhaps only a statement that *looks like* a concession).

Pace Mr. McFarland and company, I am convinced that Benedict XVI wants to take action while he still can to effect a reconciliation. If he does nothing but talk, talk, talk, it might never happen. It has taken us 450 years to bring back only one tiny per centage of Anglicans; 950 years for the Orthodox and still no dice (other than a few reunions such as those in 1595 and 1696); 1,550 years for the Monophysities; 1,570 years for the Nestorians (who now finally agree on all dogma but still wont sign on for purely political reasons!).

The Pope cannot effect a complete reconciliation without causing a massive revolt on the left, led by such heretics as Kasper the Friendly Œcumenist. I'd excommunicate the bastard in a flash but the Pope will not. He wants to keep everyone 'together' somehow.

Since he cannot effect a reconciliation, he will do what he can to put Rome and the Society on course for one. This means making the Society a 'free-ranging' provider of Masses that fulfil the Sunday obligation; it probably means recognising Society faculties too. Mr. McFarland can't stand the idea of success: he has a failure complex. But such recognition will actually help the S.S.P.X, and it will help non-Society traditionalists. Therefore, I favour it. I dare not to be a loser. (Jordanes: support me on this one. On this one, at least, we're on the same side.)

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anyway, as I've said before, the Pope has a good reason to recognise Society Masses. It is because many of his own bishops have defied him over "Summorum Pontificum". H.H. asked that it be allowed wherever groups and/or priests want it. Instead we see bishops openly defying the Pope. I mean you, Bishop Ramirez of Las Cruces. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing. Who the hell do you think you are? Do you think that the baronet of the Southern New Mexico desert can defy the Emperor of the Church? I mean you, Archbishop Jordan of Reims. Do you think that you are the Pope of Reims? The Pope of North-east France, perhaps? Why don't you grant FREEDOM to those in your archdiocese who want to mind their own business and worship in accordance with the Mass of their forefathers? Where is your spirit of tolerance? We are not forcing anyone to abandon that clown liturgy, that joke singalong Mass. What is your bloody problem? Do you think we all want to be clowns, as you are?

Then there is Archbishop Darmaatmajdja of Djakarta. Oh, I'm sorry. He was replaced last week only shortly after he turned 75. Come to think of it, Kasper and Re have gone away. This makes my day; it makes my day.

The Pope can use the S.S.P.X to invade dioceses such as these or force the bishops there to allow our Mass in order to prevent such an invasion. It is time to put these rotters in their place. Most of the bishops in Western Europe and the U.S.A. and also N.Z. are at least respecting the Pope. It is time for the others stop these puerile games. The 1960s are over.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX does celebrate Mass in Wales, in fact they have a church, St. David's, in Modchre in North Wales

Paul Haley said...

To my dear friend and colleague, P.K.T.P. who has worked so diligently and fastidiously for the cause of Tradition,

Do not despair, my friend, the days of the clowns and puppets are fast coming to a close. A new day is dawning!

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote:

"The SSPX does celebrate Mass in Wales, in fact they have a church, St. David's, in Modchre in North Wales"

I don't recall having mentioned the S.S.P.X in Wales. I had referred to the presence of regularised Masses there. There are some in all three sees but every-Sunday T.L.M.s (regularised) are confined to the metropolitan Archdiocese of Cardiff.

Like Scotland, Wales is largely a wasteland.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"S.S.P.X.: 18 Masses in 12 sees (none in Wales)"

I think this is what was being refered to and as the other person said, the SSPX does operate in Wales.

Enoch said...

I'd just like to mention a few more things in this comments section. I know that you won't post this, so please allow me to ramble on a bit.

The SSPX uses liberal and novel means to protest against the liberal and novel errors that have become worse, in the Church, since Vatican ll. Instead of using water to put out a fire, the SSPX uses kerosine. The liberal and novel methods employed by the SSPX has never been effective in reducing error. The ways of the SSPX is not the way of St. Athanasius, St. Francis, or any of the other saints who toiled and suffered for the faith. The saints were faithful and patient; knowing that God's schedule is slower than Man's. They understood the way of the cross.

I converted through an SSPX chapel; I was baptized by an SSPX priest. You may believe that all is good in the SSPX, but it is not.
The SSPX is a mixture of truth and error, and they are not better in this respect than the Church since Vatican ll. Some of their errors may be of a different nature, but they are still errors.

At least the problems with the liberal bishops (who go against Church teaching) are obvious for all to see. And often they don't even try to hide their true nature. The SSPX, on the other hand, pretends to a fidelity to the Church which they do not truly possess, and many have been fooled in thinking that they are the very essence of the traditional faith, but they are not. If the SSPX accepts a personal prelature status, then I don't expect their situation will much improve. They will continue in error, and no one will correct them. Or should I say, they won't allow anyone to correct them.

But the Church will go on. We have Our Lord's guarentee that the gates of Hell will not prevail. I hate to think of what will happen to Catholics who are completely independent from the visible Church, because that's not how Our Lord set up His Church.

Paul Haley said...

The SSPX is a mixture of truth and error, and they are not better in this respect than the Church since Vatican ll. Some of their errors may be of a different nature, but they are still errors.

I'm sure there are different views of the SSPX depending on one's own experiences. In my own case nearly 20 years ago, due to the "Upside-Down Church", I was at the point of actually losing the Faith. A priest ordained by ABL in 1973 in effect threw me a spiritual life preserver and he and his fellow priests now numbering a total of five, though entirely ostracized and ignored by the local Ordinary, continue to provide me with the Faith formation that I need to maintain sanity in this increasingly Evil world. Were it not for these holy and dedicated priests I would most assuredly be lost and so would members of my immediate family. The debt we owe to these priests cannot be measured in human terms for only the Good Lord knows what they have endured for us and for our salvation. What price salvation? Infinite!

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"I think this is what was being refered to and as the other person said, the SSPX does operate in Wales."

Again, to repeat again, my figures are for every-Sunday T.L.M.s. There might be Society priests offering Masses on a lesser basis there.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Enoch says:

"The SSPX is a mixture of truth and error, and they are not better in this respect than the Church since Vatican ll. Some of their errors may be of a different nature, but they are still errors."

Enoch needs to distinguish between the positions of the S.S.P.X and the positions of certain S.S.P.X priests (if the latter even exist: he does not identify any). The S.S.P.X merely holds fast in the teachings of the Church as held definitely for all time. There is not nor can there be one scintilla of error in that.


Then Enoch, who has obviously missed much discussion on this blog, predicts disaster should the S.S.P.X accept a 'personal prelature status'. Well, of course that would bring disaster, since a p.p. is not a 'particular church' and Canon 297 would then put the Society under the enemies (in some places) of Jesus Christ, otherwise known as the liberal local bishops. The S.S.P.X has never been offered and would never accept a p.p. Doing that would indicate that its leaders were insane or irretrievably stupid, just as Romanus is either malicious or irretrievably stupid.

What the S.S.P.X would be getting is a personal particular church, meaning a personal diocese or personal apostolic administration or else participation in regional and personal ordinariates.

Again, as already discussed here, even the acceptable structures are not likely in the foreseeable future. Rome is willing to concede them but the Society is not willing to take them.

This leaves Rome with two options: either she can recognise Society Masses and/or faculties unilaterally or she can continue the present sitaution until the doctrinal talks are finished, which may be several decades away (or until the End Times interrupt the process).

I don't think that the Pope will leave this unresolved for years after the end of this papacy. So I expect at least a public recogniiton of Society Masses to fulfil the Sunday obligation. After all, we already have a private and non-legal recognition of this from Rome. A private recognition can easily lead to a public one, especially after eight years!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Enoch:

Get that 'personal prelature' term out of your head. I know, I know, the alliteration makes it easy to remember, especially among brain-dead journalists, which means most of them.

But let us use alliteration to get the right idea into your head. Say after me,

aaaaaaapostolic aaaaaaadministration. Say it!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins, it seems, the Lithuania section needs to be updated. As Porys said the diocesan TLM has been cancelled, and the SSPX have their 2 Masses at least since 2006.

New Catholic said...

Enoch,

Can't you see that this is not the right thread for what you wish to say?

And, in particular, that this is not the right time for such comments?

Trust Our Lord, and His Vicar.

NC

Enoch said...

New Catholic, I'm not sure where I should voice my concerns about the SSPX, here on Rorate Caeli. I thought that this was as good a place as any, given that this thread began to turn away from its stated purpose even before I began posting on it.

I find it distressing that Rorate now allows pope-bashing (not so much on this thread, but on others)
If I have written something that is not true in any of my posts that you have deleted, then please tell me so.

Enoch said...

New Catholic,

Just one more post here, and then I will go away and trouble you no further.

The SSPX is not what you think it is. It is something else entirely. I was once a strong defender of the Society. That is, until a new priest arrived at our little chapel (Corpus Christi, in Edmonds, WA) and began repeatedly preaching what sounded to me like Gnosticism. As a former New-Ager myself, I was greatly distressed by this, and by the fact that the person whom I had chosen to sponsor me for my confirmation turned out to be a sedevacantist. And then there was the new couple from England who has ties to fascism there. It sounds unbelievable, I know.

I have sympathy for any Catholic (or priest) who is still stuck in the SSPX. They need prayers, not support for their heretical views.

Jordanes said...

So whatever the particulars of the reconciliation (about which I know nothing), I don't think it has much precedential value.

The relevant particulars are that they were received into full communion without having to abjure their Feeneyism, even though Father Feeney's understanding of EENS is not the view that is, shall we say, currently in vogue in the Church. A comparable settlement might be possible with the SSPX -- though I doubt the SSPX is interested in anything like that.

Anonymous said...

"possible with the SSPX -- though I doubt the SSPX is interested in anything like that."

Just as long as the Holy Father acknowledges that the Society always had, and continues to have the ability to hear confessions under Common Error of Law, in Canon Law, then at least their work of saving souls can continue apace, until that time when the FSSPX is given canonical standing, most likely at the same time the Translalpine Redemptorists are.
Cruise the Groove.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why the current status of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum has to be so connected to SSPX - only if it's because many people who attend recently "non-restricted" TLM's are those who show some fidelity of one sort or another to SSPX. But I think these same people would still be going to "independent" or SSPX chapels, still, anyway, even if Summorum Pontificum never happened.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why the current status of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum has to be so connected to SSPX - only if it's because many people who attend recently "non-restricted" TLM's are those who show some fidelity of one sort or another to SSPX. But I think these same people would still be going to "independent" or SSPX chapels, still, anyway, even if Summorum Pontificum never happened.