Rorate Caeli

Jose Gomez: Coadjutor Archbishop of LA?


Archbishop Gomez giving First Holy Communion at the O.L of Atonement Anglican-Use Catholic Parish


So say The Deacon's Bench and a note on New Advent.

The website of Una Voce San Bernardino, in an article about the "glorious transformation" of the situation for the TLM in the Archdiocese of San Antonio, has the following to say about the soon-to-be Coadjutor Archbishop, who was ordained in 1978 as a numerary priest of Opus Dei:

The Most Rev. Jose Gomez, our Archbishop, and Fr. Francis McHugh deserve a huge deal of credit for withstanding the barrage of criticism they have received for allowing the Traditional Latin Mass into the mainstream of Catholic life here in San Antonio.

UPDATE (NC): Confirmed. May Our Lady Queen of Angels and Saint Vibiana intercede for him and the faithful under his care. ¡Enhorabuena, monseñor!

84 comments:

  1. Ponte8:37 AM

    Again, a master stroke by the Vicar of Christ. How much has been accomplished in only 5 years of pontificate thus far!

    LONG LIVE POPE BENEDICT XVI!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prof. Basto10:14 AM

    It is now official:

    NOMINA DEL COADIUTORE DI LOS ANGELES (U.S.A.)

    Il Santo Padre ha nominato Arcivescovo Coadiutore dell’Arcidiocesi di Los Angeles (U.S.A.) Sua Eccellenza Reverendissima Monsignor José Horacio GÓMEZ, finora Arcivescovo di San Antonio.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congratulations to Archbishop Gómez and may Our Lady of the Angels and Saint Bibiana intercede for him and the faithful under his care.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Prof. Basto11:52 AM

    According to the website of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Archbishop-coadjutor Gómez will become Archbishop of Los Angeles when Card. Mahony retires in February 2011.

    Which means that, according to the Archdiocese, Card. Mahony's resignation will be accepted as soon as it is made when the Cardinal turns 75.

    Here is the Archdiocese press release to that effect:

    POPE APPOINTS COADJUTOR ARCHBISHOP FOR LOS ANGELES

    Pope Benedict XVI has named Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of San Antonio, Texas, as Coadjutor Archbishop of Los Angeles. The appointment was announced today, April 6, in Washington, D.C., by Archbishop Pietro Sambi, apostolic nuncio to the United States.

    As Coadjutor, Archbishop Gomez, 58, will automatically become head of the three-county Archdiocese of Los Angeles upon Cardinal Roger Mahony’s retirement at age 75 on February, 27, 2011. A Mass of Reception for Archbishop Gomez is scheduled for May 26.

    Cardinal Roger Mahony will introduce Archbishop Gomez today, Tuesday, April 6 at a 10 a.m. press conference inside the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Officially credentialed members of the media are invited to attend the press conference.

    “I welcome Archbishop Gomez to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with enthusiasm and personal excitement,” said Cardinal Mahony. “The Auxiliary Bishops and I are looking forward to working closely with him over the coming months until he becomes the Archbishop early in 2011.”

    Born in Monterrey, Mexico, and spending his early priesthood in Texas, Archbishop Gomez will become the first Hispanic Archbishop of Los Angeles. When he succeeds Cardinal Mahony in 2011, Archbishop Gomez will head the largest Catholic Archdiocese in the United States, with more than five million members, 70 percent of them Hispanic.

    ‘I’m very grateful to the Holy Father for giving me this opportunity to serve the Church with a mentor and leader like Cardinal Roger Mahony,” Archbishop Gomez said. “I’m grateful to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, for supporting the Holy Father’s confidence in me. I will try with all my strength to earn that trust.”

    For more information, please visit
    coadjutor.la-archdiocese.org

    ReplyDelete
  5. As Coadjutor, Archbishop Gomez, 58, will automatically become head of the three-county Archdiocese of Los Angeles upon Cardinal Roger Mahony’s retirement at age 75 on February, 27, 2011. A Mass of Reception for Archbishop Gomez is scheduled for May 26.

    Interesting and gratifying that Mahony's stay will not be extended one day past his 75th birthday.

    Of course, one wishes his stay had been cut short - a whole lot sooner.

    Still, Rev. Gomez looks to be a massive improvement. I hope he brings his firehose with him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:13 PM

    You knowo the storm is coming as soon as the anti-
    Catholic media seize upon the fact of Mons Gomez's relationship with Opus Dei...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mariam1:37 PM

    Whew. I have never heard of Abp. Gomez but this sounds to be fantastic news. Praised be Jesus and Mary!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hopefully Archbishop Gomez will bulldoze the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is great news. Praise be to God.

    In calling for the prayers of (4th century) St Bibiana, I'm sure she'll be pleased to hear them. But she isn't the same person as the patron saint of LA, who is the 3rd century St Vibiana (according to Wikipedia). I hope that Archbishop Gomez is more successful.

    Wasn't it the beautiful cathedral dedicated to St Vibiana that the LA archdiocese said was unstable and had to be closed and demolished - to provide funds for the new fire station dedicated to Our Lady and the Angels? That same old cathedral that was then sold to become a night club - the profits going towards said fire station.

    Poor St Vibiana's body ended up in a corner of the new edifice somewhere - I couldn't get to venerate the relics when I was there last year.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:40 PM

    Is Gomez and orthodox and pro TLM? What is - sincerely asked - the truth here since I have read the follwing comments made on the site of the American Papist (http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/):

    Fr. Joseph
    April 6, 2010
    FWIW: A source in San Antonio says Gomez tolerates appalling liturgical abuses.

    Joshua Luke
    April 6, 2010
    Lets get a couple of things straight here. First off, there is no doubt that Archbishop Gomez is a huge improvement from Cardinal Mahony. Los Angelans are fortunate in that regard. However,the above statement does not automatically equate that H.E. Gomez is the answer to all problems. Fr. Joseph, you source is very correct, anyone who has been to a Mass in San Fernando Cathedral will testify to that. (Joe), I am sorry to disappoint you, but the liturgical abuses will not end, not in the fashion you envision at least. Second off, H.E. Gomez is no friend to the TLM. He once told a high school chaplain that he was ‘ruining the students by teaching them that Mass’ [referring to the TLM], that chaplain was gone within a year. Depending on who the San Antonio sucessor is, this can be a very nice day for San Antonio or a start of another 26 year winter. Archbishop Gomez is a nice man, but I always scratch my head when people try to paint him as the beacon of orthodoxy. Comparatively he is better than a lot of bishops, but then again I think my Rosary has more orthodoxy than most.

    TJM
    April 6, 2010
    Fr. Joseph, that would seem odd since the Archbishop-designate is a member of Opus Dei whose members generally follow the rubrics to the letter and many celebrate Mass correctly, ad orientem, in keeping with ancient practice. I would guess the liturgical circus Masses in LA will be coming to an end. It’s almost unthinkable that Pope Benedict would appoint someone who tolerates “appalling liturgical abuses” to head an influential Archdiocese like LA, when correct Liturgy is front and center in the Pope’s agenda to restore the Catholic Faith. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only good news IMHO is that Cardinal Mahony will not last one day past 75 but I'm a little nonplussed by Archbishop Gomez's statement that "I’m very grateful to the Holy Father for giving me this opportunity to serve the Church with a mentor and leader like Cardinal Roger Mahony.”

    Yes, I understand he couldn't throw Mahony under the bus but he could have avoided the words "with a mentor and leader like u-know-who" and simply said "I'm grateful for the opportunity to get to know the archdiocese and its problems and challenges." Problems and challenges he will certainly face in that assignment...of that I have no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We have heard that when he was told the news at some point this weekend that he said, "What have I done to offend the Holy Father?"

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/04/opus-dei-replacement-for-cardinal.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. "A source in San Antonio says Gomez tolerates appalling liturgical abuses..."

    FWIW, the photos that I've seen of San Fernando Cathedral of the Archdiocese of San Antonio show a liturgical aesthetic far removed from that of the reform of the reform, or even that of Opus Dei. I also note that the cathedral advertises a Saturday mariachi mass...

    That having been said, it should be noted that many dioceses reputed to be orthodox, and even Rome, continue to witness all sorts of liturgical abuses.

    Having an excellent bishop, in this day and age, rarely means that the liturgical abuses in that prelate's diocese will stop. Unfortunate, yes, but that's a fact. "Toleration" perfectly describes the situation. Some bishops have the best of intentions, but fear that the slightest attempt on their part to correct liturgical abuses will precipitate storms that may, in the end, render them unable to exercise any authority at all over their lawless clerics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. edgar3:27 PM

    I think we should take the words of the local Una Voce rep. over those in a couple of comments (by agents provocateurs, for all we know) at American Papist. A reminder of what Una Voce San Bernardino said:

    The Most Rev. Jose Gomez, our Archbishop, and Fr. Francis McHugh deserve a huge deal of credit for withstanding the barrage of criticism they have received for allowing the Traditional Latin Mass into the mainstream of Catholic life here in San Antonio.

    He's not Bishop Fellay, but in terms of the future of the Church in L.A., today's announcement is WONDERFUL news.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:29 PM

    Perchance this is the news that Rorate reported would be released around Maundy Thursday?

    Nothing else has been reported.

    D.P.H.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Those of you hoping for ++Gomez to bring a firehose and a bulldozer with him will be somewhat disappointed with his management style. He is well known in San Antonio for saying "poco a poco" when asked about the the need for reform in the local Church. He doesn't deny that major reforms are needed, but he believes that the reforms should be done slowly and with as much consensus as possible.

    A case in point is his relationship with the Oblate Seminary here in San Antonio. Oblate is a hot-bed of liberation theology, feminism, and dissent from the Magisterium. The horror stories one hears defy belief. Rather than removing all his seminarians from the school, Gomez has created his own college (MACC) and is allowing his seminarians to receive many of their credits there rather than Oblate. He is effecting reform, but it is slow and sometimes unclear.

    Gomez will be undoubtedly better than Mahoney and will make significant changes slowly. There will be times, however, when we will see things coming out of LA and ask ourselves, "how is he still letting that go on??"

    ReplyDelete
  17. We are dealing with human freedom here.

    Gomez must move prudently. He must make friends.

    Running a diocese is harder than making statements on a blog.

    This is good news. Pray for him, a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I knew Archbishop Gomez when he was simply "Father Jose" here in Houston, and went to confession to him from time to time, although he was not my spiritual director. I can testfiy that he is a warm, funny and very human man, and very orthodox. At the time that I had personal contact with him, SP had not been issued, so the TLM was not on the radar screen for Opus Dei folk here in Houston, although now one of the priests of the Work (to which I do not have a vocation) now does offer the EF here from time to time when he is able. I therefore could not say what Abp Gomez's view is on that subject.

    San Antonio was perhaps the most liberal of a group of very liberal Texas dioceses when Abp Gomez took over, and I gather from reading one account in the LA Times that he at least did some things to start the ship turning into a better direction. The problem, and I think it is one that our own Cardinal DiNardo also faces, is that the liberalism in Texas (maybe Corpus Christi is an exception) tends to be so entrenched in the clergy and the donors that effecting radical changes in a more conservative direction could be very disruptive, something that most hierarchs avoid like the plague. Thus it does not really surprise me that some of our other commenters here have not been totally pleased with the way things have gone in S.A.; I don't think one could reasonably hope for anything different from what Abp Gomez has in fact done there.

    For the same reasons, I would expect that he will work away rather quietly at correcting things in LA; as the LA Times also said, I think rightly, he is a conciliator in many respects, so he will not bring down thunder and lightening on the folks out there. Again, I presume the same situation applies in LA as it does in San Antonio and Houston (maybe in spades considering the sexual orientation issues there): the moneybags for the most part all want to live a kind of Catholicism that does not interfere too much with their worldly pursuits, and the clergy have for the most part been raised as leftists, so there is not a lot to work with in the near term.

    Add into this the general atmosphere out there. I used to visit LA frequently in the early 2000's as my younger son was attending Pepperdine University in Malibu. I experienced a number of the liturgical horrors that those here have talked about, and the best church I attended (after satisfying my obligation at a very, very low church RC church), was Saint Mary of the Angels Anglican Church, about which Charles Coulombe once wrote, too. The prevailing atmosphere out in LA is so pervasive that even Pepperdine, which is a Church of Christ (the hardshell group) school, was pretty mellow compared to its Texas sister college, Abilene Christian. It seems to be a case of the fish swimmming in the poisoned sea.

    We should just offer up many prayers and mortifications for Archbishop Gomez; he will need them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous3:57 PM

    It is this simple...regarding Novus Ordo Liturgy, is it likely that:

    1. Archbishop Gomez will promote Jubilate Deo?

    2. Archbishop Gomez will insist (when he takes charge in L.A.) that throughout the Archdiocese, the Ordinary of the Mass be prayed in Latin?

    3. Will he insist that Gregorian chant be granted pride of place at each Mass?

    Regarding the TLM:

    1. Will Archbishop Gomez promote Summorum Pontificum to the hilt?

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
  20. Adeodatus3:59 PM

    Well, from what I've heard Bishop Gomez is conservative and friendly to the Latin Mass. I think this is wonderful news.

    I also can't deny a swell of pride thinking that Texas is coming to the rescue of L.A.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous4:18 PM

    Deo Gratias!

    Change is coming...count me among those that are glad for the change

    ReplyDelete
  22. YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

    Ahem.

    I support the Holy Father's choice.

    As for those who ask whether he will allow or disallow this or that, as an Angeleno I say that is entirely beside the point.

    Will he allow a Traditional (FSSP, maybe?) parish in LA?

    I betcha he will.

    YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Vibiana is also called Bibiana.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just spoke with an Opus Dei priest who is a close friend of Abp Gomez, spends a fair amount of time in contact with him, and who seems to know the San Antonio situation very well. he told a group of us that San Antonio has greatly improved under Archbishop Gomez, mostly below the radar screen (which seems to coincide with my earlier post on the change problem in Texas), but very noticeable to a priest. On the basis of this testimony I would say that LA will undoubtedly be improved as well.

    Look for a very intriguing gathering of clergy at the Mass of Welcome for the Archbishop in May. Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne (also Opus Dei) from Lima came up to San Antonio for Abp Gomez's investiture there, and took some time off from the clerical rounds to shoot hoops with the Spurs (Card. Cipriani was a Peruvian basketball All Star in his youth); I presume he will do the honors again with the Lakers if he can.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous7:09 PM

    Mr. Cheney's excellent site confirmed the good news this morning. The new man, a conservative, will have a presumed tenure of about 22 years (to age 80, which is how long co-operative princes can generally stay). The V.I.S. has not made an official newspaper because this Pope has had the good grace to retain the tradition of the Easter Triduum, which follows the Sacred Triduum and ends today. We can identify the ignoramuses in the Church quite easily now. They are the people who miscall the Sacred Triduum 'the Easter Triduum'. The two Tridua are distinct, of course, and they mystically overlap on Easter Sunday.

    The Pope has been very gracious. He is letting Mahony stay for another eleven months but with an option to leave any time between now and then. He may need to take the option, as the Federal Government prosecutors are moving against him personally, I believe. I'm betting that his shiny new Vatican passport is acoming.

    Next item on the agenda of Benedict XVI? Let's hope it's a public recognition at law that the Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation, since private recognitions have no force in law except to those to whom they are addressed. Ideally, His Holiness could throw in a recognition of faculties (except for Williamson, of course).

    Other retirements coming? Giovanni Batista Cardinal Re. Delicious. Walter Cardinal Kasper. Scrumptious. Claudio Cardinal Hummes, best of all. The last brick in the Berlin Wall is about to be discarded.

    P.K.T.P.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous7:12 PM

    Someone wrote:

    "Hopefully Archbishop Gomez will bulldoze the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels."

    No, no, no. Let's hope the new man nukes it from outer space. Really, though, some well-placed explosives could take it down in no time, thereby making way for a building that at least looks like a church.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous7:22 PM

    Someone wrote:

    "Depending on who the San Antonio successor is, this can be a very nice day for San Antonio or a start of another 26 year winter."

    Look, these chaps are politicians and princes and prelates, not holy men. Gomez has a conservative reputation, deserved or not, and he will grow into that. L.A. has very few T.L.M.s and, until the last few years, there was only one. Even that one has not been there for very long, as Mahony pulled out all the stops to suppress it. Gomez won't do that. He does not want to disappoint headquarters. He'll allow a quiet increase in T.L.M.s, even if he is not very supportive. He will also clean up some of the liturgical chaos, but only to some extent. He will want to 'get along' with the huge contingent of archliberal priests who were attracted to Mahonyville.

    As for Mr. Haley's comments, again, this is all about diplomacy and politics. They say sweet things but, trust me, this is a take-over. When coadjutor is appointed, all the careerists flock to the new man to secure their futures. That's how it works. Those tied too closely to Baloney will quietly step back. From what I've heard, several of his closest aids are themselves being investigated by the public prosecutors. Right about now, they are making alternate living arrangements in foreign countries.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous8:18 PM

    "...Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation, since private recognitions have no force in law except to those to whom they are addressed."

    Mr Perkins,

    So you believe that since I personally recieved a letter from the P.C.E.D. that the faithful can "fulfill their Holyday and Sunday obligation at an FSSPX Mass" only I and anyone else who has recieved a letter of this sort may lawfully partake of what it says?
    So because my wife and my friends have not personally recieved this letter, which by the way states, that "the faithful" may fulfill their obligation at FSSPX Masses, they may not lawfully fulfill the obligation,
    but I can.
    Last time I checked "the faithful" refers to more than just an individual.

    Relating to a seperate matter, I have just recieved a response from the Holy Office of the Inquisition, or the C.D.F., in response to my query about the validity of Society confessions, that states that the "Church supplies the jurisdiction for confessions in the event of "Common Error", which is the regular situation in many SSPX chapels."
    Signed by William Cardinal Levada.

    Now we need to clarify what "many" means.
    Semantics...sheesh!

    D.P.H.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Pastor of Our Lady of The Atonement in San Antonio (the parish in the photo at the head of this post) has his reaction to ++Gomez's new post.

    http://atonementparish.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous9:25 PM

    Since I live in Los Angeles I am looking forward to Arbp Gomez. It is a very large archdiocese I would not expect anything to change for a long time. I read a few of his speeches and writings and he sounded like Benedict XVI. I would expect to see change in small ways. On other blogs there is speculation that the Cardinals Mass at CCD Congress will be changed. A lot of people are invested in this type of liturgical celebration. I just cannot imagine that will be just thrown out overnight. Change can do harm as we know unless it is organic. I have no knowledge or experience with our new Bishop, but being Catholic my bet is that this will be organic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous10:24 PM

    "Change can do harm as we know unless it is organic"

    Anonymous:

    To offer an orthodox liturgy can not only do absolutely no harm, but is absolutely required by the Church.
    Does one tell an fall down violent drunk alchoholic that he can have 6 whiskeys today instead of 12?
    No, one does not, but rather one admonishes and instructs the drunk to stop cold turkey.
    He might have withdrawel symptoms, but this is infinitely more salutary than being only "somewhat" devoid of ones judgement.
    The end never ever justify the means.

    D.P.H.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous10:59 PM

    For those critical of his reign in San Antonio, I must reemphasize what a complete disaster it was for decades before his arrival. He may not be the best bishop in the United States but he will be many times better than the one currently in Los Angeles.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous11:42 PM

    SSPX greatly exceeded 12 million Rosaries during Rosary Crusade, Bishop Fellay said. Also said continue to pray for the Holy Father.
    Go to SSPX site.

    www.sspx.org/

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous1:16 AM

    Archbishop Gomez did not allow the FSSP to go into the San Antonio diocese. He celebrates an ecumenical Mass/Service with Buddists, Muslims, Protestants, and Seiks every Thanksgiving at the cathedral in San Antonio.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous4:56 AM

    D.P.H. wrote:

    "So you believe that since I personally recieved a letter from the P.C.E.D. that the faithful can "fulfill their Holyday and Sunday obligation at an FSSPX Mass" only I and anyone else who has recieved a letter of this sort may lawfully partake of what it says?"

    Dear D.P.H.:

    As it happens, I have one of those letters myself. It says exactly what yours says. It has no force at law. It does have effect in Moral Law. In other words, you do not sin if you have good reason to believe that a Mass fulfils the obligation. However, a private letter signed by just a secretary of a Commission does not have general force in law, no. To be part of the law, it must be published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. Period. It doesn't matter if Msgr. Perl happens to be right in his judgement. He might be right; he might be wrong.

    Let me put this another way. Until it is published in the Acta, the local bishop can (and many will) say the exact opposite, and the faithful can believe the bishop. He can even say that the P.C.E.D. is mistaken.

    What is needed is a declaration or finding that is published in the Acta. We are not home yet, my friend. We still have some ways to go.

    D.P.H. continues:

    "So because my wife and my friends have not personally recieved this letter, which by the way states, that "the faithful" may fulfill their obligation at FSSPX Masses, they may not lawfully fulfill the obligation,
    but I can.
    Last time I checked "the faithful" refers to more than just an individual."

    The view that the faithful may fulfil the obligation at such matters may be correct or it may be incorrect. The one making the declaration lacks sufficient authority to make this into a valid legal finding.

    The one to whom the letter is addressed is affected because the Canon Law says that, if you think you are fulfilling the obligation (honestly) but objectively are not, there is no sin. Objectively, you might not be fulfilling the obligation but no sin for that is possible owing to the subjective effect. However, only those to whom the letter is addressed are being given reason for thinking this. No, sorry, Msgr. Perl is not the Holy See; nor is he the P.C.L.T.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous5:04 AM

    D.C.S. writes:

    "Relating to a seperate matter, I have just recieved a response from the Holy Office of the Inquisition, or the C.D.F., in response to my query about the validity of Society confessions, that states that the "Church supplies the jurisdiction for confessions in the event of "Common Error", which is the regular situation in many SSPX chapels."
    Signed by William Cardinal Levada.


    I noticed that the last bit is without the quotation marks. I agree with your conclusion but my opinion is useless and irrelevant in this matter. Until Rome *recognises* Society faculties, they are all quite questionable for most faithful. That's why we need a public declaration. Look, if it were all as easy as you seem to think, this matter would have been cleared up years ago.

    We have to be hoest with ourselves when we attend an irregular chapel. That does not mean confusing our pious wishes with our honest beliefs. Society members who are honest with themselves (and I assume that all are) are no doubt covered. But until we have a decaration from Rome in law, millions of fatihful will think they cannot go to the Society. Whether they are right or totally wrong is hardly the issue. It is only *after* this matter is clarified that most will feel they can go to Society Masses.

    If Cardinal Levada is convinced that Society Masses fulfil the obligation and that they have faculties, let him have the guts to say so publicly and put this into the Acta. What the hell is the matter with him?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous8:49 AM

    DPH wrote: "I have just recieved a response from the Holy Office of the Inquisition, or the C.D.F., in response to my query about the validity of Society confessions, that states that the "Church supplies the jurisdiction for confessions in the event of "Common Error", which is the regular situation in many SSPX chapels."
    Signed by William Cardinal Levada."

    Dear DPH, would you be so kind to make a scan or a photograph of this response and publish it?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anon at 7 April, 2010 01:16

    You are correct, I have seen that reprehensible filth myself. One must not forget the infamous 'mariachi masses' that are performed in the cathedral and most other parishes that have a Spanish Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous4:00 PM

    I don't believe that the percentage of Catholics in Los Angeles who assist at Sunday Mass will increase in the years to come.

    I don't believe that Latin and Gregorian Chant will take hold in Los Angeles.

    I don't anticipate a great deal of improvement in Los Angeles. Only the return to the TLM would help Los Angeles.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous4:05 PM

    "Dear DPH, would you be so kind to make a scan or a photograph of this response and publish it?"

    Mr Perkins,

    I will do that once I figure out how to.
    I am a computer Gomer Pyle.
    Please forgive me.
    D.P.H.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The view that the faithful may fulfil the obligation at such matters may be correct or it may be incorrect."

    And where there is doubt, there is freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous5:21 PM

    dcs:

    Yes, where there is doubt, there is freedom. But most faithful do not know that. And most faithful will always prefer a certainty to an uncertainty. That is why a firm declaration on this matter is needed. We shall not have real freedom until we can wave such a declaration in the face of those bishops who deny it.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous5:31 PM

    On D.P.H.'s claim:

    There is no need for him to scan this response. I have a similar letter and Fr. Zuhlsdorf has published origainals of this response. Nobody who knows the facts would dispute what D.P.H. is claiming. In fact, the P.C.E.D. first made this declaration to an Australian faithful and this was done in the last pontificate (2002, to my recollection). Several faithful received this letter in the last pontificate and others in the present one. That is not the problem.

    The problem is that the 'finding' of the P.C.E.D. has no force in positive law. A letter signed by a secretary of the P.C.E.D. is not authoritative enough to make law. What it can do, however, is to remove any sin from those whom it addresses (and others who might honestly thinnk it pertains to them).

    There is nothing D.P.H. can do to make a letter from Perl into a law of the Church. Bishops and others can always say the exact opposite, thereby confusing the faithful. They cannot do that when there is a clear declaration published in the Acta. Until that happens, we do not have anything new in law.

    Only a clear declaration that the Society is Catholic and its Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation will really make a difference. Only then will local bishops lose a legal right to dispute that right.

    I note that, in my letter from Perl, it even says that other independent priests--those not in the S.S.P.X--offer Masses that fulfil the obligation. Of course, this is a general statement and one would need to know the real status of such priests in particular cases (e.g. are their ordinations valid?).

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous5:46 PM

    P.K.T.P.:
    Yes, I am aware of the answers that the PCED has given in recent years, but as far as I know, they have never admitted that "common error" (as opposed to personal erroneous belief in the priest's faculties) is the case of "may SSPX chapels".

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous10:53 PM

    Praise God and may Our Lady of Guadalupe pray for him.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous10:53 PM

    "Only a clear declaration that the Society is Catholic and its Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation will really make a difference. Only then will local bishops lose a legal right to dispute that right."
    P.K.T.P.

    Apart from being entirely off-topic with the appointment of Abp Gomez, I found this assumption ... hilarious.

    As if "local bishops" like Mahony, Rouet or cardinal Vingt-Trois in Paris and half if not more of "local bishops" in the world really care about "legal right" for anything. The bishop of Evreux and the abp of Rouet are proclaiming on their websites, and for the latter during a homily at ordinations (!) that the transubstantiation is not the Catholic faith and a Zwinglian symbolic presence the "right" way ...
    So the "legal right" of the SSPX ... laughing out loud ! dear friend, with jokes like this, you could kill somebody with excess of laughter.

    The depth of the episcopal decay is the major question and so far, Rome addressed it with tepid and slow, very slow responses : Abp Gomez is a step forward but I don't expect big changes with him, in a totally Mahonian diocese. It will take time. S.S.P.X is a drop in an ocean. Our US readers must keep in mind that in Latin America, Europe and Asia, the situation is FAR more worrying than in the USA ... At this pace, after the slow moves of John Paul II, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will need 20 years to achieve a significant part of these Hercules works.

    May God provide him with a very, very long life !

    Alsaticus

    ReplyDelete
  47. The interesting thing about "common error" is that it presupposes a sincere ignorance and therefore vanishes once it becomes known (e.g., the question of fact regarding faculties, etc.). To knowingly appeal to "common error" is to dispel the common error.

    ReplyDelete
  48. John L12:13 AM

    'Canon 1248
    1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.'

    A SSPX mass obviously satisfies this canon, since it is a mass celebrated in a Catholic rite. Objections to attending SSPX masses, if there are any, would have to be on some other basis that their not satisfying the Sunday obligation. The 1917 Code required the faithful to attend their parish church in order to satisfy the Sunday obligation unless this involved grave inconvenience. The weakening of the law in the 1983 code means that no requirement is left that would rule out attendance at a SSPX mass. It is a result that was not foreseen by those who devised the weakened law (as with other results), but it is clearly taught by the law.

    Alsaticus's points are as usual pertinent as well.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous1:46 AM

    John L. is entirely wrong. And it is not as if this issue has not been discussed at great length before over the last twenty years!

    There is a well-known canonist (no, I won't mention him by name) who has publicly disagreed entirely. The problem is what is meant at law by "in a Catholic rite". Does John L. honestly believe for one second that I was unaware of this Canon? This is entirely the issue. Some say that a Mass is not in a Catholic rite unless offered by a Catholic in a full sense. They say that the Mass itself is not Catholic unless the offerer is in full communion. That is how, for many years now, some in the Church have denied the application of this canon.

    I happen to agree with John L.'s conclusion but others, far more knowledgeable that we, do not agree. So this needs to be clarified. The point here is that the status of Society Masses has not been clarified and their ability to fulfil the obligation has been denied by serious canonists. This is why a public declaration is needed. Without it, most faithful will continue to assume that they are 'forbidden' to go there.

    As for Alsatius's rant, well, it is entirely beside the point. Whether or not some N.O. Masses are valid or licit has no bearing on whether or not those of the S.S.P.X are. I never suggested that all N.O. Masses are licit or valid or fulfilled the obligation.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous6:01 AM

    LA's new Archbishop..


    "...we have consistently communicated to our elected officials our support for a morally responsible bill, consistent with our values, that would protect human life at all stages, include full conscience protection and assure that health care is available for everyone, including our immigrant brothers and sisters.”

    1.) Illegals already have health care. It's called the ER. If he means health insurance, how is it just to have working class Americans pay for illegals to have free health insurance? Also how do Catholic subsidiarity principles support the massive government takeover of 1/6 of the economy to provide healthcare?

    "In 2008, when then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was invited to speak at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Archbishop Gomez made national headlines by expressing his disapproval. “I was surprised to learn of Senator Hillary Clinton’s appearance at St. Mary’s University,” said the archbishop in a statement published on the archdiocesan website. “I was neither advised nor consulted by the university before the decision was made to have Senator Clinton speak at the university.”

    2.) He "wasn't aware" one of the most pro-abortion presidential candidates in history was going to speak in his diocese at a Catholic University? Second, Then afterwards he "expressed his disapproval"?... And?

    And nothing. St. Mary's then kept on as usual after basically flipping him and all good Catholics the finger. Where were the suspensions? Excommunications? Stripping the University of its Catholic title? Can you imagine if St. Mary's had invited Bishop Williamson to speak without the Bishop's knowledge? You better believe action would have been taken. Heads would have rolled.

    Conclusion: Mahoney the liberal is replaced by Gomez the Neo-Cath. Gomez will do away with some of the more absurd and sacrilegious Mahony liturgies and policies quietly. And then he will write an orthodox column from time to time that Neo-Cath journalists will fawn over. Meanwhile liberal Catholics in L.A. will ignore him and the crisis will continue.

    Will we ever learn? "Conservative" Cardinal George really turned Chicago around after Bernadin, right? That's why he's honoring Fr. Pfleger with an award?

    This is just like replacing Democrats with Republicans and expecting different results. The whole thing is an exercise in futility.

    Archbishop Gomez represents the face of appeasement neo-catholicism. Author a strong letter now and again, but do nothing to substantively fix the problem. Paul VI, JPII, and now BXVI have all done this. It failed then and will fail now.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous6:48 AM

    On the last post,

    Look, if you suffered under Stalin, Brezhnev would be an improvement, no? Nobody here is claiming that Gomez is the reincarnation of Pope St. Pius X.

    Gomez is a 'moderate' from Opus Dei. He's no Bishop Sheen. But he's no Roger Baloney either. We are talking here of giving the boot to the worst prelate in American history (well, apart from Weakland and that one in San Francisco from before Levada's time). The first bit of good news is that Baloney does not get to stay past the age of 75. That sets him apart from most of the other cardinal-archbishops, such as Kitbunchu, O'Connor, and Vidal. The next relief is that Baloney is not being replaced by Bishop Hubbard of Albany, for instance. Let's give Gomez a fair chance. Unless he goes beserk, he can't be worse than what Los Angeles already has. This is, overall, a good day for California.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous7:11 AM

    So as long as our Bishop is better than a pedophile shielding sacrilege performing monster in a red hat, we're happy?

    This is the post-conciliar bar for the episcopacy?

    They are both two sides of the same liberal coin. One just goes farther than the other is comfortable going. But they both share the same core principles of the VCII revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  53. ""...it should be noted that many dioceses reputed to be orthodox, and even Rome, continue to witness all sorts of liturgical abuses..."

    On my peregrinations, personal experience confirms that the liturgical situation is so dire it is beyond repair. If Pope Benedict XVI really took this cause on wholesale he would fail. Each change in the NO results in various interpretations; partial adoptions and even total avoidance for other permutations often based on d-i-y approaches. Sooner or later the NO will have to be scrapped as it contains the source of its own demise. It is based on the principles of change and adaptation to modern man which is a hyper-dynamic phenomenon today using ever-adapting vernacular tongues. In many years I have never seen two identical versions. Only an unchanging Roman Rite in Latin will suffice to restore and recentralise liturgical discipline.

    It is difficult not to be skeptical about any episcopal appointment since they nearly all appear to have become liberal in one sense or another. That is unless they are committed to traditional confraternities.

    ReplyDelete
  54. picard2:37 PM

    K. Gurries is not totaly right.

    c.144 knows two different kinds of error communis, ie. de facto and de iure.

    Only the e.c. de facto ends when the (bigger or sanior part of the) community knows that there are no regular faculties. But even in the case only some of the communitiy knew/would know the lack of faculties (and the bigger/maior/sanior part not), there is still an e.c. and so also the one knowing the lack of faculties would be absloved validly - because an e. communis not depends on a personal or individual error but an error of the (maior part of the) community. If the error is still common, the person who knows the fact of lacking faculties is still validly absolved.

    Far more/all the more in the second case, the e.c. de iure. It says that even if many of the community knew that there are no regular faculties, there can still be an e.c. - sc. an e.c. de iure - if the whole circumstances are so that normally a community would be led into a real error (so de facto).

    It is a fiction by law that not depends on the number of memebers of the community really - de facto - falling in error; it does not depend on knowing or not knowing of the facts (and so falling in error de facto or not) at all. So in this case also all are absolved validly, even the majority (and you for your selfe, see above!) would know that there are no regular faculties.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Picard2:54 PM

    An other question is if the case of an e.c. de iure applies/can apply to the chapels of the sspx.

    It is a very complicated matter.

    And I will not solve this problem here.

    But it is worth knowing that the Canon law knows this fictiv kind of common error (so c.e. de iure) and that this case is totally independent of the real knowledge of the lack of faculties.

    Even if you and even if the majority of the community knew that there is a lack of faculties (so if there is no error de facto, so no real error) you and all other members of the community would still be absolved validly (because of the fictiv error, the e. de iure).

    And in the case if there would be some reasonable doubt if this e.c. de iure applies/can apply to the sspx-cases, then there would be supplication because of dubitum positivum et probabile (also c.144, §1 [here: second part]).

    ReplyDelete
  56. Picard3:08 PM

    corrigendum: must be dubium, not dubitum ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Picard, the argument hinges on the premise that even the "greater part" of the community remains truly ignorant to the fact. But common error is dispeled when the fact (lack of faculties) is openly announced and recognized by the community (the fact being published in pamphlets, websites, etc.). Again, to recognize within the greater part of the community the reality of the fact is to dispel ignorance and common error.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Picard5:56 PM

    K. Gurries, have You carefully read what I posted exactly? Please re-read what I have posted. I mentioned a second case of the error communis, the error communis de iure.

    In this case the greater part of the community needn´t remain ignorant.

    The e.c. de iure is totally independent of the number of persons who are ignorant or not.

    But I only reiterate what I have written before, so please see above! That point we must discuss!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Picard, it does not pass the "reasonableness" test -- to stretch the concept of a ficticious "common error" where there in fact is no ignorance at all regarding the facts. It is a dangerous game of pretend that risks undermining the foundation of legitimate authority, delegation and the law itself.

    ReplyDelete
  60. kgurries, see here...

    http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  61. Picard10:37 PM

    But it is not the question of your, k. Gurries´ opinion or mine or that of the sspx - it is a question of the teaching of our Church and the Canon law resp. the canonists.

    The definition of error communis de iure is that it does not depend on the factual error of anybody but only on some circumstance that would normaly lead into error.

    Cf. all the handbooks/manuals.

    I could quote You some German ones (I´m German), f.e. the Commentary to Canon Law of Rev. Fr. H. Jone.
    I think there is also an English version of Jones Commentary.
    And also much more current ones.

    Cf. also the old latin handbooks, such as of Cappello, Coronata, Regatillo&Zalba or Vermeersch&Creusen.

    You can find them and some quotations in the article of Rev. Fr. Angels:

    http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

    This article is better than the one of J. Salza resp R.A. Sungenis, because J. Salza confuses error c. de facto, de iure, facti and iuris. What he calls error facti (or error of fact)is indeed an error de iure.
    Error de facto does not mean error facti and error de iure does not mean error iuris.
    This confuses more than that it clears up.

    The article of Fr. Angels is much clearer and has the right nomenclatura (and the quotations of the canonist manual), although Salza comes to the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  62. To clarify, I am not arguing against the notion of supplied jurisdiction in all cases. I am only warning against pushing the concept of "common error" too far and to the point where it becomes meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Picard11:24 PM

    But at this moment I do not discuss or at least not claim the applicability of the principle of error c. de iure to the sspx-cases.

    I admitted that this is a difficult problem, that can be discussed in the next step (and not solved without/beyond some doubt/probability as I think).

    But at first we must clear the terms and principles themselves (before questioning the appliance/application to a concrete case such as the sspx-chapels).

    So c.144 §1 states clearly that not only an e.c. de facto but also an e.c. de iure is enough for supplying.

    And de facto in latin means factual (NOT of fact!! - as Salza confuses!) and de iure means an iuridical one, ie. by law ("fictioned" by law out of external circumstances not depending on sbds. internal knoweledge or error).

    And all canonist agree that in contrary to a factual error an error de iure does not depend on anybds factual ignorance or error.

    (let me quote just Pugliese´s article "Jurisdiction, Supplied" in Palazzini's Dictionary of Moral Theology, 1962, according to Fr. Angles articel (see above):
    ...(Common error) is called error of law when it stems or may stem from a fact which of itself is such as to lead many people into error even though in fact no one errs.)

    So for an error de facto (i.e. a real, factual error) the majority must really be ignorant of the lack of the faculties and even more: must really err. Not beeing ignorrant anymore (and a fortiori then not beeing in error anymore) would "cancel" the suppletion.

    But an error de iure is sufficient (according to c.144 and all the canonists), and this is a legal fiction out of the external circumstances totally independent of sbds. knowledge, ignorance or factual error

    Even if none/nobody errs, there can be an error de iure, i.e. circumstances that are sufficient for the legal fiction of an error de iure (according f.e. to Pugliese, see above).


    Application of this to the sspx-cases is an other question and discussion, as I said above!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Picard11:36 PM

    So for the law and the principles we can hold:

    There is no need for a real, factual error (error de facto) of the majority according c.144, but an error de iure is sufficient.

    This means that the whole congregation/community can know the fact of lacking faculties (so not beeing in ignorance and error) but there would still be suppletion if there is an (legal-fictiv) error de iure.

    And the next step could be to consider what typical circumstances are necessary to constitute such an error de iure and then if these are the circumstances in the sspx-chapels and -gatherings, so if the law/principle is applicable to the sspx cases.

    ReplyDelete
  65. John L4:09 AM

    'There is a well-known canonist (no, I won't mention him by name) who has publicly disagreed entirely. The problem is what is meant at law by "in a Catholic rite". Does John L. honestly believe for one second that I was unaware of this Canon? This is entirely the issue. Some say that a Mass is not in a Catholic rite unless offered by a Catholic in a full sense. They say that the Mass itself is not Catholic unless the offerer is in full communion. That is how, for many years now, some in the Church have denied the application of this canon.'


    As Alsaticus impliess out in his alleged 'rant', to claim that 'a Mass is not in a Catholic rite unless offered by a Catholic in a full sense' would mean that a large proportion of masses in the Latin church would not be Catholic masses, because they are offered by priests who reject and have publicly denied the faith, or in dioceses whose bishops reject and have publicly denied the faith, or both. Would Mr. Perkins or the canonists he cites accept this conclusion? If not, then how can they maintain the position used to justify them?

    This problem with this position reflects its violation of a basic principle of law, which is that the content of a law must permit of being clearly determined. The notion of 'full communion' does not permit of such clear determination - it was indeed designed with this purpose by Yves Congar, who openly stated that it was adopted as a vague notion that would permit non-Catholics to be ascribed some degree of communion with the Church. So it cannot be used as an interpretive guide to the law. The only suitable uniderstanding of 'Catholic rite' here is a mass of a Catholic rite said by a priest in a Catholic rite. The priests of the SSPX are admitted by all to belong to the Latin rite; if they were not, the canons of that rite could not be applied against them.

    As I mentioned above, the fact that SSPX masses satisfy one's Sunday obligation does not suffice to make it permissible to attend them, because there is another objection that can be raised to attending them; the precise objection that SSPX priests are canonically irregular, and that one should not attend the masses of canonically irregular priests, even if such masses satisfy one's Sunday obligation. This is not the objection that attendance at such masses does not satisfy one's Sunday obligation. This objection would remain even if it were decreed that such masses satisfy the Sunday obligation, and it would disappear if the canonical irregularity were to be removed. So the issue of canonical irregularity is in fact the more important one.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous6:45 AM

    "the precise objection that SSPX priests are canonically irregular, and that one should not attend the masses of canonically irregular priests, even if such masses satisfy one's Sunday obligation"

    This "problem" is solved by canon 1335. But, actually such objection does not exist. Probably that's why PCED answered that "if your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." Please be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Some of you here are excessively doctrinaire in your judgements about SSPX at a time in the church when many NO presbyters allegedly "canonically regular" & "in full communion" behave to all intents and purposes as if they are not. The same can often be stated for their bishops who behave as de facto schismatics. Unfortunately, using the neo-Conciliar paradigm as the benchmark is misleading because it is based on shifting grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Picard11:34 AM

    But for appliance of the principle of e.c. de iure on/to the sspx-cases there perhaps could be a problem because they do not run real parish-Churches or public chapels. And that they are notoriously suspended and without faculties.

    I would like to here the opinion of Prof. Basto, P.K.T.P. or some other expert in law re this question.

    And first of all, are the sspx-priests declaired suspended ones, decleratorily suspended (in the strict sense of Canon law - becsause there were no specific, personal declerations, only common ones)?

    And does (1) the fact that they are - perhaps - decleratorily suspended or at least notoriously impede the applicability of the principle of e.c. de iure on/to them? Or (2) that they do not run public chaples (in the strict sense)?

    Does anybody know - or have a (good-grounded) opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous4:24 PM

    John L., I fear, was not there for the debates on this issue in which the canonist whom I mentioned played a major rôle. This entire matter was debated at great length on ctngreg and cingreg back in the 1990s. What are John L.'s credentials as a canonist?

    According to a certain P.V., who is a canonist, Masses not celebrated by a priest in recognised communion are not Masses of a Catholic rite *as understood in ecclesiasical law*. To be able to interpret the canon in question, you have to know something about the hermeneutical apparatus used in law. I do not have sufficient expertise in this matter to render a useful opinion. Anyone can look up canons in the Code. That is not the same as having expertise to interpret them.

    What I can say is the the following:

    (a) In my limited understanding, I disagree with P.V. and agree with John L. That, however, is irrelevant.

    (b) Other arguers who do have expertise in this matter did cross swords with those like P.V. who denied the most obvious meaning of this canon.

    (c) Since these arguments were joined, the P.C.E.D. came out in favour of my side of this dispute, starting with a letter sent to an Australian faithful in 2002. I have a copy of this letter in my filing cabinet. Others saying the same thing have been sent since them, both in this pontificate and in the last three years of the last one.

    (d) I do note that the side denying application of this canon to Masses of the S.S.P.X have been strangely silent now for at least five years.

    However, none of this is sufficient to clear up this matter. THAT IS MY POINT. As long as people out there can argue that Masses of the S.S.P.X are not Masses "in a Catholic Rite", liberal bishops and their canonists will deny a right of faithful to attend them to fulfil the Sunday obligation.

    Most faithful will always follow the simple dictim to prefer to err on the side of caution (even though the law regarding common error says otherwise). My conclusion is that there will not be a real sense of freedom to fulfil the obligation at Society Masses until Rome says so publicly and then publishes this finding in the Acta.

    My point has never been against John L. in the matter of the law. On the contrary, I agree with him. But my point here has to do with the perception of the faithful. The fact is that most faithful will 'be afraid' to go to Society Masses until Rome makes their status clear.

    I add that, in my view, Rome has deliberately avoided clarity on this matter for decades and, in recent years, has slowly begun a process of admitting that the law does recognise Society Masses. We need this process to be complete. In comments made by the S.S.P.X over the past several months, there is a sense that Rome is considering some sort of declaration that the Society is 'Catholic'. This would probably clear up the matter.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anonymous4:35 PM

    Dear Picard:

    You raise an excellent question. Masses must normally be celebrated at 'sacred places' to be licit. However, it is clear from the law that even illicit Masses can fulfil the obligation for those who attend them. In other words, the right of a priest to offer Mass and the ability of fatihful to fulfil the obligation by attending it are two completely separate rights. So I don't think that your question will affect the matter here.

    To the best of my recollection, the canonist in question was saying that, in terms of ecclesiastical law, Masses said by priests not in 'full communion' (a term I reject, but that is another subject) or, in the older terminollogy, not in communion, are not Masses 'of a Catholic rite' as meant by the canon cited by John L. Frankly, I'm on John L.'s side on this because it seems to me that the meaning of the Canon 1248.1 is clear and, in many cases, the ordainry meaning of words is the guide to meaning (cf. Canon 17). On the other hand, we need a guide here by a competent authority (Canon 16.1) because it is possible that other uses of terms in parallel places yields a different sense. A letter from the P.C.E.D. is not legally authoritative.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous10:45 PM

    Dear K. Gurries:

    Society supporters could be right or wrong and would still be 'covered' by the Canon in question. That is a matter for each individual involved: there is no such thing as a collective mind.

    From a practical point of view, what matters is not whether or not Society supporters honestly believe there to be situatin that results in supplied jurisdiction. What matters is whether or not Rome *recognises* this. If Rome were to recognise that the Society was Catholic, a declaration of faculties could follow. That would be wonderful.

    This Pope loves meaningful dates, which is why the declaration of excommunication was remitted during the Octave of Unity, for example (or why S.P. was published on 7.7.07). Dates to watch for? One is next week. Low or Quasimodo Sunday is at hand. NewChurch calls this 'Divine Mercy Sunday' after a newish devotion that real traditionalists avoid. Next week is also the first week *after* the solemn Octave of Easter. There was no way that the Pope would make such an announcement during the Easter Octave (although I was surprised that he named Mahony's coadjutor this week). He might do so next week, sometime after Sunday.

    No, I'm not predicting anything here. But it is a possibility. Something after the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul is another time to watch for, as it is also the anniversary (on 2.7.88) of John Paul II's letter on this matter.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous11:07 PM

    Mr. Perkins suggests that, "...'Divine Mercy Sunday'...newish devotion that real traditionalists avoid."

    Please explain why?

    I know FSSP and FSSPX priests that promote the chaplet of divine mercy as well as scores of trad laity that practice the devotion?

    Anon

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous8:30 AM

    Second response to Anon. on the Divine Mercy devotion. S.S.P.X priests promoting it as well? Could you name a few?

    By the way, why not become unanonymous?

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous2:17 PM

    Dear P.K.T.P.,

    the Divine Mercy chaplet is included in the "Te Deum" prayerbook issued by the Polish district of the SSPX in 2001.

    The prayerbook is in constant reprint and there were never any objections.

    Why the Divine Mercy devotion should be rejected?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous6:27 PM

    Dear Anon.:

    From what I have heard, the devotion was rejected by Pope John XXIII and Paul VI on the grounds that the texts conveyed might not reflect the messages received by St. Faustina, and also because there have been changes in the text from the first version of its transmission to the last. There have been other allegations regarding the devotion. Some even connect it with charismaticism.

    I don't follow any post-conciliar devotions. I feel that it is safer to wait until the smoke has cleared after the disastrous revolutionary changes of the 1960s. So I just follow all the solid and true devotions that I was already attached to. I am not a firm opponent of the Divine Mercy Devotions but I've noticed that some traditionalists are. Also, I don't like the way the new feast coincides with Low Sunday (Quasimodo Sunday). To me, the dignity of that day reflects Easter, and no other feast should displace the Octave Day of Easter. So I call it Low Sunday and will never call it Divine Mercy Sunday, not even on pain of death. Easter is the greatest feast on the calendar, outshining Christmas as much as ths sun outshines the moon. No feast should be intruded on its Octave Day or on any day within its Octave.

    I have no interest in the Divine Mercy Devotions. We need to be gruonded in the traditional devotions instead. Over and above the greatest of them (Stations and Rosary and Angelus), I recommend, in particular, the Devotion to the Five Sacred Wounds. It should be said whilst holidng a crucifix (or before a shroud depiciting Christ) so that you may kiss each wound as you say the prayer proper to it; and there is a wonderful chaplet for the devotion (which is not mediæval, as the devotion itself is, but comes from about 1810 or so).

    I also recommend the Seven Joys and Seven Sorrows of our Lady, the Seven Last Words' Devotion (said before a crucifix), the Jesus Psalter, the Miraculous Medal devotions, the Holy Name devotion (particularly the Litany therfore), and, above all, a wonderful devotion from France, the Holy Face of Jesus, often directed against the scourge of communism. There are also the prayers of St. Gertrude. Some like the Perpetual Help devotions and I must say that the litany for this is wonderful, although I have never followed that much.

    So many to choose from and all of them good. In the aftermath of a revolution, my recommendation is to abstain from anything coming out of that period. Give it fifty years or so and then re-assess. Judge the tree by the fruit. Sometimes, this means waiting for the fruit to ripen.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous6:54 PM

    After writing my last post, I realised that I had left out some of the most important devotinos, such as Eucharistic adoration and the Office of our Lady, not to mention other Little Offices, such as the one for the Passion or the one for the angels. There are also countless chaplets and novenas.

    By the way, I am not against these new prayer 'strings' (e.g. nine beads of the Blessed Trinity grouped into three sets of three, with medal at one end and crucifix at the other). They are not quite traditional yet but they closely follow traditional forms. Still, I prefer the standard chaplets, which are circlets of beats or else circlets with pendants (like the Rosary).

    Above all devotions, of course, is the Mass and Office.

    P.K.T.P.

    P.S. Could anyone tell me where to get a copy of the Little Office of the Passion? I have one (from the S.S.P.X, I believe) for Our Lady and I just love it. it is a very small hardcover pocketbook with a blue cover. I have been trying for years to get the one for the Passion but have utterly failed. I do have the 'mini' offices of the Immaculate Conception and the mini office of the Holy Angels.

    ReplyDelete
  77. M. A.8:38 PM

    PKTP, I agree with you on the Divine Mercy thing. St. Faustina was illiterate. How she could write down messages from our Lord is beyond me.

    Sr. Lucia as a child of 10 when our Lady started to communicate with her, was also illiterate, but Our Lady told her to go to school and learn to read and to write.

    That the Polish (SSPX) would be a proponent of the devotion comes as no surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  78. PKTP, again I am not opposing the concept of supplied jurisdiction is certain cases -- but only an eggagerated application of "common error". I think recognition from Rome is a good prayer request -- and will certainly happen once the discussions come to a successful conclusion. The Pope has clearly stated that there is no "canonical mission" until the doctrinal issues are resolved.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Picard3:40 PM

    Dear PKTP,

    what I discussed with K. Gurries was not the question of going to Mass to the sspx but of the cofessions resp the absolutions beeing valid or invalid.

    And I was (and am) not sure if the error communis *de iure* is applicable to the sspx-cases.

    The error-de-iure cases are independent of the knowledge (ignorance, real error or not) of the congregation/group in question, only depending on some (external) circumstances. That makes this cases (and the principle of e.c. *de iure*) so interesting and important.

    But the questin is if this principle is applicable to the sspx-cases.

    But perhaps we can discuss this another time! GOd bless!

    ReplyDelete
  80. St. Faustina was NOT illiterate -- rather, she has been called "nearly illiterate." In her diary, she wrote phonetically (i.e., she couldn't spell), ungrammatically, and didn't use punctuation correctly. She certainly did write her own diary -- contrary to what M.A. is suggesting, it is not a forgery written by somebody else in her name and palmed off on a gullible Church and wider world. There is no reason for "traditionalist" scruples over her diary, the Divine Mercy chaplet, the Catholic Church's Feast of the Divine Mercy, or the Divine Mercy plenary indulgence. What matters isn't that these things were approved by the Holy See after Vatican II, but that they are approved by the Holy See after due caution and examination.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous12:40 AM

    Dear Picard:

    As far as I can see, the principle of common error can indeed apply to the liceity and hence (in this case) also to the validity of Society confessions.

    But until Rome recognises that the Society is 'Catholic' and therefore presumtively errs in this way, most faithful will shun Society confessions.

    Again, it is a matter of a practical consideration more than a canonical principle. If Rome recognises, even on a provisional basis, the condition the Society claims for itself, the problem ends.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Jordanes,

    Some Catholics are skeptical of the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich because they were transcribed by another.

    Wouldn't the same rationale apply to St. Faustina?

    And didn't Paul VI and John XXIII take her writings into "due consideration" and decide against legitimizing them?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous7:39 PM

    Does the Divine Mercy Chaplet and/or Divine Mercy Sunday in any way detract from going to Confession, praying the Rosary, consecrating self and family to the Most Scared Heart and the Immaculate Heart? In these corrupt perverse times Catholics have to take extra care to be virtuous.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Some Catholics are skeptical of the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich because they were transcribed by another. Wouldn't the same rationale apply to St. Faustina?

    St. Faustina's diary was not dictated as Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich's visions reportedly were. She wrote her own diary, but it has had to be edited because she couldn't spell, had poor grammar and didn't know how to use punctuation.

    And didn't Paul VI and John XXIII take her writings into "due consideration" and decide against legitimizing them?

    Yes, based on what was available to them at the time -- only portions of her diary, incorrectly translated.

    Does the Divine Mercy Chaplet and/or Divine Mercy Sunday in any way detract from going to Confession,

    Not at all -- the Divine Mercy devotion encouraged frequent confession.

    praying the Rosary,

    No more than any other approved chaplet does. I do not often pray the Divine Mercy chaplet, though -- my primary chaplet is the traditional Rosary with the Fatima prayer.

    consecrating self and family to the Most Scared Heart and the Immaculate Heart?

    I know several Catholic families that incorporate the Divine Mercy devotion into their devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. The Divine Mercy devotion is a "child" or development of the Sacred Heart devotion.

    ReplyDelete