Rorate Caeli

No more oasis in the desert of Evreux

Msgr. Nourrichard (to the right, and yes, he's wearing cope and miter) standing with an Anglican bishop and a Lutheran bishop at the ordination of Anglican priestesses in Salisbury Cathedral in July 2010. More on this here, here, here (with more photos) and here.


Paix Liturgique's English-language Letter # 15, dated April 14, 2011:

Thiberville: a French scandal!

First Bishop Nourrichard of Évreux gave the parish priest of Thiberville the boot after a two-year long cabal. Now he has just excommunicated him on the simple grounds that. . . he is still living in his rectory. A rectory in which Father Michel lives legitimately, actually, since the township of Thiberville, which has been supporting its pastor since the very beginning of the polemic, is the one that granted him its use.

The story of Thiberville is a simple one: a progressive bishop, whose diocese is fast becoming dechristianized, wished to dismantle the last remaining parish that was fully living out its Catholicism. The local parish priest for the past twenty years refused this decision; he had the support of the faithful as well as that of the town's elected officials. So the bishop tried to come down and impose his decision. He was literally driven out by the parishioners early in 2010, however.

Nevertheless the bishop persisted in his will to incorporate the parish of Thiberville into a new grouping. He ended up obtaining satisfaction from the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, to which Father Michel had appealed this decision.


A new priest, whose views are more in keeping with the bishop's, was therefore appointed. Meanwhile Father Michel is left with no specific apostolate. The trouble is that the township of Thiberville decided to leave Father Michel the use of the rectory: indeed the new pastor wouldn't be living there because of the new clustering of parishes. And this is what the very open and tolerant Bishop Nourrichard, who gladly attends the ordination of women in the Anglican church, cannot abide. Hence this "motu proprio" excommunication of Father Michel . . . .

Without going any further into the merits of this sad case, we can make an initial assessment of this operation, especially from a liturgical point of view.


THE PARISH WAS JUST TOO CATHOLIC

Here's the "before" picture. Thiberville covered fourteen chapels and churches. Father Michel served them all and they constituted the most vibrant and missionary Catholic grouping in all the diocese of Évreux. The church of Thiberville was packed for all three Sunday Masses, there were alternating services among the other churches, big battalions of children attended Catechism, there was active participation of the Faithful, crowds of altar servers, confraternities, all the churches of the district were magnificently restored, weekday Masses were very well-attended, the pastor himself conducted the funerals, etc. In a word, it was one of the last places outside of Paris where the communion of all Catholics was lived out in an exemplary manner. It was a model of the application of the Pope's will with its "ordinary" Masses as pious as can be and the "extraordinary" Mass finding its natural place in between. We'll come back to this point.

Now for the "after" picture. Thiberville at present amounts to a glum Sunday Mass attended by only thirty people: about ten faithful from the original parish and twenty others from the parishes that have since been clustered with Thiberville. Weekday Masses? Cancelled. Kids at Catechism? Now, at most, twenty. Long story short: Thiberville shares the common lot of the parishes of France. It is discovering the "Church crisis" it had avoided until now thanks to its pastor's zeal.

Among this business's other victims there is also the "Reform of the reform" that the Holy Father wishes. It is not, as you will have guessed, much to Bishop Nourrichard's liking. The Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite is not at home in Thiberville any more. As a result, the entire diocese of Évreux is left without a Sunday Mass according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII.

And to think that Bishop Nourrichard was often found swearing that the liturgical question had nothing to do with the business at Thiberville . . . .

Before being put out to pasture, Father Michel used to celebrate the traditional Mass at Thiberville every Sunday at 5pm, after celebrating the morning ordinary form Masses in the most reverent and orthodox manner possible.

Indeed Father Michel had prophetically anticipated the common sense measures that Benedict XVI was to promulgate in his Motu Proprio. For many years he had both forms of the one Roman rite peacefully cohabitating in his parish. As a matter of fact this traditional Mass had been celebrated at Thiberville since 1996. At the time Father Michel had given a favorable response to the request of some faithful who wanted a novena of Masses according to the traditional Missal to be celebrated for the repose of the soul of Father Montgomery, deceased in November 1996.

Father Montgomery was a former Scottish minister turned Catholic priest. He was pastor of Le Chamblac (located a few kilometers from Thiberville) from 1956 to his death. This parish priest had kept the traditional Mass in his parish and the successive bishops of Évreux--including the controversial Bishop Gaillot, whom John Paul II dismissed from his ministry in 1995--found no fault with him: that is how beloved he had been among all his faithful. And so this novena became as it were perpetual and was peacefully, though not exclusively, celebrated for fifteen years in the (now formerly) flourishing parish of Thiberville.

In a certain way, or rather in a way that is certain, Father Michel had succeeded in making of his parish a laboratory of the mutual enrichment of the two forms of the one Roman rite. He was, in a word, a "Reform of the reform" pastor, very much in the spirit of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.


A BISHOP WHO DISDAINS HIS PRIESTS, HIS FLOCK, AND THE POPE!

We're going over this painful business once again because, among other things, it is symptomatic of the episcopal opposition to Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio.

Now the bishop may say that liturgical questions have nothing to do with his decision to suppress the parish of Thiberville and to leave Father Michel without an apostolate, even though he is still young by ecclesiastical standards (61, with fourteen years to go before retirement--bearing in mind that the diocese of Évreux is just as much of an ecclesiastical desert as the great majority of dioceses in France). Be that as it may, there are the facts.

It hasn't taken long for Bishop Nourrichard and his men to break this magnificent motu proprio experiment in a peaceful country parish.

To tell the truth, the traditional Mass at 5pm was not actually cancelled overnight once Father Michel was gone. In fact the Mass was on schedule for March 6, as you can see on this video.

These are both tragic and scandalous images. Tragic, because the priest's distress at dealing with a liturgy he manifestly does not know is a pity to behold. Scandalous, because the liturgy is abused beyond belief; one cannot avoid thinking of the bishop's responsibility in this travesty of a celebration.

These images are proof of Bishop Nourrichard's absolute lack of respect and charity for his priests and faithful. He sent out a priest who is totally ignorant of the rubrics of the extraordinary form, without any preparation of any kind, to distraught parishioners.

The images speak for themselves: if the priest had not announced at the beginning of Mass that he was celebrating the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, no one could have guessed it! New readings, wrong orientations, the color of the vestments having nothing to do with the liturgical season, lay readers, and above all a totally lost priest who doesn't know what to do or when to do it. So much so that the poor man, unable to make it through to the end of his attempt, switches to the Paul VI Mass in mid-celebration . . . .

Faced with such a waste one ends up wondering whether the Bishop of Évreux isn't actually scoffing at the Pope himself: while Benedict XVI is ever working at reconciliation among Christians, Bishop Nourrichard is sowing discord and resentment, going even so far as to use the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum as a means of retaliation. The discouragement and anger currently felt by Thiberville Catholics is therefore quite understandable.

And the bishop's words, as he explains that celebration in the extraordinary form might eventually start up again when a stable group of faithful asks for it, aren't going to settle things . . . . For, until these last few weeks, if there was a place on earth where the definition of "stable group" wasn't a problem, it was Thiberville, where such a group had fifteen years' existence.

A stable group? Bishop Nourrichard, whom do you think you're kidding?

53 comments:

Anonymous said...

Arch heretic. Should be given a chance to fully renounce his heresy or be excommunicated, actually I think his actions have already incurred him Latæ sententiæ.

Lee Lovelock.

Robert said...

Well is the Holy See going to do anything. Or let this Bishop get away with murder.

thomas tucker said...

Actually would make one want to become Orthdodox.
Scandalous.

Anonymous said...

Members of his diocese are so fortunate to be guided by a bishop who is in "full communion" with Rome! Because, as we all know, what matters, more than anything, is having one's "full communion" papers stamped.

Denis

authoressaurus said...

You've got to be kidding? How much provocation can Benedict stand? Filth!

beng said...

Yes, Denis. It's better to have full communion with all of its craziness than to NOT be in full communion with all its liturgical beauties.

Remember the adagium extra ecclesiam nulla salus? I know you do.

Patrick said...

"Now he has just excommunicated him on the simple grounds that. . . he is still living in his rectory".

This is incorrect. Bishop Nourrichard did not excommunicate Fr. Michel. He simply released a statement saying that Fr. Michel "put himself out of communion with his Ordinary". Of course, this is not only complete nonsense, it is also a mere personal statement, devoid of any canonical effect. Bishop Nourrichard did not sign any canonical decree that excomunicates or declares the excommunication of Fr. Michel.

awatkins69 said...

Very sad story.

Ben Vallejo said...

Scandalous and yet in cope and mitre! Did he lay his hands on the woman ordinand?

Anonymous said...

Besides being scandalous and demonic it makes on truly wonder why many of the Faithful leave and go to SSPX. There, nothing has changed since Our Lord gave His Full Blessing to the Holy Mass and the Catholic Church.

Prof. Basto said...

If hands were laid or words of ordination were pronounced by the Bishop (it seems to be the case, given the cope and mitre), then the bishop incurred the excommunication mentioned in the CDF's recent general decree regarding women ordination.

Mark said...

Wasn't Evreux the diocese from which Jacques Gaillot was deposed as bishop by John Paul II?

David said...

Yes, Denis. It's better to have full communion with all of its craziness than to NOT be in full communion with all its liturgical beauties.

Remember the adagium extra ecclesiam nulla salus? I know you do.


So, those who are canonically iregular will not be saved? Those Catholics who seek refuge in SSPX chapels from the collapse of the faith in diocesan parishes are on the path to damnation?

I wonder if you are quite so harsh with non-Catholics?

Poor St Athanasius must be the brightest flame in Hell in that case.

Giles said...

I spoke to a priest friend yesterday. He reads this board assiduously. He's been intellectually through the tortures of the damned attempting to reconcile his faith with the directives and policies which he must tolerate every day in his diocese. Recently, we've discussed his consternation at the recent Popes over the years permitting entire dioceses to be decimated of their Catholic Faith: Rochester, NY, Albany, NY, Los Angeles, CA etc, etc, etc.

He's followed very carefully the thread involving Cardinal Pell and the SSPX. He telephoned me this morning and said he had been reading Robert Bolt's play about St. Thomas More. He re-read the words of St. Thomas to Cromwell at his trial: "The maxim is 'Qui tacet consentiret': the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied."

Those words, the newly appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Great Britain's account of telling an Orthodox seminarian not to convert to Rome, and the picture of Msgr. Nourrichard at the ordination of the Anglican "priestess" all served to turn a light bulb on for him. He told me this morning that he has decided to leave his diocesan position and work with the SSPX for the salvation of souls. The man truly sounded liberated.

I've heard of two diocesan priests from a "conservative" diocese in the Midwest leaving their positions and joining the SSPX within the past two months.

I think the Church is quickly approaching a watershed moment. There's just this feeling in the air.

Giles

M. A. said...

Giles, your priest friend will be in my prayers. Would that more priests begin to see the light!

The non-trad priests with whom I have ever conversed about these things, usually just smile and say no more. Sometimes they try to defend the novelties in what appears to be an attempt to convince themselves.

I am reminded of that prophecy of St. John Bosco.....no, not the one about the two ships.

Enoch said...

What, exactly, is the point in posting this article during the two most important weeks in the Church - Passiontide? Is it really so important to read about supposedly scandalous events - or is it more important to meditate on Our Lord's Passion- with a view to our own sinfulness, rather than to focus on the sins of others?

JulieC said...

So sad to hear of a diocesan priest joining the SSPX. It's not that I don't have immense sympathy for his dilemma, or that I don't have immense sympathy for the SSPX, but I've seen many similarly righteous-minded people join the SSPX and end up in trouble. At least ten people I know have jumped ship for the SSPX and have ended up shortly thereafter as hardened schismatics and sedevacantists.

The problem seems to be that people who are running from the problems in the Catholic Church don't stop long with the fairly moderate SSPX; that is merely the first step down the slippery slope; there are more attractive extremist positions as you go further down.

Giles, please tell your friend to beware.

Anonymous said...

Enoch:

I see. Perhaps we should forbid the reading of the Passion then, as it tells of scandals such as Judas betraying the Lord and Peter denying Him, while the rest of the Apostles fled, save for John.

If anything, it is during Passiontide that we must have the courage to face up to the "filth" in the Church, as the current Pope himself did in the fateful Holy Week of 2005.

Gratias said...

Tragic, but representative of the persecution Diocesan priests that offer the EF must endure from protestantizing bishops. Cardinal Mahoney gave a parish priest a similar transfer as his parting gift before retiring. Scandalous how Benedict XVI is disobeyed by his bishops. They care for the spirit of 1968 above their duty.

Enoch said...

Anon at 15:33 wrote:

"If anything, it is during Passiontide that we must have the courage to face up to the "filth" in the Church as the current pope himself did in the fateful Holy Week of 2005."

If it is binding on Catholics to face up to "filth" during Passiontide, then why did Our Lord not tell the other Apostles about Judas? If we Catholics are to adopt this attitude, then we must, by extension, say that Our Lord was wrong to not tell the others about Judas' betrayal, correct?

Anonymous said...

You guys sound like somone I have heard of before...oh yes, Martin Luther! The Church has endured scandals before, and in each case, yes, communion with the Church, even when the Popes lived like spoiled princes in Avignon, when sodomites were prevelant in the Priesthood as in St. Peter Damian's day, and when the average parish Priest was comprimised in french revolution times, was more important than "following your conscience" like you wannabe protestants are suggesting. Act like you believe Our Lord when he promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Do you not trust that God's providence is still operable? With St. Gregory the Great, I remind you that people get the leaders they deserve. So stop this lollard-esque proto-protestant rabble rousing, accept the fact that God is punishing us, and take it like a Catholic, doing reparation and penance rather than congratulating Priests for abandoning their posts and fommenting rebellion. God will punish the clergy--it is not the job of laity and peasants. You all sound like modernists with your "rights of the laity" schtick.

Okie

DefensorFidei said...

What is truly scandalous is the relationship between Planned Parenthood and numerous Catholic colleges in the USA, as recently documented by the Cardinal Newman Society:

http://cardinalnewmansociety.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5GDvYJ27dE8%3d&tabid=36

Anonymous said...

Giles,

"He told me this morning that he has decided to leave his diocesan position and work with the SSPX for the salvation of souls. The man truly sounded liberated."

This is impressive! He has the heart of a real priest - the salvation of souls! I will pray for him.

Thank you for this.

Barbara

Anonymous said...

M.A.

"I am reminded of that prophecy of St. John Bosco.....no, not the one about the two ships."

Which one is that, kind M.A.?

Barbara

For Okie,

What a mish-mash of ideas you wrote. You are right on a couple of them, though.

Barbara

Gregory said...

And there we have it, in the space of just one thread on just one blog, a wavering trad (me) runs the entire gamut of faith emotions and convictions and, like the would-be parachutist, all-hooked-up and adrenaline-fuelled moves from a position of relative security at the back of the plane, feels all gung-ho for a moment or two, peers over the edge of the leap-hatch, is ready to jump into freedom and is then hauled back in, secretly relieved, and sits back down again. Let me explain.

Stage 1: I read the original post and thought "Rome, just what are you doing? How much more justification will I need to jump from the safety of the EF Motu Proprio position to the fuller experience of the SSPX? It took me 10 years to jump into indult land (2006) and then along came SP to make me feel more 'rubber-stamped'. Hmmm, five years on, I think it's high time to complete the leap, because if things like this are still being allowed to continue in the mainstream..."

Stage 2: Still feeling all imbued with inner convictions and a sense of "right, this is it, it's now or never", I read Giles' post and that seemed like the clincher. That's it. I'm jumping!

Stage 3: Ah, but then I read JulieC's post and thought "ooh, actually, that looks like a longer, more dangerous jump than I first thought" but I'm still peering over, however.

Stage 4: And then Anonymous at 15:56 comes on, mentions the bad word (Luther), strikes more than a few bells loudly for me and hits several other nails squarely on the head (and for obvious reasons I'm always a sucker for Gregoriana) and so I retreat from the perilous edge, trudge back to my seat and look out of the window admiring the view above the clouds. As I was. Show over.

And I'll probably repeat the whole routine again next week, and the week after on someplaceblogelsewhere...and the week after.

Please tell me I'm not alone in this?

I mean, really, it's mentally exhausting. It would be just good to know there are others like me.

Next time: I'll use the endless-tennis-rally-being-watched-from-the-sidelines-neck-twisting-metaphor. Deuce.

Giles said...

Gregory,

What an honest post.

You're not alone in your hesitations.

Giles

Anonymous said...

Gregory,
I have no idea what are you talking about.
It was around the 80s. I knew it was an important decision, but I left the crazy, mundane, extreme liberal-minded, leftist, and possibly agnostic Novus Ordo's environment in my country in South America and joined the SSPX.
Period.
My family and I enjoyed ever since being Roman Catholics as always has been understood being Roman Catholics. No NO mixed ups. We see the rest of the ... how to call it...? the rest of the "struggling-Catholics"?? with a sense of sorrow and sadness.
We pray for the Church every day.
M.M.

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

"Please tell me I'm not alone in this?"

You are most definitely not alone.

I enjoyed your post a lot! Big Smile!

Barbara

Anonymous said...

"If it is binding on Catholics to face up to "filth" during Passiontide, then why did Our Lord not tell the other Apostles about Judas?"
Well, Our Lord did tell his disciples about Juda's treason, but in an indirect way by telling them that one of them would betray Him. He added the worst condemnation profered by Him: "It would have been better for him not to be born".
I wish that one of the modern Popes would condemn some trator in a similar fashion, but since New Church post VII it was forbidden to do so, by non other than Bl. John XXIII.
It is nowadays Passiontime for the Church with every kind of heresy emanating from a number of the Church's highest hierarchy.

thomas tucker said...

Gregory- best comments I've read anywhere in a long time. I understand completely. I'm across the aisle looking out the window too, although I don't have easy access to the EF now.

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

The plane (Church) will eventually get to its destination, though it will fly through all sorts of turbulence, in a circuitous route, losing cabin pressure at times, and flying upside down.

At the destination (Restoration) there are people lighting up landing lights, setting off flares and trying to communicate with the pilot to lead him to safey (SSPX).

If you jump out of the plane with a parachute (Faith) you arrive at the destination ahead of time, waiting on the eventual return of the plane to reunite with its inevitable destiny. You just get to miss out on the near death experiences which may cause loss of Faith in the meantime.

Jumping out of the plane with no parachute is sedevacantism.

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

I completely agree with you. Our Holy Church is a Divine institution with some many human flaws (including this scribe!).

When I look at things like this happening, I hesitate the same way you do... Then I can't but go back to our Lord's promise not to leave His Church defenseless.

Even in the worst of times, I try to remember: 'Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam'

With Peter? or without Peter? Last time I checked, Peter resides in Rome, not in Econe...

JC @ LAS

Long-Skirts said...

"Msgr. Nourrichard (to the right, and yes, he's wearing cope and miter) standing with an Anglican bishop and a Lutheran bishop at the ordination of Anglican priestesses"

THE LILY

"The martyrs were bound, imprisoned, scourged, racked, burnt, rent, butchered —and they multiplied." St. Augustine


NO BURNING, TEARING,
SCOURGING SKIN.
IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL
ALL WITHIN.

NO ROTTING FLESH
OR PUTRID BLOOD
IT'S STERILE CLEAN
NO RANCID CRUD

FOR BUTCHERED,
TORTURED,BOUND UP SKINS
REVEALS THE TRUTHS
OF BISHOPS SINS.

THEY WANT IT NICE
THEY WANT IT HUSHED
WITH VEINS OF ICE
GOOD SOULS ARE CRUSHED.

THE SILENT COLD
IS BETTER YET
FROZEN, SOLID
CAN'T BEGET.

FOR MARTYRED BLOOD
REVEALS THE CHURCH
BLIND SOULS SEE TRUTH
AND END THEIR SEARCH.

"WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!"
THE BISHOPS' SAY.
"SO LET'S IGNORE...
THEY'LL GO AWAY.

ENLIGHTENED MEN
DON'T SCOURGE THE SKIN.
ENLIGHTENED MEN
KEEP BLOOD WITHIN."

BUT THEY FORGOT...
THE WOMAN BLEEDS
AND MONTHLY MAKES
A BED FOR SEEDS

WHERE "NICE" AND "HUSHED"
THEY'LL GROW TO MEN
AND SEIZE THE OARS
FROM WRISTS THAT BEND...

ON PETER'S BARK
WHERE BLOOD STILL FLOWS
FROM WOMAN'S WOMB...
THE LILY GROWS!

LeonG said...

When the papacy gives the same example in its scandalous published ecumenical exploits with Lutheran and Anglican prietesses then one can expect first, that no action will be taken at all against any bishop who propagates this genre of behaviour and, second, this is tacitly approved. Silence is its equivalent.

Alvin said...

Gregory,

Awesome... You described my turmoil to a "T".

My prayers are with you too.

Be strong in Faith,
Alvin

JMR said...

Anyone who has had to endure what I have had to endure at NO Masses in Brazil would know that the NO Mass is a source of serious error. Women go to Communion in backless /strapless dresses or tight jeans. Hymns are sung to samba drumming with co-ordinated hand-waving. Women in the choir on election day wearing T-shirts with the face and name of the most popular ( and corrupt presidential candidate0. Priests with microphones acting as a master of ceremonies and singing their own compositions like wannabe pop stars Scantily dressed girls dancing in front of the altar.
Sermons supporting communism, socialism and the invasion of private land by terrorists.The latest reflections for Lent were about climate change!
Fortunately, I have found an SSPX chapelwhere the traditional Mass is said every Sunday.. It is quite difficult to get there but I usually manage it. On those Sundays I can't make it for some reason there is no way that I will attend an NO Mass. My worry as always is the number of souls being lost and I cannot understand why the Pope is not more energetic in correcing this situation.

Anonymous said...

The whole story is that pope Benedict XVI appointed Bp Nourrichard in the end of 2005 and that the Holy See so far has constantly supported his so nefarious decisions.

It's not the first time that good priests are exposed to the bad attitude of this type of bishops. Alas.
Naturally it is conveying a big signal for all French priests : be Roman and faithful and you'll be persecuted and abandonned by ... Rome.

In the mean time, it's business as usual with cardinal Ouellet and terribly liberal bishops are appointed by Benedict XVI in France and Europe, one after the other unto the death of the European Church, the death by liberal Catholic poison.

It's a long period of Lent we have to live usque quo Domine ?

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

I'm not going to make any suggestions either way, but the "Luther" charge is nonsense. Lutherans are in schism because they reject Catholic teaching about basic issues--e.g., the sacraments, transubstantiation, salvation, to name a few. They cannot receive communion because they are not "in communion," in the sense that they do not believe what Catholics believe. Between the Bishop of Evreux and the SSPX, who do you think is more "in communion," in that, important sense? Who is more Lutheran? I suspect that the Bishop of Evreux might be too heterodox even for the Lutherans.

Being "in communion" cannot be reduced to something as trivial and empty as most of those who claim that the SSPX are in schism make it out to be. The noble priest in Evreux is not "out of communion" in the sense that matters, and neither are the SSPX. Do you honestly think that the fact that he has been excommunicated by a misguided bishop is meaningful? Yet the advocates of empty formalism would have us believe that the poor man is damned, as are any who attend a mass that he celebrates, or receive absolution from him!

I also think that it's a mistake to take an all-or-nothing view--i.e., that I ought either to attend only SSPX Masses and leave everything else behind, or to avoid the SSPX altogether. It has to depend on the situation. If you are in a terrible diocese with no traditionalist parishes whose status is regularized, then go to the SSPX. You don't have to sign a formal declaration that you'd never attend a non-SSPX parish.

I don't know why anyone would be in danger of becoming a sedevacantist when attending Mass at an SSPX parish when the SSPX aren't sedevacantists. Those who did so probably went to the SSPX with sedevacantist tendencies.

Denis

Anonymous said...

Gregory,

I share your plight. It's a little different though, as I'm willing to go to an SSPX chapel.

I'm currently in a conservative diocese where there are non-egregiously abusive Novus Ordos and Motu Masses. There is also a Society chapel with all Traditional sacraments.

My wife is NO and the kids go to the NO during the week with her and occassionally on weekends.
She won't go to the SSPX because they are not "in union with Rome".

I'm ripped in half because my spiritual life is aided and improves 100% at the Society Chapel. If I go to the NO, I eventually fall away from the Faith. I'm even in a place where the NO & confession is offered daily and I can make it. I did for a while, but stopped when I continually grew lukewarm after frequent NO confessions & Masses.

The MP Masses are better, but I still can't psychologically or spiritually advance there either. The sermons are never related to saving your soul, Traditional life, etc. They are generic. No other Traditional sacraments, no Traditional sensus fidei there, and I feel off, like I am compromising.

The faithful there also do not have the sense of reverence I find at the chapel or a fully traditional orientation so I feel alone. At the chapel it feels like people take their faith very seriously. At the MP parish it feels very casual.

All I want is 100% Tradition. I know that it feeds my soul and I know that God has drawn me to it. The Society chapel provides that. If it were just me I'd go in a heartbeat. However, family unity and those issues make things more complicated.

I feel trapped between advancing and my spiritual life and alienating my wife and friends and family or else having peace with them and constantly trying to force myself to advance in the spiritual life in the NO and MP and failing.

Please pray that God gives me guidance. =(

Jordanes551 said...

If you jump out of the plane with a parachute (Faith) you arrive at the destination ahead of time, waiting on the eventual return of the plane to reunite with its inevitable destiny.

Unless, that is, your parachute fails (you lose your faith) or you land in an alligator-infested swamp, or get hit by another airplane during your descent.

No, if it's all the same, I'll just stay in the plane (the Church).

Really bad analogy, that.

Anonymous said...

@ Mark, yes this is the same diocese that Jean Galliot was deposed from. If only we had an Inquisition which dealt with heretical clerics and clerics harmful to the Ancient Faith like the ilk of Nourrachard, Nichols, and most the magic circle in England.
Lee Lovelock-Jemmott

Anonymous said...

Beng:

Your errors start with their errors. Yet again, there is no such thing as 'partial communion'. Communion (a term invented in this sense by Anglican heretics early the 20th century and rarely used by Catholics until they 'discovered' it in the 1960s) is an absolute, like pregnancy or death. 'Partial communion' is an oxymoron; 'full communion', a redundancy. You're either 'in communion' or you're not. In the good old days, we would have said that you're either Catholic or you're not. True, we are united to non-Catholics through valid Baptism but that does not effect Communion in adults. Communion is a complete unity of faith and practice.

The S.S.P.X is Catholic and is in communion (or rather its members are) with Rome. They are disobedient, NOT schismatic, as Rome made crystal clear in 2008. Rome said then that the 1988 consecrations were a schismatic act but not one, in themselves, sufficient to create a schism. It is true that those in an irregular situation risk the chance of falling gradually into schism by imbibing a schismatic attitude (cf. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei). However, we cannot say of an S.S.P.X member in general that he must be a schismatic. The law assumes nothing of the kind. With a bit more nuancing in reading the Code, we come to sections regarding emergencies and grave inconveniences and of reasonable and probably doubt regarding matters of fact.

If you think that being in communion with Bishop Nourrichard (or Cardnial Mahony, for that matter) is vital, then you have elevated ordinances above their end, and that maketh them invalid. We are not legal positivists here! The law cannot exist apart from the end to which it is ordained. Anyone in Canon Law 101 knows that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Patrick:

Then the Bishop made a false statement, since the putting of one outside of communion literally is a declaration of excommunication. In other words, the Bishop has made a claim de facto of excommunication but without giving that claim the canoncial form it needs, even as a declaration (ferendæ sententiæ) to make it so.

I am happy, in a sick sort of a way, that this is happening, for it proves the need for our own personal juriisdiction. Without one, the Gaillots and Nourrichards and Gueneleys de facto depose the Pope in the local see. If the Pope does not take action, he will lose his authortity. There is no motive like necessity.

What happens when a branch manager defies head office? He either gets replaced or the managers at head office are replaced by the shareholders. In this case, the shareholders are the faithful and the shares are their contributions.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

""The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included
some schismatic actions..." (Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos 2007).
"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics......... The priests and faithful of the
Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics." (Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos 2007)

Words from the man in charge of the matter at the time: not heretics, not schismatics. In any case, many NO bishops and presbyters are also involved in many schismatic actions although not by definition formally schismatic. Personal opinions on the question are therefore only that and have no objective validity. Nonsuch bishop or presbyter can accuse The SSPX of heresy or schism or whatever but these claims are based on fear, bias, ignorance or hatred. The debate over "full" or "partial" or "no" communion with Rome are mere hair-splitting. The facts on the issue have been pronounced by the Cardinal concerned. Furthermore, The Confraternity has always been dealt with as an internal ecclesiastical matter, unlike the Orthodox Churches.

Enoch said...

As Holy Week is fast approaching, perhaps we, as Catholics, should ask ourselves: did Our Lord suffer brutal tortures and crucifixion on the Cross so that we may be comfortable? So that we should not be subjected to unfairness? Or weak or bad liturgy? Are we not called upon, too, to carry our own crosses with faithfulness to Him, even if it means attending a church that is not traditional, or seriously lacking?

By retreating to the comfort of a church or chapel where we are not likely to hear or see anything which causes discomfort, isn't that the same thing, or similar to, the Apostles who denied Our Lord before He was crucified? They, too, did not want to suffer; instead - they fled. Surely Our Lord understands our weakness in the face of adversity, but which is more pleasing to Him?

Anonymous said...

"With Peter? or without Peter? Last time I checked, Peter resides in Rome, not in Econe."

So obeying your local bishop who disobeys the Pope means obeying the Pope? Strange logic!

The Pope is derelict in his duty to discipline the wolves with mitres that he himself appointed. This has been the case for some time. If you have the power and responsibility to correct injustice and you don't, you are to blame. There is no getting around this sad truth. Most blind paplators ignore it and move on. Unfortunately that hasn't worked so well for the last 45 years.

Anonymous said...

"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops"

-St. John Chrysostom

Anonymous said...

Enoch,

What an absurd provocation! By fleeing parishes that are protestant in spirit, practice, and belief, one is fleeing TO the Lord, not FROM Him. I'd rather say that the complacent Catholics who refuse to turn away from the Novus Ordo mess--for fear of being labelled "extreme", or worse--are the ones choosing comfort over truth.

Denis

Louis E. said...

Surely the NCReporter-type "shareholders" can not be given a vote for Pope.

To what extent is the French Republic's use of concordat-provided rights to influence episcopal appointments that were inherited from the Catholic Bourbon monarchs (I do not believe republics are entitled to be seen as heirs to monarchs but the republics do) to blame for the type of bishop we see appointed in France?

Anonymous said...

May I say to you, Long Skirts, that "The Lily" shook me to the core.

God has begun to invest your poems with something new, beautiful, terrible.

Thank you.

elmwood said...

There is an oasis for catholics who don't want to join the sspx or go to a NO. It's called the eastern catholic church. you get the best of both worlds: union w/rome and orthodox liturgies. it's ironic that in both cases, schism preserved the liturgy: sspx and eastern orthodox.

Tom the Milkman said...

I agree with Anon 00:27, Long-Skirts, you truly exceed your fine self with "The Lily". It ought to be required reading and reflection for Catholics through Passiontide and Holy Week.
Thank you. The Lord bestowed a gift on you.

Anonymous said...

Attn. Elmwood:

Sorry to burst your bubble but the SSPX didn't budge from the Roman Catholic Church as it existed before the madness of Vatican II. It is the reformers who changed. The SSPX were always instructed to pray for the Holy Father. Why would schismatics fight for decades to retain the ancient Tridentine Mass? They were disobedient and I thank God they were. No apologies were extended to them for their steadfastness in the matter. Nor are any expected.

The Orthodox who became Eastern Rite Catholics did not pray for the Holy Father/Vicar of Christ as they did not recognize him as such. It was not until after the Othodox were reunited to Rome in the Union of Brest that this came to be. They were allowed to keep their ancient liturgy but were not saved by schism. The Eastern Rites can serve as an oasis for some but it din't work for me when I tried it. I decided to fight for what I was raised with.

A.M. LaPietra