He is brave as well, having publicly disagreed with the decision of his Cardinal to march in the St Patrick's parade in the presence of a strong, vocal and highly organised LGBT (insert rest of alphabet here) contingent.
His blog is on the Diocese of Washington website. His latest piece on the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage is excellent. I dare say that this the kind of thing that will have been told to the twenty newly weds before their marriage in the presence of the Holy Father on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. We can only assume that this is the case and that those living arrangements and possible habits that were a cause of scandal to the Church and injury to the souls of the newly weds are now forgiven by the Lord, Who welcomes his repentant children into the sanctity of Marriage with open arms. Deo gratias! May God bless their marriages, help them to live according to His plan and enable them by His grace to restrain themselves from holding hands during the Pater Noster. Pray for good and holy priests.
Meanwhile...
Pray for the former congregation of Fr Tim Finigan, the excellent new parish priest of Ss Austin and Gregory with St Anne in Margate and former parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary in Blackfen, Kent. Pray, too, for the good priest himself who must surely be shocked to hear that his former parish is to be left without the Traditional Latin Mass that Fr Tim celebrated regularly in the presence of a healthy congregation of devoted parishioners.
It is a highly unusual situation, given that the new priest coming in, Fr Steven Fisher, had made it known on Richard Collin's blog comments section at Linen on the Hedgerow, that the 10.30am Traditional Latin Mass would not be disturbed by his arrival. His quote says, 'I was delighted to be asked to move to Blackfen as PP. Let me reassure you I have no intentions of walking in and abolishing the 10.30 Mass.' Was that comment true to the letter or the spirit of what is written? The 10.30am Mass will not be abolished (but I do not rule out it being exchanged for a Novus Ordo and no EF Masses will be celebrated henceforth?)
Sadly, it looks as if what certainly forms a coetibus required for the celebration of the Latin Mass are set to have to endure the removal of the Mass of Ages, with which a considerable number of Fr Tim's parishioners had fallen in love. Having publicly made known on a blog that the Mass in the Extraordinary Form would continue, the series of events is beginning to look rather strategic and does not reflect well, unless further reassurances appear that the liturgical life of the parish built up by Fr Tim will be respected, on either the new priest or the Archbishop responsible for the move, Archbishop Peter Smith. What an inheritance for any priest to walk into? What kind of Bishop, what kind of priest indeed would want to reject it?
I guess for some Bishops and for some clergy, seven sorrows for the Heart of Our Lady are simply not enough and another sword is worth thrusting in, just for good measure. The Catholic Church is starting to look and feel like an episode of Eastenders where suspicion, intrigue and betrayal are around every corner. You watch Eastenders and think, 'How silly, real life simply isn't like that!' Real life isn't like that really, but then Reality isn't always welcome in the Catholic Church, nor truth, nor justice and as for mercy, well, we do talk a good game don't we?
I expect that neither of the clergy involved in this soap opera - and perhaps not the Archbishop concerned either - would want this story to be documented on blogs. In the interest of justice, truth and charity, however, it must be documented. Catholics in future will want to know how it was that legal documents and laws of the Church instituted by Pope Benedict XVI were so easily disregarded and cast into the furnace as charity in the hearts of men became cold and, for a time, rampant clericalism prevailed during the reign of a Pope the Church was told was so set against it. I suppose the crowd at The Tablet will be, for the time being, rather pleased with themselves.
Pray for the new priest at Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen. Pray for his flock, denied, for the time being, that to which they are entitled and say a prayer for Fr Tim Finigan in his work in his new parish in Margate. Other pieces on this disturbing news are available at the following sources...
More reports, I am sure, will appear in time. Finally, I would like to add that I have not heard from Fr Tim Finigan anything - let alone anything regarding events mentioned above. What I report, I report in this instance from events already documented on the internet. From what I read on Rorate Caeli, which has some significantly detailed accounts of events at Blackfen, the Devil is indeed having a field day. All ages, and the Mass of those ages, however, belong to Christ our God!
Pray for good and holy priests and even holier bishops.
143 comments:
What a fantastic post from Msr Pope! And yes, dreadful news from Blackfen. It looks like a strategy. It also adds insult to injury to display copies of the Tablet in the church, when articles in that rag caused so much division in the past.
Trick by Trick!
As noted on other blogs, the majority of those who attended The E.F. Mass in Blackfen travelled significant distances. The parish, and new P.P., are under no obligation to host such a congregation. Church Law says a priest should only celebrate one Mass each day, except in exceptional circumstances, and any need to celebrate more than one Mass must be based on the actual pastoral needs in the particular parish.
I think Fr. Fisher was under the impression that most of the TLM congregation at Blacken were mad Trads, from outside the parish.
Sadly for him many were not Trads, and now have left to join some of the other traditional communities.
Mass attendance in one week 160 to 50, also the loss of around 8 standing orders, collection will be rather low.
Good news, we will gain at least 3 TLM locations in the South East, with provision expanded elsewhere. By splitting the community at Blackfen it has just spread the seeds to more locations.
praying for all over there...it seems like either this was a top down dictate, or someone did something to make Father mad, and he's getting revenge via the TLM....Kyrie eleison
This is what happened at St Peter's Hove, when the new encumbrance arrived in 1983, where a NO Latin Mass had been celebrated every Sunday at 11.00.
One would have thought that concern for the collection would have been a material consideration.
It seems very much to be the work of the local bishop. The Archbishop has continued the 'toleration' of his predecessors but he is becoming increasingly incapacited, I fear for the continuance of the Masses elsewhere in the diocese.
Bishop Lynch is of course an active supporter of ACTA, having spoken at several of their meetings. In all his time as Bishop he has hardly been supportive of Catholic 'mainstream'.
If Blackfen can be swept away so easily what about Clapham, Chislehurst, Ramsgate, Wandsworth Common?
Fidelity always, where do you get this idea that a priest must only celebrate one Mass a day except out of necessity. Canon Law says a priest may celebrate two Mass on Monday-Friday and 3 on a Sunday, and any more bust be for good reasons (and I think may require approval from a bishop)
...unless the Bishop has given a general permission for three Masses to be said, which most English bishop have, or at least have allowed this become a 'custom'.
fidelity always ought to read Canon Law. Unless he knows best and is a Canon Lawyer, like the new PP of Blackfen?
What the new priest in Blackfen is reported to have said to the congregation regarding division, etc. is a good example of diabolic disorientation. The malice shown towards the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Source and Summit of the Faith, is truly astounding. This priest has declared war on the faithful who worship Our Lord at this church.
Canon Law on the number of Maases a priests may celebrate: Code of Canon Law states:
Can. 905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.
§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of obligation.
Let me assure "fidelity always" that while most of us lived technically outside the parish, the vast majority were still very close and many walked or rode bicycles to Mass - myself included. Also that there was no "old
Mass /new Mass" division in the parish: those who came to daily Mass (English, OF) also came to Benediction and Rosary (Latin and English) and the Saturday morning EF Masses and various other devotions and feast day Masses in both English and Latin. On Sundays this "core" of the parish would go to a variety of Masses, including, but not exclusively, the EF.
Blackfen had been a model of mutual enrichment between the two forms of the Mass, and had a warm, supportive community. That this could have been effectively dismantled within the first week of a new Parish Priest suggests some advance planning.
Former parishioners are utterly devastated. This isn't just about the Latin Mass, although the loss of the TLM is the most obvious symptom of the devastation that has been wrought.
That core of daily Mass goers who are, on the whole, now without a parish, (ironically we now have to drive to Mass - even for the daily OF!) were the people who cleaned and repaired the church, maintained the gardens and grounds, and supported the parish financially.
I fear that without this core, the parish will not be viable in the long run, but perhaps that was the plan all along.
In Church Law you are either in s Parish or not, and so "technically" being out of it doesn't mean you can make demands on those appointed o serve that Parish. Further, your support of the Community you embraced cannot be conditional on getting certain things. Either you are committed to The Community, or your liturgical "wish list". Wish Lists are not part of the teaching of Jesus, or Church practice.
Either you are committed to The Community, or your liturgical"wish list"
Funny that, because I was under the impression that the first commitment of a priest was to Almighty God, to whom he made his vows.
And not just for priests, but also for us, since the first commandment has been given to all of us to love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind and all your strength.
There is no commandment to love your 'community', except for the commandment to 'love your neighbour'. After the devastation wrought in Blackfen and the destruction of the work for Christ done by Fr Tim - which certainly benefitted 'the community', I cannot see what justifies the actions taken by his successor.
This is for the good of the community, we are reassured. That is clericalism where the priest simply says, 'This is for your own good and I know best' when Summorum Pontificum states clearly that this Mass, which has been locally abrogated, was never formally abrogated and is licit and to be preserved and promoted.
But what does Church law mean to a 'canon lawyer' nowadays.
It would appear that what fidelity always is really saying is 'La communaute c'est moi!'
Fr Tim, on the other hand, offered both rites in order to show forth the liturgial heritage and beauty of the Mass of Ages, while also offering the Mass in the Novus Ordo.
The new priest is clearly not into 'diversity' but simply the imposition of his own will on the community and to hell with what the community make of it.
No priest is bound to celebrate anything other than The Vernacular Mass!
If those gathered around The Altar are not formed as a Community then they have not understood anything.
Most people at The Traditional Mass on a Sunday were not parishioners, and a priest should celebrate only one Mass a day a day unless the pastoral needs of the parish entrusted to him require it.
I have been reading for years that what happened in Balckfen split the parish, and that does not alter because people started to conditionally support that Parish to get their liturgical fix. As Pope Benedict said there is one Rite but two forms.
I find it ironic that in a period in the Church's history in which the label 'Pharisee' is thrown at those who attend the traditional rite, that you should be so obsessed with the Church's canon law (what law can a priest use to thwart Summorum Pontificum?) that in your observation of the situation at Blackfen you neglect the need for CHARITY and JUSTICE, either towards Fr Tim, respecting what he has achieved or to those he left behind in the care of the new priest.
Canon 518: As a general rule, a parish is to be territorial, that is, it is to embrace all Christ's faithful of a given territory. Where it is useful, however, personal parishes are to be established, determined by reason of the rite, language or nationality of Christ's faithful of a certain territory, or on some other basis.
And you say Fr Tim was divisive, according to your sources (whoever they are), yet the new priest, he cannot be divisive, because everyone will rally around him? Or rally around the 'community' otherwise known as the priest himself?
In what way is the new priest not divisive?
Any priest can set up a personal ministry to a specific community, that share his particular concerns, but he is appointed to serve the community entrusted to him by his Bishop.
I don't know Fr Finegan but I would gamble everything I own on the fact that, not by chance, he prefers traditional liturgy and it is more suited to his personal piety. However, he was appointed to serve a particular parish and the community within its boundaries.
Which priest is being "clerical". the one who pursues his preferred interests, and piety, or one who knuckles down and serves the Parish he was appointed to serve?
I can guarantee there are countless parishes where priests have so called "Charistmatic" gatherings and "Masses", and the Church is full to the roof, but not by his parishioners.
Numbers attending do not decide the validity of an individual priests commitment to a particular ministry. How many left Balckfen because of Fr Finegan? Travel is usually in both directions.
How many actual parishioners are complaining because they have their priest and parish back?
Any priest can set up a personal ministry to a specific community, that share his particular concerns, but he is appointed to serve the community entrusted to him by his Bishop.
In what way did Fr Tim breach this 'code of conduct' that entails a radical reappraisal of the situation with the EF Mass?
'I don't know Fr Finegan but I would gamble everything I own on the fact that, not by chance, he prefers traditional liturgy and it is more suited to his personal piety. However, he was appointed to serve a particular parish and the community within its boundaries.'
This was a bi-ritual parish which exemplified that laid out by Summorum Pontificum offering to 'the community' and visitors both that which is old and that which is new from the Church's treasure. Insodoing, Fr Finigan was doing a service to both God AND man, for the sanctification of the faithful, as called for by BXVI. It was not about his personal piety but about the WORSHIP OF GOD.
'Which priest is being "clerical". the one who pursues his preferred interests, and piety, or one who knuckles down and serves the Parish he was appointed to serve?'
The one who is more interested in using power and authority to impose his will on the church against that proposed by Pope Benedict XVI and against even the expressed wishes of the Faithful, in defiance of vocal opposition. The one who offers two different forms of the Mass is offering diversity. The one who removes one of these is offering 'my way or the highway', I repeat, AGAINST the law of the Church laid down by BXVI.
It also seems to have escaped your attention that a priest is not appointed by God merely to serve the community, but to serve God and LEAD the community into the worship of God, to LEAD the community towards Christ and the SALVATION of their ETERNAL SOULS, to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to lead them in, reverencing the Most Holy Eucharist.
I think, unless you are humanist, you do not have a proper understanding of the priesthood, be you canon lawyer or not.
Personal Parishes are not co-terminus with geographical parishes, and their clergy minister to their "subjects" who may be from a particular region or even the whole country. The "Parish" would be formally established by The local Bishop, or even Rome, and the priests would have faculties to minister to those served by it.
Blackfen is a geographical parish, and the priest was appointed to serve that parish. People from outside the Parish, even if they attend that parish every day, would need the permission of their own Parish priest to have a child baptised, get married etc. A personal parish might be for a national or ethnic group.
One Rite, two forms.
Anyone can serve a community of Catholics.
Only a priest (and only a holy priest at that) can lead them to Heaven, to lead them to reject sin and love God.
A bad priest can lead a community, he can serve a community all he likes, but he can lead them into the pit of Hell he has dug for himself and for them, because he has no love of Jesus Christ in him.
If he only serves the community and the community's desires and preferences and does nothing for Christ, then he will likely have a hard time at his private judgement because he lived as a priest not for God, but for himself and 'the community'.
A priest has faculties to serve a particular Parish, or minister to a defined group.
For example, a priest from one Parish should not celebrate Mass in another parish, or Diocese, without permission from the local Ordinary.
Every Mass is offered for the whole Church, and is the prayer of the whole Church, but a priest is appointed to serve by his Ordinary or Superior and his faculties do not allow him to minister anywhere, or to anyone, at will.
For it won't be the community that judges his eternal destination, but Christ and the Court of Heaven.
There is no such thing as a bi-ritual parish, and Blackfen wasn't one until Fr Finegan imposed it on the Parish.
Pope Benedict says that people who form a stable community can request the E.F.. At Blackfen they took over a Community, and threw their toys out of the pram and left when Fr Finegan did. That doesn't suggest stability or community, but plain old tantrums and blackmail.
I guess "fidelity always" knows a lot about Alinskyan organizing among religious bodies.
It is interesting how much he and the new priest are concerned about "the community".
hhttp://johntwo24-25.net/Edited_Volume_I_-_Brief_History_(1).pdf
http://johntwo24-25.net/Volume%20II%20-%20Systemic%20Reform.pdf
http://johntwo24-25.net/Volume%20III%20-%20Ideology3.pdf
Will Blackfen become England's Thiberville?
Thiberville in Normandy had a much loved priest for nearly 25 years and it was a flourishing parish described as the most vibrant in the diocese. There were three Masses every Sunday filling the church and weekday Masses were well attended too. The Priest was bi-ritual celebrating in both forms and there were usually 100 in the congregation at the EF Sunday Mass.
After he was transferred by his Bishop there is now just one Sunday Mass attended by some 30 people - 10 'real' parishioners and 20 from elsewhere. The regular EF Mass was cancelled permanently. There is no weekday Mass at all.
Do Bishops have a death wish for successful parishes? It would seem so if Thiberville and Blackfen are anything to go by.
A small correction regarding Monsignor Pope: his column regarding St. Patrick's Day parade dealt with decisions of Cardinal Dolan of New York, rather than his own Cardinal Wuerl of Washington DC. Mgr. Pope's blog is always a worthwhile read.
'There is no such thing as a bi-ritual parish, and Blackfen wasn't one until Fr Finegan imposed it on the Parish.'
Do you not perhaps see that if every Bishop in the land took this view, that every 'bi-ritual' parish in the country could have the same thing happen to it thereby stamping out the traditional rite entirely, even though these priests were only acting on the document Summorum Pontificum, in obedience to Pope Benedict XVI?
After all, all these parishes have had the individual 'piety' of the priest imposed on them since 2007.
Isn't this the whole thing with the FFI all over again? The TLM was 'divisive' and so was the founder because it was a bi-ritual order and such 'unity in diversity' is simply not welcome in the Church today.
Whenever I hear that the Mass or a church is about "community" I want to go out and shoot myself.
The EF and NO are not different rites. They are different forms of the
Latin rite
We are a bi-ritual parish - there is one Mass a week in the Maronite Rite.
0% for public relations. The people responsible sound as if they learned their "skills" with British Rail before privatisation.
Is this letter from the same priest by the name of Fisher or is there another?
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/11/tlm-in-ramsgate-kent/
All very sad.
Fidelity - blackmail is a serious accusation to make and I'm assuming that you do not use the term lightly. Can you provide evidence?
Fidelity: "No priest is bound to celebrate anything other than The Vernacular Mass!"
Well, not quite. Given that the official language of the Church is Latin, and the official version of the Missal is in Latin, that certainly is not the case.
Sacrosanctum Concilium: "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."
Yes, it does of course allow the "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used". But it's not correct to say that a priest is bound to celebrate the "vernacular" Mass. It's quite ok for him to celebrate the NO in Latin. Which is, after all, its official language.
With regards blackmail: going to the media to attack a priest. Withdrawing financial support of a parish they claim won't be viable without that support....I could go on.
The Missal in use is in English, and most English speakers would expect Mass in English. Being able to says prayers in Latin is not the same thing as having to do so routinely.
Wretched V2 documents. Packed full of ambiguities and confusion. Even so, it is difficult to see how the present liturgical mess is what was envisaged.
Nonsense. They were clearly a stable community but a stable Catholic community (usually parish) is dependent on an orthodox Catholic priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in accordance with the Tradition of the One, Holy Faith. If a priest abandons the Holy Mass of All Ages around which the community communes, and does so with such apparent hostility and irreverence for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is he who has unilaterally exterminated the community.
Well said because it illumines the truth. The geographical boundaries of parish, etc., are there to serve the stability and continuity of a truly Catholic community dependent on the Deposit of Faith being given them through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and other sacraments and liturgy, in accordance with Tradition, all for the purpose of the salvation of souls.
People divide because many reject the Deposit of Faith. Division is usually the result of speaking and acting in truth, in accordance with the doctrine of the Faith and Divine Law - as many do not accept it but want to contaminate the Truth according to their own sinful desires. Division is caused by people (including bishops and priests) rejecting the unchanging Deposit of Faith and the Natural Moral Law. "I I have come not to bring peace but the sword."
It is diabolic. Of course, it was planned. My commiserations. This is all in keeping with attacks throughout the Church on those adhering with great sacrifice and suffering to the unchanging Deposit of Faith. The Devil wants the total destruction of the unchanging, true Faith and the Faithful. Let us support and console one another. Blessed Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle . . .
Not the relativistic social community but community as in " Church" in accordance with the Deposit of Faith. It is about the salvation of souls through the sacraments, prayer, penance, proper cathechesis, etc. - the geographical territory is just a tool to help create a local, ongoing parish around a truly orthodox priest. It is only useful insofar as it aids in the salvation of soul
Did "fidelity always" really say the following...
1. A Parish priest must alway listen to a small group of liberals.
2. A Parish priest must always ignore the needs of a small group of Traditionalists.
3. We must only ever attend our Geographical Parish.
4. If we don't attend our Geographical Parish we must not withdraw our funding of the adopted Parish when a new Priest arrives.
I think 'fidelity always' needs to wake up,
1. Large numbers of people have no idea where the parish boundaries are, they are really easy to find out aren't they?
2. Large numbers of people attend another parish for many reasons these include, Liturgical differences, Musical taste or lack of, Personality of the Priest/s, Parking, Mass times, Proximity to bus routes / tube / railways / Road network / traffic.
I am told many parishioners of Blackfen do not attend as it is difficult to get to by public transport, while other nearby parishes have excellent links.
N.B. I have not been inside my parish church for around 20 years. If 'fidelity always' or the bishop/s do not like this... hard luck!
Fidelity always - have you actually been regularly to an EF Mass? The congregation have a book or a piece of paper with the text of the Mass in whatever language they want to read it. It is much more difficult to engage in the NO Mass and maintain concentration. Having the Mass in the vernacular is a distraction which takes attention away from the Mass as an action, not a mere recitation of words.
The first time I heard the Mass was in Latin with the readings and sermon in Italian. Thus I did not understand one word and was instantly converted. This is not so very unusual. I am certain that it would not have happened if the Mass had been in English.
Can the person who wrote this: "1. Large numbers of people have no idea where the parish boundaries are, they are really easy to find out aren't they?
2. Large numbers of people attend another parish for many reasons these include, Liturgical differences, Musical taste or lack of, Personality of the Priest/s, Parking, Mass times, Proximity to bus routes / tube / railways / Road network / traffic." also argue that the Ordinary Form is a Protestant Invention centred on the mythical community, and the personality of the priest? As Pope Benedict said one Rite, two forms.
fidelity always - the two statements are entirely consistent. The EF form is like CocaCola - it contains what it says on the label, wherever you get it. The NO is utterly dependant on the priests whims. It is inevitable that people will shop around, for that reason, as well as others of a practical nature.
Pope Benedict was quite clear, One Rite two forms, and more specifically addressing self proclaimed "Traditionalists", who Francis, Bishop of Rome says, are merely renting a room in the Church, and are often wolves dressed as lambs, he said: If any of them deny the validity, efficacy, of the Ordinary Form, or deride it, and the fact there is only ONE Mass, should be denied the E.F.. Many such Trads, are to use the words of St Paul, eating and drinking unworthily at The Table of The Lord.
FA
Nobody is denying the validity of the NO, or Heaven's sake.
What the priest at Blackfen is denying to the congregation is that which had been given to them out of love for the Lord and love for them - the beauty of the Church's ancient liturgical tradition, expressed in the Mass of Ages.
To remove this is a gross injustice, a brazen act of clericalism (for he cannot deny that there was call for it within the church and that a group existed that cherihsed it) and, finally, an insult to his predecessor who, along with his flock, had been assured the Mass would CONTINUE.
In other words, at some point, a deception has taken place. That is contrary to Christ's Law of love, no matter what canon law you wish to quote.
That you should quote from SP is absurd, because the whole point of SP is to ensure that the Latin Mass is not only welcomed, accepted but is PROMOTED by the Church, not in order to do away with the NO but to put this liturgical expression back into the Church to restore the sacred to the worship of God, because too easily, the NO is distorted by priests to the effect that it becomes 'banal, on the spot liturgy'.
Benedict XVI promoted the Latin Mass by issuing this document for the good of souls. It is removed from Catholics by those in authority over them because these people do not care for souls. Good manners would suffice to restore to Blackfen what was there, courtesy and kindness would suffice, love of the flock, but no, all is sacrificed for some bizarre notion that 'the community' needs cohesion and ONLY the NO can offer that.
On what possible grounds can this be asserted? 50 years of decay and lapsation in the Church?
As noted by Rorarte, and many other blogs, and indeed commentators on this very blog, the congregation were not parishioners, and they upped and left and have withdrawn financial support from a parish, and community, they supposedly cherished. Get real!
I do not know Fr Fisher, but if his personal mailbag, and conversations, have been as vindictive as the public comments then it is no wonder he decided enough is enough so speedily. I think St Paul, in Holy Scripture, advised us not to wash our linen in public. The campaign against Fr Fisher is international, and very public.
The Mass is The Mass. Many have no Mass at all because they have no priest. The trad's are being unchristian, and seeking to vilify and blackmail a parish that, by their own admission, is not their own.
Call off the attack dogs, if you are Christian. Stop the public wrangle.
How long with it take the "parishioners" of Fr Finegans new parish to decide, unknown to them, they desire the E.F., if they do not already have it?
I thought that "fidelity always" (to the mysterious spirit of Vatican 2?) would not like my previous comment. I note he? does not contest the points I made... hmmm.
I am sure that he would be less than happy to learn that I have not been to an N.O. Mass for around 20 years, he will be even less happy to know that I am a father of 5 (soon 6) children under 9 yrs old that have never been to an N.O. Mass, they have all been baptised in the Old Rite, the 2 eldest have received their First Holy Communion at the E.F.
Oh and just in case you would like to know more, they have NOT been sent to a Catholic school, they are homeschooled and part of a community of Catholic Homeschool families that number over 50 children with numbers growing fast.
I am sure you would like to know why we Homeschool and attend the E.F.? Well here is why 97% of children attending the N.O. Mass and Catholic school lapse!
For the record I am more than happy for anyone to attend the N.O. Mass, it is valid, but what was Holy and Sacred for previous generations for over 1000 years, is Holy and Sacred for me.
He should also note that sometime before 2038 the number of Traditional priests will over take the number of N.O. priests in France! Can you feel the pleasant breeze of Tradition? It is growing stronger, and if the spirit of Vatican II types don't start reproducing and finding vocations, they will be heading to extinction.
In addition to the points made above by Bones and others, it seems impractical for a PP to put so much church revenue at risk by scaring off those who attend Mass there and who supply its income.
It's difficult to imagine that there is some large caucus of local Catholics who have been absenting themselves for years but will now stream into the church to attend Mass in droves, simply because it is in the NO rather than the EF form, and receive Communion, simply because they want to use their hands.
And will they - if they exist - make up the church's lost revenue?
In fact, the whole thing is so bizarre, I've been wondering if the plan is to close the church?
Yes FA, they left.
As I would up and leave if a new parish priest came in and treated myself and those around me and the hard work of the man he succeeded with contempt.
Get real.
He showed contempt for Holy God in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, and the moral and spiritual well-being of the souls who worshipped at the parish.
It was the new priest that left his flock by his contempt for Our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar.
As the Parish still has a resident Priest offering the Holy Mass, at least once a day, it is mystifying how to how any self proclaimed, "loyal", "Traditional" Catholic" could cause a public stir, and scandal, by telling the world a priest has abandoned his flock, and explicitly deny the very papal documents that granted the E.F, that said that anyone who denies the Ordinary Form, should be denied the E.F.. If anything Fr Fisher is following the teaching of Pope Benedict to the letter, as those who have walked away are denying that the Ordinary Form is the Holy Mass. Benedict said one Rite, two forms. They are also rejecting the very Parish that welcomed them. A scandal that should be corrected as soon as possible
They are rejecting the high-handed and authoritarian priest who rejected them.
fidelity always - please stop pretending that the Mass is the Mass. In one sense this is true, but the manner of celebration is to say the least subject to wide variations. The NO Mass can be celebrated in a way that no reasonable person could take exception to, but more often than not, the quality of the liturgy is dire. This includes practices such as manner of exchanging the sign of peace, receiving communion standing and/or in the hand, celebration facing the people, atrocious music, readers who cannot read properly and badly designed and badly set-up sound systems, which negate the whole notion of an understandable liturgy.
These things make going to Mass an ordeal to be sat through. You cannot really criticise people for going somewhere else.
As you were not party to any private communications between the P.P., and the disloyal dissidents who, in effect, mock The Holy Mass celebrated in The Ordinary Form by walking away from the parish that welcomed them.
You are in no place to judge the priest. The teaching of Pope Benedict, however, is a judgement on those who publicly attack the priest and walk away from the daily celebration of a parish they dare to call their own.
@fidelity always - you are ignoring the reality of the situation. Once a loose interpretation of the Vatican 2 documents became accepted, the liturgy became a "product" as priests marketed it as they saw fit, in accordance with their whims and preferences, and the people became customers who shopped around to get what suited their whims and preferences.
The Mass as you seem to conceive it is not the undifferentiated uniform thing it was before the Council. The reforms of the 1970s opened several cans of worms. The current row over what has happened at Blackfen has occurred thousands of times at parishes during the past 40 years. It is immensely destructive.
No, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered in its ancient, traditional, theologically-authentic, unadulterated, unmanipulated and unmanipulatable form - may not be taken away from the faithful because of the personal desires/opinions of the priest or anyone else. The priest and bishop both have an obligation, generally and under SP, to provide the Ancient Mass, as has been provided for many years to this point. A change of priest is not a valid reason to stop the provision of the traditional Holy Mass in a parish.
Blog Editor: I believe you subscribe to facebook page supposedly in support of The Nuncio. One commentator there, on this topic, sis saying what I am saying: by denigrating the priest, and walking away from their "own" parish, and disowning the Mass, celebrated therein, the self proclaimed Trad's have shot themselves in the foot, and any right thinking person would rally to the priest in the face of such abuse.
As to others who have commentated in say the last five posts, Pope Benedict himself said those who hold their views on the Ordinary Form should be denied the E.F.. Their comments means they should not be granted the E.F..
The Blackfen E.F. were not parishioners, and there is no reason why Blackfen should host then, and definitely not when they publicly denigrate the resident priest.
Fidelity Always - how do you defend what was clearly an act of bad faith on the part of the priest?
Large numbers of people attend Mass at a parish other than that in which they are resident. These people were members of the Blackfen parish community. Their preferences should have been respected.
They made it clear their support of the parish was wholly dependent on them calling the shots, and in having a puppet priest to serve them. That wasn't Christian, and it isn't Community. That have denigrated a priest in making rash statements in a manner the whole world could read them, and publicly disown the teaching of Pope Benedict there is one Rite and two forms. He also said those who disown the ordinary Form should be denied the E.F.. An own goal and their part, coupled with their unchristian actions. Pray for Fr Fisher, and the long suffering Parishioners of Blackfen who welcomed them.
Fidelity Always - what you have written is simply not true. Therefore you are either lying or you do not know what is going on and are trying to stir up trouble.
Summorum Pontificum Art. 5, §1
"In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish."
Which is exactly what had been carefully done by Fr Finigan, as the former attendee above has described. There was a Traditional Latin Sunday High Mass. There were also three (3) English NO Sunday and Vigil Masses. One of the three Holyday Masses was TLM. That is not exactly a totalitarian liturgical régime.
The insistence that the 'group of the faithful' must all reside strictly within the specific parish boundaries is a dubious point, and not in the spirit of the Motu Proprio. A large group making that parish their spiritual home, joining with parishioners to regularly attend Mass there on Sundays and Holydays and contributing financially to the church's coffers is clearly a 'stable group' under the terms of Art.1.
Many either occasionally or always attend Mass at a church not within their parish. I have never seen the PP hand them back their donations after Mass, or tell them that they were of secondary consideration or less welcome (a novel and chilling concept) than those who resided within the parish's precise boundaries. And with the hosting of immigrant Masses in Polish, Portuguese, Spanish etc, the whole concept of the 'parish' grows ever looser. I do not attend my own local parish, for example, because I cannot speak Polish.
Yet nobody 'disowns' (ie denies the canonical validity of) the OF, since it is patently obvious that the Pope's equivalence of the 'two usages' in Summorum Pontificum also confirms the legitimacy of the NO. As the Blackfen attendee above says, the parishioners of Blackfen who attended the TLM also attended other NO Masses there. That does not sound prejudiced to me.
Conversely, though, since the Traditional Rite is also formally declared to be an equally valid usage, no Catholic may ignore, deny or belittle its validity, nor obstruct its celebration. Nor rejoice when it is wilfully withdrawn from the large stable and existing group who have a legitimate desire for it to continue.
So now, a large group of faithful Catholics attending Mass are forced to leave the parish they made their home, and naturally they must take their financial contributions elsewhere. How the Bishop, Fr Fisher or the other parishioners of Blackfen have gained by this I cannot imagine.
The posts by those attacking Fr Fisher, and denigrating the Ordinary Form contradict what you, not I say, Blackfen "attendee". I note you do not say parishioner, and I assume you do not read the private mail, or listen to the private conversations, of Fr Fisher.
The commitment to those outside the parish to provide the E.F. was made by the priest, in keeping with his personal piety, and his successor had no obligation to maintain that commitment. If the attendees saw Blackfen as their parish they would not of left, and sought to blackmail the parish, and its priest, and air their dirty linen so publicly.
In every Diocese their are preists who host groups to who they have a particular ministry, or a shared interest, and even if that activity becomes a fixture in the parish timetable it is not a parish activity, if the attendees throw their toys out of the pram, or leave, because the new P.P. proposes a change, or legitimately alters such things.
From my observation, the self selecting group usually follow the priest who was "one of them".
If their commitment was to The Holy Mass, and the Parish, rather than one "form" they would of stayed. A stable group would not seek to de-stabilise the parish, nor publicly besmirch a good priest. People in may parts of the world are grateful to have a visiting priest, and the occasional celebration of Holy Mass.
Which should matter more to a loyal Traditional Catholic to be able to celebrate Holy Mass, or the particular "Form"? I know what Pope Emeritus Benedict would say, and which would be more pleasing to God.
FA
SP makes no conditions on who requests or wishes the Latin Mass. Priests are FREE to celebrate it and the laity are FREE to request it.
Priests are NOT FREE to deny it to those who ask for it. SP does not specify whether these people can be 'inside or outside' the community. You are placing restrictions on SP that do not exist because they are not there.
No group can place an obligation on a priest to which he has no pastoral obligation. In canon Law a priest is appointed to a particular ministry: say parish or Chaplaincy, and his faculties would be cover him for that ministry and he would need permission, from his Bishop or Superior, to act outside of that Ministry.
(I apologise for my constant typos. This discussion is not my main priority or interest.)
A person who isn't resident in a parish where they are seeking baptism for a Child, or Marriage, and various other things, would need permission from their actual P.P., and priest, or Deacon, who presides would need the express written permission to do so.
A priest would, for example, obtain a celebret for when they go on holiday etc, and this would this is stating he is in good standing, and the faculties to celebrate the Sacraments, and requesting that the local Ordinary give him permission to so celebrate them.
I would imagine that if a stable group is formed who want a priest to celebrate the E.F. they should ask the Bishop to try and provide a priest for them, as, most likely, so such gropu exists in any one geographical parish as Blackfen shows.
Bishops appoint priests to a Pastoral ministry, or approve of it, and not the priest, or a group of laity.
Mr Editor you do not know Canon Law, or understand the hierarchical nature of the Church, or its structures to provide for, and safeguard, the provision of the Sacrament.
S.P. said that stable groups could request something, but it did not, and could not, legislate for how that provision is met, as the Bishop remains the one who governs such things in his Diocese, and never an individual priest or an ad hoc group.
Provision varies in one Diocese to another precisely because S.P. could not legislate for the specifics of provision. I know in more than one Dioceses the E.F. is offered in particular Churches but not by the resident priest.
Benedict was also unhistorical in saying it was never abrogated, as he previous occupants of the See of Rome had to issue specific Indults to permit it, and, also if he was correct, it would not have been necessary for benedict to legislate for it, which is clearly what S.P. does. The legislation would have already existed, and all he need of done was remind Bishops it existed. Likewise he would not of needed to invent the two terms O.F, and E.F. .
a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 § 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. - Summorum Pontificum
Is that clear enough for you?
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
Summorum Pontificum
Yes, what FA is saying contradicts the law of the Church (as somewhat codified in SP) and, of course, Narural justice which flows from Divine Law.
Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish. - Summorum Pontificum
The Church's LAW seems to be something you are unfamiliar with FA.
For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. - Summorum Pontificum
Mr Editor
The crux of the matter is whether a stable exists within a geographical parish. Blackfen attendees have boasted publicly - and on this very thread - they were not resident, and the parish will suffer financially as they have walked away.
Likewise, being able to make a request is not the same as provision being guaranteed. An individual priest may not, for various reasons, feel they are able to grant the request, and they cannot be compelled to do so. Canon Law says a priest is only permitted to celebrate one Mass a day, and it is unlikely the whole Parish would want that one Mass to be the E.F..
I think I can almost guarantee where the E.F. is celebrated in a parish, where the celebrant is on the staff of that parish, then it is because he wants to celebrate it, and that his "congregation" are not, in Church Law, residents of that Parish. In so far as the group exists they have assembled on mass for that liturgy from other parishes. If he did not choose to say the E.F., as a matter of personal piety, it is most likely be not be taking place in that Parish at all.
As I said, in more than one Diocese a fairly central Church, architecturally more suited to the E.F., hosts the Mass, but the priest travels from elsewhere. In fact, I think , and this model is probably the norm, as the celebrant can choose to do it, but he cannot choose his parish and his Parish Church!
I do not know if Fr Finegan has started the E.F. in his current Parish, of a few weeks, but I suspect when he does, if it was not already a feature of the Parish, it is because a group from other Parishes join him, and not because the Parishioners, he has been appointed to serve,have asked for it.
You should also learn to distinguish between The Latin Mass, which can be in the Ordinary Form, and the E.F. The fact that you do not do so, suggests you do not fully understand the subject matter.
Long after the Great Council, and before S.P., I was present at a weekly celebration of Mass in Latin, but that was, primarily, because it was the only Mass that I could be present at, if I were to be at Mass that day.
May I refer you again to what someone has written on the Nuncio facebook page on this topic. A writer whose views, on most topics, are far from my own? He says the Blackfen dissidents have shots themselves in the foot by their very public protests, and any Christian person would rally to the priest unjustly, and so publicly, vilified.
That's not the crux of the matter.
That is called an EXCUSE to deny to the Faithful what is now their entitlement.
It is not their entitlement. It their right to ask that provision be made, if such provision is possible. The majority of Parishioners would want Mass in English, and the priest, in ordinary circumstances, should only celebrate one Mass a day.
Assuming you have any sense of actual Tradition, or understanding of Church Law, and more importantly The Commandments, you will know every Catholic is obliged to be at Holy Mass, and Holyday of Obligation, and yet, thousands, if not millions, have no priest to celebrate that Holy Mass.
S.P. did not create an obligation, it opened a possible gateway, and it legislated to overturn an existing abrogation, and if that abrogation did not exist the previous Indults, and this specific Motu Proprio, with its permissions, would not have been necessary at all.
At the end of the day which will matter, that a person had the opportunity to be at the celebration of Holy Mass, whatever the "Form", or what Form?
Pope Benedict clearly taught One Rite two Forms, and the Church has, throughout her history, taught that The Holy Mass is the prefect representation of the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary.
With your every post you, and the Blackfen dissidents, seem to deny that central, and more, important, teaching.
When you next go to a celebration of Holy Mass, and agonise over its form, think of those denied any Mass, will you?
The Letter itself has the aim of:
a. bestowing on all of the faithful the Roman Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, as a precious treasure to be preserved;
b. genuinely ensuring the use of that Liturgy FOR THOSE WHO ASK OF IT, bearing in mind that the actual Use of the Roman Liturgy in force in the year 1962 is a faculty given for the good of the faithful and is, consequently, to be interpreted generously in favour of the faithful for whom it is mainly destined;
c. promoting reconciliation at the bosom of the Church.
and here...
15. A group of the faithful (coetus fidelium) is said to be existing in a stable manner (stabiliter exsistens) according to the sense of art. 5 § 1 of the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum,when it is constituted by some persons of an individual parish, even if they have come together after the publication of the Apostolic Letter, by reason of their veneration for the Liturgy in the Usus Antiquior, and who ask that it might be celebrated in the parish church or in some oratory or chapel; this group (coetus) can be composed of persons coming from several parishes or dioceses, who come together to a parish church or an oratory to achieve the said goal.
Universae Ecclesiae
It seems you have not read the documents and that it is you, not I, who is unfamiliar with the Church's law.
Asking for something is not the same as provision being possible, and a group formed of people from more than one parish cannot place an obligation on one priest.
I feel sure no Ordinary Parish, anywhere in the world, has asked for their normal Parish celebrations to be in the E.F..
The Pope was responding to what a perceived to be a pastoral need, and yet the majority of Bishops, and laity, would disagree such a pastoral need exiting on such a scale.
As I said before the M.P. addressed a situation, but provided no sensible solution.
You really haven't got a clue. as I said you even confuse Mass in latin with the E.F.. The two are not the same. The M.P. talks about the E.F. and not Mass in Latin.
many throughout the world have no Sunday Mass, and you want overworked priests to celebrate Mass for those who deny the central teaching One Rite, One Mass.
Mr FA. Aside from the fact that no one has produced any evidence that the EF mass at Blackfen is not attended by geographical parishoners, many years ago Archbishop Cowdrey issued a diocesan norm abrogating any obligation to attend the geographical parish because parishes are so close and boundaries do not align with natural community, school etc boundaries or public transport corridors. Attendence at parishes other than your correct geographical parish is ubiquitous in South London and has been for decades.
Provision is possible, in this situation and the vast majority of others.
Provision is simply not desired by the priest.
This is based on the personal whim of the priest which has nothing to do with Church or Canon Law, but his personal decision, for reasons which are unjustifiable in the context and light of law, as documented by SP and UE.
Despite assurances from the priest that this Mass would continue, it was assumed, in its current form - that is, the Extraordinary Form.
'The Pope was responding to what a perceived to be a pastoral need, and yet the majority of Bishops, and laity, would disagree such a pastoral need exiting on such a scale.'
The Pope responded to a known pastoral need and the Bishops, for reasons known only to themselves, along with the vast majority of priests, decided to ignore him for their own spurious and ideological reasons.
Let's be clear about this:
Priests do not require permission from their Ordinary to celebrate the Mass in the EF.
The Laity are free to request the Latin Mass, regardless of geographical location, as made clear above.
Bishops are not free to over-ride the priests on their freedom to celebrate the Latin Mass.
Priests are not free to reject calls from the Faithful for the Latin Mass.
All this is made clear in both SP and UE, but because you do not agree with it, you use ideological excuses grounded in 'concern for the community' to ignore the Church's law.
An individual Bishop cannot abrogate a Diocese from the provisions of Canon Law. Logically the Diocese, as have many others, including two I have lived in, would need to check, and if necessary redraw, Parish boundaries as priests are appointed to serve parishes, and the people in those parishes would need his permission to, say, marry in another parish.
Canon Law does not require you to attend your own parish, but it does not free you from obligation that come from living in a parish.
In Charity Law the property, and monies, are paid to The Charitable Trust, usually the Diocese. In Church Law the money and property belong to the priest. I can, I think, guarantee when these topics come under scrutiny, or dispute, people will find the parish deeds.
A Parish cannot be suppressed unless a consultation has taken place, and Rome has agreed, such is the importance of the Prish structure.
You approach canon law as if SP and UE did not exist!
You assume that SP has to 'fit in' with existing canon law and that this law trumps anything to be found within SP when surely, by virtue of the Supreme Authority of the Roman Pontiff, the precise opposite is the case. Existing Canon Law has to accommodate SP and UE because of its status as a Motu Proprio by the hand of the Vicar of Christ.
Mr Editor
Until you learn to distinguish between The Latin Mass, which is NOT the subject of S.P., and the E.F., which it is, then any discussion with you is pointless.
Any group can ask for the E.F., but they cannot be guaranteed it, and such a group does not exist in most parishes.
The priority of any priest serving in a parish, must be his parishioners, and not a self selecting and on a Sunday that will probably mean a typical would not have the E.F. in a month of Sundays.
Any priest can at will celebrate the E.F. but not at the expense of his parishioners, and nor can he impose it on them. His personal piety, and authoritarian clericalism would be contrary to the spirit of any celebration of the Mass.
If he finds, or forms, a group not of his geographical parish, his parishioners, alone, should be his primary focus and concern. He is a priest for others not himself.
A major correction: In Canon Law the money and property belong to The PARISH, not the priest.
'Until you learn to distinguish between The Latin Mass, which is NOT the subject of S.P., and the E.F., which it is, then any discussion with you is pointless.
Any group can ask for the E.F., but they cannot be guaranteed it, and such a group does not exist in most parishes.
The priority of any priest serving in a parish, must be his parishioners, and not a self selecting and on a Sunday that will probably mean a typical would not have the E.F. in a month of Sundays.
Any priest can at will celebrate the E.F. but not at the expense of his parishioners, and nor can he impose it on them. His personal piety, and authoritarian clericalism would be contrary to the spirit of any celebration of the Mass.
If he finds, or forms, a group not of his geographical parish, his parishioners, alone, should be his primary focus and concern. He is a priest for others not himself.'
FA, you do realise, don't you, that the above is your personal opinion and NOT the law of the Church.
All Church Law, is mandated by the Pope whether in Canon Law or a specific act in a Motu Proprio.
Canon Law wouldn't deal with specifics normally dealt with in Liturgical Books, which are also published under papal mandate.
A Motu Proprio can, I believe, alter Canon Law, but as I said the provisions of M.P. are about Liturgy, and are permissory and not mandatory.
A person can ask until the day they die for Mass in the .F., but pastoral, and practical reasons, may mean they are never granted it.
A priest is bound to serve the Parish not his personal piety or a group from outside the Parish, unless the Bishop has made him the Chaplain to that group.
As I say as you have not grasped the E.F. and Mass in Latin, are two different issues a discussion on this, with you Mr Editor, is fairly pointless.
Mr FA. I lived in the diocese and know what i am talking about. I attended a parish outside my geographic parish and paid through numbered collection envelope there. Furthermore when i married in yet another parish it was the parish that I usually attended that i got dispensation from not my geographic parish. Archbishop Cowdrey introduced the diocesan norm for the part of Southwark that is in greater London because anything else is impractical. Land in london is at a premium and catholic churches are tucked away in odd places where land can be bought. Parish boundaries have to align with local authority boundaries because of council run voluntary aided catholic schools for example, so are often not logical. In my opinion your argument appears to be a straw man.
Mr Editor
May I suggest you read Canon Law on the rights, and duties of priests, and how they are appointed to a Parish, and see, for example, how the right and duties of a P.P. differ from those of an assistant.
How for example, the Assistant Priest usually needs the P.P. to sign, and authorise, some documentation in relation to a Marriage.
Read also the lette, typically given to a priest on appointment and what it specifies. Indeed the letter is a requirement, and in some Diocese is read out at an Induction for P.P.'s but not for an Assistant. It will state clearly he serves X parish.
Read also Canon Law on parish boundaries etc.etc.
The Motu Proprio says we mustn't lose an Old Treasure, it doesn't impose it on anyone. It gives a priest permission to celebrate it, and the laity the right to ask for it. However, the people asking for it, and the priest wanting to celebrate it, may live in different parishes and that becomes a problem canonically and pastorally.
The priest is appointed to a parish, not usually to serve a self selecting group, and it may be only the Diocese that can lawfully bring them together, if the priest prioritises his parishioners in honesty and integrity, and not act on a self serving act of personal piety.
Even if you got your dispensation through the parish you worshipped in, your geographical P.P. had, in writing, to delegate the right of the priest in the Parish to celebrate the marriage. (I have heard one Canon Lawyer say that without such a permission, required in law, the lawfulness of the Marriage is, to say the last, questionable.)
Regardless of the complexity of parish boundaries, parishes exit in Canon Law and certain acts can only be undertaken, or delegated, by the actual geographical P.P. and no Archbishop can overturn that.
No Law however compels you to worship in your own Parish.
This is it in a nutshell. It's clear and logical. FA is talkIng nonsense.
Will you stop talking nonsense?!! Not only was the provision possible, it had been provided to a flourishing faith, local church, community for years. The new priest decided - unjustly and unlawfully - to stop it.
SP did not create new substantive law - it simply stated what had always been the case, as a matter of necessity. It did set out basic (one might say) implicit fair procedures to ensure the implementation of the universal, all-time law regarding the unchanging Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Summorum Pontificum simply stated what had always been the case. It was not making new law (other than, arguably, procedural). The Deposit of Faith is fixed in substance and Canon Law is subject to it, existIng to facilitate the proper exposition of and obedience to, the Deposit of Faith.
Lynda
S.P. legislated for something that was previously understood not be lawful. Cardinal Hume, who died in 2000?, previously counselled the then not to broaden limited Indults permitting the then, so called. Tridentine rite.
Practically all Bishops asked Benedict to do so too, which is why he wrote the accompanying letter.
Benedict in one letter said something was not abrogated and then legislated for it. A contradiction if ever there was one. He also introduced terminology not previously used.
The Motu Proprio was not necessary if he wasn't changing the law.
I am not opposing people having access to The Old Mass. What I am saying is what benedict said: One Rite, two forms. Use of the E.F can be a litmus test for Catholic orthodoxy. As Benedict said the Ordinary Form is the norm, and anyone who says not should not be granted the E.F.
Disgruntled E.F. followers should not take over a parish, seek to divide a Parish, and accept they can't blackmail a priest, or a parish, or seek to discredit a good priest in a worldwide forum because he realises they do not have the interests of his parish, and ministry, at heart.
"The Missal in use is in English, and most English speakers would expect Mass in English. Being able to says [sic] prayers in Latin is not the same thing as having to do so routinely."
It seems to me that it is f a who is confusing the Traditional (EF) Mass with the Mass in Latin - which is of course the mother-text of the Novus Ordo from which the English text is translated. (Not translated terribly well, of course, but now much more accurately than it was. It was strange to see the number of confused priests who had not realized they were reading a translation, and thought it was some autonomous English rite!:-)
Understanding the Mass in Latin - in either usage of the Roman Rite - is not a complex matter: I hear entire congregations reciting all the NO Latin prayers without noticeable difficulty.
Poor F A has put such a lot of effort in to trying to prove speciously that what he personally prefers and wants to impose on everyone else is the law of the Church! And such a wasted effort, too, since we can so effortlessly see through it...
I'm happy to be in a position to educate and encourage young people in the meaning and significance of the Traditional Mass. They are not interested in culture wars: they know a Good Thing when they hear it - astonishingly keen and quick to understand, and contemptuous of the older generation of 'reformers' who have tried to keep them stupid.
New generations of priests also are more confidently demanding their right to celebrate the Traditional Mass. The only pity is that the English NO has become a rather faded and empty, eaten away by too much smugness. It too needs a shot in the arm.
This is a happy and very auspicious time, and a setback or two should not dishearten us.
We must just make sure that our money goes to the right charities, and not to those who would do us harm.
Those who seek to make The E.F. and Latin litmus tests of Catholic orthodoxy, and seek to take over ordinary parishes, are the people who are seeking to impose things.
Home schooled kid's, who then have to attend so called summer camps, and have no choice about what celebrations of Holy Mass they attend are not "freely" choosing the E.F. either.
Pope Benedict, not I, said the Ordinary Form is the norm, and legislated for the E.F.. and as I noted on another thread Cardinal Hume counselled against broadening the then existing Indults, which would have not be necessary if it wasn't abrogated or severely restricted in Church Law.
Likewise practically every Bishop counselled Benedict not to do what he did, and that is why he wrote the accompanying letter. History has already proved Benedict wrong on this issue. He has divided the Church. and Pope Francis has been as vocal as he can be on the problems that have been awakened.
He Benedict remains, however, one of our greatest, and wisest, leaders.
One Mass. One Rite. Anyone who denies that should be denied the E.F. says Benedict.
The Supreme Pontiff, now reigning gloriously, rarely uses Latin at his liturgies, and never the E.F., and Pope Benedict, nonetheless, never celebrated the E.F. publicly.
Follow Peter, I would say.
They are not 'imposing' anything.
They are merely asking for their inheritance, what rightfully is theirs, given to them by the Pope, denied them by the Bishops and individual clergy.
Denial of this form of the Mass to the faithful is contrary to the law of the Church. SP and UE make that abundantly clear.
Quite how you regard that a priest who decides to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, what we now regard as 'the Latin Mass' but was simply known as 'The Mass', as 'clericalism', but to arbitrarily remove it from the Faithful as 'not clericalism' I do not know, nor have you made any clear justification for doing so.
You make assumptions about what the 'community' want, yet many communities contain people who have a great love for the traditional latin Mass.
Making the Latin Mass available in 'GENEROUS PROVISION' is what SP called for. Your response, at least, is the complete opposite of 'generous provision'.
I'm really struggling to understand how having one of FOUR Sunday masses in the EF form is a self serving act of piety. Furthermore I recall that when it started it was only occasional not every week. If it had emptied the church it wouldnt have become weekly. Furthermore in the 7th Sept newsletter the new pp said he wants to turn the girl servers sacristy into a parish office and for the girls to share the boys sacristy.This makes it very obvious that OF masses, which were 75% of Sunday masses follow EF norms. Furthermore Fr Tim had an ordinariate priest to assist him meaning that the parish still got three OF masses despite one of Fr Tims being an EF mass. I'm sorry FA but you seem to me not to be in possession of the full facts and appear to me to be bismirching a good and holy priest.
Thereby you go directly against what the SP and UE called for, both in spirit and in letter, for reasons that are entirely personal, grounded in no real law whatsoever, and only justifiable by your personal prejudices against this expression of the Roman Rite and those who celebrate it and those who attend it. If this is a trait of the current Pope, now gloriously reigning, then well done, you are following the Pope, but neither does this Pope have any particular love, as we can see, for the LAW OF THE CHURCH.
'The majority of people worldwide want Mass in their own language. The Church, not me, came to that conclusion decades ago.'
The majority of Catholics FLED from the Catholic Church in the wake of the liturgical changes. The post-Vatican II church is, objectively, an unmitigated disaster of closed churches and empty seminaries.
The Church decided what it thought the people wanted. The people voted with their feet and left. Your commitment, and the commitment of so many to the reformed liturgy - which is completely valid, but lacks the reverence, dignity and beauty of the TLM, even to the point of denying others what has been always sacred for previous generations is not supported by the idea that the reformed liturgy is in some way a runaway success with the Faithful.
For, recall, that that the Novus Ordo was IMPOSED on all the Faithful - it was never called for but for a small minority of theologians and bishops and Cardinals. The Laity were never asked. They and the clergy were told simply to 'obey'.
So when you decide 'the Church' means the 'community' it means the community and when you decide 'the Church' means the Hierarchy, it means the Hierarchy, but if a 'community' wants the Latin Mass they are not entitled to it?
As I said before Mr Editor, you do not understand the terminology you are using "T.L.M." and "E.F." are not to be used interchangeably.
T.L.M. is generally understood to be the Mass of Pope Paul Vl, or the Council, and the E.F. is the Rite that preceded it. Even in Blackfen, under Fr Finegan, they were careful to make that distinction, and it is an important distinction.
As I said many posts ago I regularly attended the TLM, post Council, and before S.P.. If you do not grasp that simple fact you should stop writing about this topic.
As I recall you became a Catholic in the post Council period, 2001, and were presumably largely formed in the Church, and pre S.P.. Exactly, how do you explain that?
S.P. mandated nothing, as I said before it legislated for a possibility but provided no sensible frame work to fulfil it, and Pope Francis, himself has alluded to the problems that have arisen because of Trad's who merely rent a room in the Church.
I have also told you how various Diocese have tried to facilitate S.P.. S.P. provided no frame work to implement the poor law. It did not, because it could not. Most parishes do not want the E.F.. Grasp reality.
The so called "stable" groups that have formed are not based in parishes, but most priest are.
That is not people rejecting Church Law, that is dealing with the reality on the ground.
S.P, was permissive NOT, in any sense, mandatory. The priority must be the whole Church, and no-one in the U.K. is being denied the Mass. God does not pray in Latin, and Latin did not become the language of the Church for centuries, and in synods today Bishops are not required to speak in Latin, and The Pope doesn't in his addressees.
I am talking about the reality on the ground. You are ignoring what Benedict said, and the teaching of the whole Church.
You are pursuing a sectarian agenda, and the rest of the Church are following Peter.
Mr Editor
Unless you are living on another planet, few, if any who have lapsed, in recent decades have done so because of what language the Mass is in.
I believe you may understand that the Church has suffered because of child abuse, growing materialism, issues around sexuality, societal and marriage breakdown. The list is endless.
I trust you will start going out more, and start mixing with a broader spectrum of Catholics.
You are not encountering the real Church, or the real world.
Correction:
"This makes it very obvious that OF masses, which were 75% of Sunday masses follow EF norms."
Should state:
"This makes it very obvious that OF masses, which were 75% of Sunday masses follow OF norms."
Sure, its just a co-incidence that the demolition of FAITH and the CRISIS in Faith, now evident from top to bottom of the Church was attended by the demolition of the sacred liturgy and its replacement with something less than reverent in its place.
The whole reason that Benedict XVI wished for a 'generous provision' of the Latin Mass was in order to make sacred that which had so easily become more human, more focussed on man and to put Christ firmly back at the CENTRE of the liturgy. This is what was meant by restoration of the liturgy.
I'm sorry fidelity. To accuse him of following a secatarian agenda is in my opinion a dreadful thing to say.
Do YOU have any evidence that geographical parishoners did not approach Fr Tim and ask for a EF Mass after Summorum Pontificum?
Do YOU have any evidence that a reasonable number of geographical parishoners (enough to form a "stable group") did not attend the EF Mass?
Do YOU have any evidence that all the people outside the geographical parish who attended the Sunday EF Mass, did not attend Blackfen prior to the EF mass starting (which happened many years after Fr Tim arrived).
Do YOU know how many Sunday masses of any type were said in the Parish prior to Fr Tim arriving and whether it was less than the four that were said (including vigil) when Fr Tim departed.
Can YOU explain how having one EF Sunday Mass and three OF masses (complete with girl altar servers) is imposing the EF on everyone?
Do YOU have any evidence that Fr Tim started EF Masses in the parish for any reason other than that he identified a pastoral need as part of his duty as the shepherd of the souls in his parish?
Mr Editor
Can you grasp once, and for all, S.P. was NOT about The Latin Mass (TLM), but the pre-Council Missal, and Rite, The so called Extraordinary Form (E.F.).
The Mass of Pope Paul is generally celebrated in the language of a particular nation, but was written in, and can be celebrated in, Latin.
The so called E.F. was only celebrated in Latin and has a different structure.
S.P. was about the E.F. not Mass in Latin, as such.
Mr Editor if you think The Ordinary Form is less reverent then it is you, not the rest of the Church, that is rejecting the clear teaching of Summorum Pontificum.
Benedict said that both the E.F. and O.F. are part of the ONE unbroken tradition, and anyone who says otherwise should be denied the E.F..
Benedict said that both the E.F. and O.F. are part of the ONE unbroken tradition, and anyone who says otherwise should be denied the E.F.
Again, sorry, what people say or think in private regarding the NO has no bearing, whatsoever, on whether they are to be denied, or allowed, the Mass in the EF. Again, this is your private opinion.
Fidelity. The ordinary form is not less reverent in itself. Indeed a sung Ordinary Form mass in Latin with Plainchant (as intended by the Second Vatican Council and exemplified by Papal Masses on significant feasts) is difficult to distinguish from the EF to someone not Catholic.
However, on many occasions, the Ordinary Form is not conducted in a reverent way. This can take a variety of forms, from the priest changing some of the words of the liturgy to his own words, irreverant and banal hymns, a priest spending a long time preaching then gabbling through the liturgy of the Eucharist as fast as he can. Parishoners talking before, after or even during Mass, illicit use of extraordinary ministers in ordinary situations, the priest interupting the liturgy with witty jokes and observations and many more. These convey a lack of respect for and even in some cases even a doubt as to whether the priest or parishoners actually believe in the most Blessed Sacrament as the physical and divine presence of Our Lord under the illusion of bread.
As a result people get fed up and go elsewhere, quite justifiably. One thing that I have consistently found is that priests who say the EF tend to say the OF with great reverence.
Mr Editor read what S.P. and the accompanying said about those who deny the O.F.. You cannot "privately" disown Church teaching just as you can't "privately" sin. Jesus said, The Lord who see's all that is done in secret..."
Pope says anyone who denies The Theological Teaching in S.P. should be denied the E.F.. It couldn't be clearer. If he didn't believe it, he wouldn't of said it.
You either believe, and accept, Church teaching or you don't. You can't say it all right I don't say this publicly....
I think conscience, integrity, and uprightness apply as much to thoughts and actions.
Mr Editor you cannot condemn priests. and Bishops, who you think are lax over S.P., and say privately, in your head, you reject a basic tenet of its teaching.
John 11:35
So if I repeat 'too often the liturgy after the Council provided is a 'banal on the spot product', I am in error, even though Pope Benedict XVI said that?
Don't think so!
You say, canon law says this, sp says that but do not quote from the text. I assume, therefore you are MAKING IT UP.
What SP does not do is thought police the faithful over the NO. What it does say is that the faithful are not to join other societies not in communion with the Holy See.
Fidelity, you have not responded to any of the questions I asked at 17.46, despite several further posts from yourself since. With the greatest of respect, as a result it is regrettably difficult for me to come to any other conclusion than that, in my opinion, you appear to me to be trolling and further discussion with you is futile.
Mr Editor
I can't find the reference but he did say it!
However, The Supreme Pontiff has said there is only one Mass, and the majority celebrate the Ordinary Form. Is it likely the Pope would deny that defect, and not remedy and abrogate the Miisal of Paul Vl.
Therefore, you are wrong to privately reject the clear theological teaching, and practice, of the Universal Church and deny its efficacy.
If the perfect representation of Calvary, and the reality of Christ truly present on the Altar is ever banal God help us all.
Yes the music can be too dreary, or the music too folksy, the sermon may be rubbish, but sight, touch, and taste may deceive but Christ the redeemer is present.
Seen through the eyes of faith, and assented to in faith, the rest does not matter. At Mass we ascending the mountain of God, and behold his face.
One Mass. One Rite. Two Forms. Either Pope Benedict said that in S.P. or he didn't!
The Editor
Take together the teaching in S.P. the accompanying letter, and the Instruction from Ecclesia Dei and say people can "privately" reject, or support those who reject, the overall teaching and still ask, in good conscience, for the E.F., or more especially run blogs where people do so as a matter of course.
“POPE BENEDICT XVI
APOSTOLIC LETTER
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.” July 7th 2007
“PONTIFICAL COMMISSION ECCLESIA DEI
INSTRUCTION
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE APOSTOLIC LETTER
SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM
OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.” 30th July 2011
The P.C, Ecclesia Dei is the guardian, and arbiter in disputes over Summorum Pontificum
FA, all this is true and I do not dispute it, hence I never said the NO was not valid, but is, in my experience and that of others, not half as reverent or dignified as the Latin Mass. It is much more open to liturgical abuse, but then, what is liturgical abuse to someone who thinks it is okay to use liturgy to abuse the Faithful (and clergy who celebrate the Usus Antiquior.
I am being asked to respond to some post at 17:46.
On practically every blog, including this one, former E.F. attendees in Blackfen are outing themselves as not being geographical resident in that parish. They have quoted numbers of people, and the number of Standing Orders cancelled.
What motivated Fr Finegan is not the issue, as such. as it is Fr Fisher who had to decide if the ministry could continue, and he has decided it can't.
I have lived, and worked, in number of Diocese, and have friends, and contacts, in significantly more, and I know clerics from throughout the country.
By far the majority of clergy who celebrate the E.F. do so at their own volition, and they have established a congregation, and the request has not come from the laity, or the Bishop.
In some Diocese, the majority of celebrants are not cradle Catholics and in their own, former, Tradition would never, ever, have known the Latin Mass as part of that Tradition.
The feedback, is that most, including the cradle Catholics, are responding to their own spirituality first.
In most diocese, the celebrant has chosen it in his own church, or has arranged, or accepted, to celebrate it in another more central Church more suited to the E.F..
But then I am only basing this on travelling widely, living and working in more than one Diocese, and extensive contacts with clergy and laity, and so probably my opinion, and research, can be wholly discounted.
Mr Editor
Every Form of Mass can be abused, and any priest, or congregation can, as it were, just go through the motions.
I can also tell you I have encountered priests who of their own volition celebrate the E.F., and celebrate the Ordinary Form as something they have to get through.
Both attitudes are wrong.
Either it is the Mass and the perfect representation of Calvary or it isn't and all the faithful deserve a priest attentive to that celebration.
The New Missal was produced to rebalance things. I do not llike any departure from the rubrics, and I want appropriate Music etc. It is not a world of either the E.F. or O.F. We should show by our lives, and worship, we profess, and pray, the one faith.
The Traditional Latin Mass cannot be abuse unless you abrogate it, which it never has been.
Mr Editor
If you think an emphasis on Altar Servers, the number of candles, lace, incense, and elaborate vestments cannot, in itself, be just as much as abuse and a distortion of what the Mass is then you are kidding yourself.
Likewise, to publish a list of "Music" including the composer, as you would for a concert, and people come for the Music is just as much an abuse as any Ordinary Form Mass.
I know of one Church where they boast of increased numbers, but many are Anglicans who, unashamedly admit they come to listen to particular Music on a particular day.
Likewise to put the emphasis on what direction you face, when you are caught up in those other things is just as much an abuse.
Any celebration of any Mass can be abused if the emphasis is on anything but God, and his word, the sacrifice of the Mass is an abuse.
You are kidding yourself if you think the language, or the Rite, are the only thing can keeps thoughts heavenward.
It isn't either/or, FA, it is 'BOTH'.
There is no liturgical abuse in the Latin Mass, that is to say, nothing done deliberately that detracts from the solemnity of the Mass.
This cannot be said for the NO, as it is widely celebrated.
Bones. I think FA has a point here. Prior to vatican 2 I'm told the old rite was abused. Priests gabbled through it in 20 minutes or even less.
I only experienced such a Mass once when a very old priest stepped in to say an EF mass at the last minute and did it as it was done pre V2, and it was said or mumbled very fast, a total contrast from the way the EF is now celebrated. I'm told that this was commonplace before V2 although I'm too young to remember.
FA- you seem to be taking your experiences and translating them onto poor Fr Finigan.
When I fairly regularly saw Fr Finigan about 20 years ago when attending London Faith Forums, prior to him going to Blackfen, my recollection is that he wasn't the least bit interested in the EF. The general view in the Faith movement was that things had moved on. When I later discovered he was saying the EF, I was a bit shocked.
I'm told (this is secondhand so I cant verify it) his view changed after a parishoner died who had specified an EF funeral. Not wanting to have another priest celebrate his parishoners funeral, he learnt the EF so he could say it and realised that this was something to be valued.
My recollection from reading his blog (I've never actually been to Blackfen) is that after Summorum Pontificum a low mass on Saturday mornings was started (bear in mind a lot of priests don't offer ANY mass on Saturday mornings)
With the success of this, the Sunday 10.30 Mass, which I think was novus ordo Latin, became EF once a month and later weekly. This was done very slowly (over a couple of years I recall) with great pastoral care - unlike the recent incredibly rapid changes and he carried the congregation with him.
This clearly attracted other people beyond the parish as well as parishoners. However that is hardly his fault.
My late father accepted the changes for many years, until a new parish priest came, encouraged communion in the hand and introduced extraordinary ministers even though there was a curate in the presbytery. He was scandalised and sought out the old rite mass. Many others who were scandalised at the imposed changes in 1970 lapsed altogether. Some never returned.
My own view, I was three at the time, is that the whole thing was handled dreadfully and in the west, modernists tried to hijack it as part of a neo-protestant agenda. Devotions were scrapped, churches were vandalised with statues and vestments binned. In south America, this basically did not happen and Catholic life and devotions continued much as normal (they also had a proper translation and lets face it Spanish and Latin are sister languages), hence the incomprehension of South American prelates as to the EF revival.
That might be true but FA's opposition sounds like an ingrained opposition to the Mass of Ages itself.
FA you are over-simplifying. The Mass is a sign, and though, as you say, it can be cut down to the bare minimum, humans being physical creatures with senses that respond to physical stimuli, the church in its wisdom learned that it was important to reinforce that sign through the use of other stimuli: music, architecture, vestments, incense, etc.
Together, these developed into that tradition which until 1970 was part of the heritage of Catholic culture. The Second Vatican Council, in its documents, asserted that the church should continue to nurture this heritage, but in practice it did not happen, and it was this discarding of heritage was one of the prime reasons why a new interest in the old Mass reasserted itself.
To dismiss it as you do, under a facade of obedience and piety, is to promote the programme of cultural destruction that has been forwarded by Marxist theorists for the past fifty years. I can only assume you are not aware that you are playing their game for them.
I'm minded to agree with you Bones. I do agree with FA on things like advertising Masses with the Music played. That just makes me wince and you will never ever get me into a decorated cotta.
V2 by simplicity meant simple gregorian chant rather than elaborate polyphony concerts, but certainly not some idiot strumming a guitar and screeching "Fancy Walking on the Water Lord, what next whatever next, what next whatever next" or some other crap from the 20th Century Folk Hymnal.
However such EF "abuses" pale into insignificance compared with the abomination of Communion in the Hand or plates not used to catch fragments of the host in the OF.
I agree that some of the elaboration, particularly in the High Mass is OTT, however I'm sure the council fathers didn't intend to get rid of the prayers before the altar, last gospel, the old offertory and the psalms within the Mass, let alone have people standing to receive communion from an extraordinary minister while the curate watches TV in the presbytery.
I think the ordinariate liturgy is probably the closest expression of what the Second Vatican Council fathers actually wanted.
In the meanwhile I attend the EF, I miss the expanded readings in the new rite but not much. I don't miss communion in the hand, receiving communion from lay people I was out drinking with the night before, standing for communion, being forced to shake hands at the pax domini with all and sundry, and everyone talking before and after mass and treating the place like a secular community centre. And more and more I am growing to regard the EF as THE Mass.
For weekday mass though, I prefer the OF, the abuses are rarely there and an EF mass done properly takes too long. Weekday mass is the real success story for the OF. I'm told attendance is far higher than in pre V2 days. You can go to a reverent 20 minute mass during your work lunch break, not possible with the EF unless gabbled.
I suppose, to be chartitable, the abuses FA grew up with enrage people like FA as much as the abuses we grew up with enrage us.
Should those who reject the EF be denied the OF?
Mr Editor
I hope I have not misunderstood Jesus, but I think he said we can learn to value some things more than we should and they become an obstacle to true love of God, and neighbour, and authentic worship.
I can assure you that when I see, and hear people, clergy and laity, obsess over incense, lace, candlesticks, vestments , and music, and things that may add to a celebration of Mass, but are not central to it then I think it can, justly, be argued that the Old Rite can become a distraction. I have witnessed countless discussions and all on the basis of this is what I prefer!
Likewise, for a priest to be more attentive to, and prioritise the celebration of the E.F. over a celebration of the O.F, is contrary to the mind and spirit of the legislation, the very Sacrament itself, and the congregation, and more especially God. If externally he can be seen, in his words and actions, to do exactly this how pure and centred is his heart? (Parishioners do notice such things, you know. Likewise, if in an ordinary Parish, where most attend the O.F. is it right the priority be given to a Mass/Concert in the Old rite, on a major feast day, which matters as much to those who celebrate the O.F.? That is not the mind of the Church.)
To give the wrong emphasis to anything, above worship of God and sanctification of humanity, is an abuse, or self indulgence no matter what Form is celebrated!
I think you have suggested, I am anti E.F.; however, I, like the Pope, cannot accept some self professed Trad's use the E.F., and Latin, as a litmust test of Orthodoxy, and who do not accept the O.F. is the norm in the Universal Church.
One of your commentators is now writing at length about Fr Finegan, and I think has questioned why I think most E.F. worshippers were from outside the Parish. Fr Finegan is no longer the issue, as he is not the P.P. in Blackfen, and it is Fr Fisher who has to exercise Pastoral judgement there. On this very thread, as least one Blackfen E.F. person, but I think more than one, has said the majority were from outside the Parish. This fact has been reported on Rorate, and countless other Trad blogs too.
I have not said anything specific about Fr Fingegan, I have, however, shared my insights having lived, and worked, in more than one Diocese, and in general the introduction of the E.F. in most places has come about because the priest wants it, and a congregation forms around him. His successor should not be bound by that decision when he lives.
All the recent Vatican/Papal Documents seem to concede that a "stable group" may not naturally exist in one geographical parish, and they put the onus on the Bishop to try to respond pastorally to them, if necessary with him, not they, having recourse to the Ecclesia Dei Commission.
One Mass. One Rite. And in either form Mass is not a concert or performance, and the emphasis should always be on worship of God, and the sanctification of humanity, and others things must always be of secondary importance, and never the focus during Mass.
And Mr editor, the fact you personally are uplifted by the Old Rite every time you celebrate it is good, but that is a pretty subjective judgement, as Mrs blogs aged 96 who has always gone to the "Folk" Mass down the road, ever since it began, but is equally at one with God, and her neighbour, and the Church says the O.F. is the norm, can be right too.
Listen to the Church, and your own heart, and let others journey in their own way, with Christ and his Church too. That is essentially what Pope Benedict was trying to argue for, and establish, in Summorum Pontificum.
The CDF and The SSPX have today agreed to try to attain "over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation." We will see.
They will have to accept the teachings of the recent Council, and presumably the teaching of Summorum Ponticum. One Mass. One Rite. Two Forms.
Fidelity Always - if someone builds up a successful operation, whether it is a restaurant, and ironmonger's shop or a parish, their successor would have to be seriously stupid not to build on their predecessor's work. It verges on the insane. You would not turn a flourishing Italian restaurant into a fish-and-chip shop, after having paid over a large amount for the goodwill of the business.
What is the point you are really trying to make?
Gungarius said "Prior to vatican 2 I'm told the old rite was abused. Priests gabbled through it in 20 minutes or even less. "
LOL! I heard a priest gabble his way through the Novus Ordo in 19 minutes two weeks ago, and the same priest did an impressive 14 minutes NO in a different parish when we visited a few months back.
The longest single bit of the Mass was the sign of peace.
Woeful!
Abuses can happen in either form of the Mass,
Some forms of modern Novus Ordo Masses are such that they are inherently abusive of the Holy Sacrifice that is to be offered. The ancient form of the Holy Mass by its nature allows little room for abuse as there is little room for the priest to change anything according to his desire, to make it about him or anyone else. The form itself is God-centred and clearly reflects the truths of the unchanging Faith.
There is a good piece on the Remnant website on why the Church uses Latin in the Latin rite.
I have made the point countless times, priest may, ideally with the permission of their Ordinary, begin a Ministry to a particular group, not of their Parish, and us their Parish facilities, but that cannot obligate their successor whose Ministry is to the parish.
Even on this thread the scandal mongers admit they were not Parishioners of Blackfen, and Fr Fisher still has THREE Sunday Masses.
Post a Comment