For the past two years, the Fort Hood Traditional Latin Mass community has celebrated All Souls Day with an outdoor Mass offered on the hood of a Korean era Army Jeep. While the Mass is offered for the souls of all the faithful departed, it is especially for soldiers who fell in battle, including Father Emil J. Kapaun, chaplain for the 8th Calvary during the Korean War. Fr. Kapaun was famously photographed offering the Mass on the hood of a Jeep during the war, shortly before his capture and eventual death, at the hands of the North Koreans.
Fort Hood’s Latin Mass Community, established in 2015 and comprised of approximately 120 faithful, has been averaging upwards of 50-60 weekly attendees at their Sunday Latin Mass. They have also been profiled on EWTN’s Extraordinary Faith series, in an episode scheduled for broadcast later this year. Unfortunately, all of that may soon be coming to an end.
Like many other service men and women in the Archdiocese for the Military Services, the Traditional Latin Mass community at Fort Hood might become victims to the ongoing vocations crisis. With their current chaplain set to retire from active military duty this summer, they are likely to find themselves without a priest capable of offering the Traditional Mass.
One of the founding members of the Fort Hood Traditional Latin Mass Community, Sergeant Major Johnny Proctor, US Army, III Armored Corps Chaplain Sargeant Major, reached out to Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services for help. More importantly, SGM Proctor wrote the archbishop offering a potential solution to the crisis: invite more traditional priests to consider joining the military as chaplains.
That the military is suffering a priest shortage is undisputed. Archbishop Broglio has said the need for Catholic chaplains is “desperate”, noting that an already bad situation is about to get worse.
In 2015, the same year that Fort Hood began offering their Latin Mass, Archbishop Broglio appealed to his brother bishops at the annual gathering of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore:
Approximately one fourth of the active-duty personnel and their immediate families are Catholics…At present, those Catholics — totalling around a million people — are served by only 217 priests in a territory that covers the globe. They represent only 8 percent of all military chaplains…That suggests that others might easily cultivate Catholic young people seeking spiritual counsel…
Archbishop Broglio has also noted that as many as half of those priests may be retiring from active service in the next few years. In his remarks in Baltimore, he urged the bishops to release more priests to serve in the military, noting it was “imperative that every diocese give at least one priest to ensure that your faithful who defend our religious freedom do not have to sacrifice theirs.”
For Catholic men and women serving in the military the importance of the priest-chaplain cannot be overstated. They:
- Offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
- Hear Confessions
- Provide spiritual guidance and formation
- Visit and comfort the sick and wounded
- Anoint the sick
- Pray for the dead
- Administer Last Rites
Of course, the need for all of the above is even greater to those service members deployed for combat, where death is a daily reality and availability of a priest-confessor could mean the difference between salvation or damnation.
It is in this context that SGM Proctor reached out to Archbishop Broglio. In his letter, Proctor wrote:
We have…been visited by another seminarian from Houston who served eight years in the US Army Special Forces and has the…desire for Traditional formation and Army chaplaincy. We have a seminarian who will be ordained next month for the Priestly Society of St. Peter (FSSP)…His parents are regulars at our TLM. Typical of Traditional communities, we have many young men in attendance and also young couples with children. We have several altar boys who diligently practice the Latin responses and perform their liturgical actions with precision and reverence.
In his letter, SGM Proctor further highlighted for Archbishop Broglio a trend already well known to Latin Mass Catholics: traditional orders and societies are experiencing a boom in vocations as more of the young are drawn to the traditional Mass. He noted:
(A)ccording to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), the average age of a Priest in the USA is 64. In the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), it is 37. The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP) have almost 500 priests with over a hundred in formation now. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) may soon be regularized by the Holy Father and granted a personal prelature. They have 600 priests and over 200 seminarians in formation now…Priest-chaplains for the future may be available from these traditional priestly societies if we actively recruit them and permit them to serve in their charism of exclusively using the 1962 liturgical books.
Archbishop Broglio wrote back to SGM Proctor and the Fort Hood Latin Mass community in a letter dated June 6 (interestingly enough the anniversary of D-Day). Considering the “desperate” situation currently facing U.S. military personnel due to the shortage of chaplains, the archbishop’s response is surprising.
In his letter (see above), Archbishop Broglio argues against the Military accepting priests as chaplains who only offer the traditional Mass, also called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Unfortunately, the reasoning employed is faulty. This isn’t to suggest malice, rather it could simply reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Roman Rite, both its history and its current definition following the release of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict in 2007.
In the letter the archbishop compares the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Church. He argues that eastern rite priests have to be bi-ritual if they are military chaplains and must offer the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, suggesting the same holds true for priests offering the traditional Mass. He also states that the Divine Liturgy is much older than the “liturgy established by the Council of Trent.”
First, regarding the suggestion that Extraordinary Form is a different rite. In his letter to the bishops which accompanied the release of Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict wrote:
It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
In other words, a Catholic priest of the Latin Church offering the Roman Rite does so, regardless of whether the Mass said uses the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form), or the 1970 Missal (the Ordinary Form). Using an analogy to bi-ritual priests of eastern churches is simply incorrect.
Secondly, it is historically inaccurate to suggest that the Council of Trent established the Traditional Roman Rite in 1570. Pope St. Pius V simply codified the existing Roman Rite for the entire Latin Church, only excepting those venerable rites which were more than 200 years old at the time (such as the Ambrosian Rite).
It is much more accurate to state that the Traditional Latin Mass is the form of Roman Catholic worship used in the Latin Rite since the time of Pope Saint Gregory the Great (d. 604 AD). While there was ongoing organic development from the 6th century until the time of Trent, the Mass itself, from the Canon to many of the Offertory prayers to the liturgical use of Latin and Chant, were all there.
Archbishop Broglio, referencing St. Paul’s admonition to be “all things to all” contends that the “legitimate liturgical expectations of all Catholics” would not be fulfilled if a priest-chaplain was unable to offer the Ordinary Form. Interestingly, the archbishop doesn’t see the irony in the reverse being the case now for those who desire the Extraordinary Form.
Regardless, this argument for the “liturgical expectations” of the faithful strikes me as being highly unusual and rather arbitrary. Considering the “desperate” situation now faced by Catholics in the Archdiocese for the Military Services, isn’t there also a “legitimate” expectation that a bishop will do all he can to simply make the sacraments available to his flock?
In his final paragraph Archbishop Broglio provides what he believes to be the solution: those traditional priests of the FSSP, or ICKSP, or even diocesan, who feel called to be military chaplains should petition their superiors for faculties to offer the Ordinary Form of the Mass and sacraments.
With all due respect to His Excellency, this suggested solution isn’t a solution at all.
The current crisis and priest shortage resides in the military, not the traditional orders. The traditional liturgy is attracting the young and experiencing growth, not the military services. The charism which attracts young priests to offer the liturgy according to the Extraordinary Form isn’t simply an option for their priesthood; it is part of their identity. Their formation. Their spirituality. If anything, one might wonder why the archbishop isn’t more interested in finding out why tradition attracts, instead of simply looking to restrict it, or rejecting it outright.
SGM Proctor summarized it best when he told me:
What we are left with from Archbishop Broglio’s letter is a stunning conclusion that under the auspices of pastoral efficiency and paternal concern, it is better to have no priest-chaplains than to have ones devoted exclusively to the Traditional liturgical books.
Unfortunately, this indeed appears to be the case.
The Catholic chaplain has been a fixture in the U.S. military for well over 150 years. In fact, since the end of the Civil War, only five chaplains have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their heroic service. All five were Catholic priests. All five offered Mass in the traditional Roman Rite. The most recent recipient being none other than the previously mentioned Father Emil J. Kapaun.
[Photo Credit: Amy Proctor]
Originally published at Liturgyguy.com. Reprinted with permission.
Brian Williams is a convert who entered the Catholic Church in 2006. He is a graduate of Long Beach State University with a BA in History. Brian blogs on life, liturgy and the pursuit of holiness at liturgyguy.com. He lives in Charlotte, North Carolina with his wife and five children.
I’m going to chime in on this discussion as a very traditional-minded Catholic priest and chaplain: the Command Sergeant Major definitely makes a good point in his request. At the same time, the Military Archdiocese (which is extremely generous in its implementation of Summorum Pontificum) is reasonable in seeking to avoid “rebellions” by certain military (or retiree) congregations that would be in high dudgeon if the traditional Mass were, so to speak, foisted on them.
However, the times may be changing, and as usual, it takes a while for those making policy to catch up: younger people (officers and enlisted) seem to this priest to be much more receptive, or even in favor, of the traditional Mass. I’m not in favor of having the FSSP or ICRSS compromise and agree to say the Novus Ordo in English–there are few enough priests dedicated exclusively to the preservation and propagation of tradition–but I’m hopeful that in a few more years, there won’t be any need even to consider asking them to make that compromise.
I have no doubt you are correct, but the irony in that point is too precious for words. For those in leadership to speak of fearing what would happen if the traditional rite was “foisted” upon people is a complete 180 from the attitude toward the imposition of the post-1965 liturgical changes and the introduction of the Novus Ordo.
As for the FSSP and other traditional fraternities being asked to “compromise,” no, no, and no. They need to simply stick to their principles, period, until dioceses are so desperate for priests they have no choice but to take accept traditional priests without compromise. Let the diocesan bureaucracies see just what the end result of 50 years of liturgical anarchy has caused and have to live with those results without a bailout of any kind. They created this mess; the last thing traditionalist priests need to do is agree to say the Novus Ordo in order to bail out the hierarchy.
yes yes yes hold fast to tradition stick to your guns give no quarter
With drastic shrinkage in the priesthood comes consolidating parishes due to smaller congregations with older priests serving multitudes of parishes, stretching them thin. Add in poor catechesis by parents, embarrassing RCIA programs, and “that’s not a sin – stop (when it is a sin, and do please stop)” we get a lukewarm, cafeteria Catholics and fallen away types. Add in the more drastic shrinkage of those entering the consecrated life – those with talent in teaching – that use to be living witnesses of the faith to young and old, and you get Catholic schools hiring laymen that comes with with the birth of high tuition (no state funding, no taxes towards parochial schools). Hence the shrinkage and closing of Catholic schools, elementary and secondary, which parallels the shrinkage of parishes.
The 1960s was major, major blow to the RC. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a delusional fool.
I’m glad that you weighed in first, Father, because I think there’s a fruitful discussion to be had here.
My reading of this story is that there is some sort of policy in place that requires Catholic military chaplains to offer the Novus Ordo. Is this correct? And if this is a policy, is it at the discretion of the Military Archbishop? Because if so, it seems that now is the time to reconsider it.
Where I would disagree with you is that anyone would have the right to consider a particular liturgy “foisted” upon them. If a valid Catholic liturgy were offered (and frankly, I don’t think Eastern rite chaplains should be forced to offer the NO either) where otherwise no liturgy or sacraments could exist due to a lack of priests, I think the members of our armed forces — pragmatists that they usually are — should be able to understand and accept that if they want sacraments, this is what they get.
In other words: beggars can’t be choosers. This is a crisis, and the question becomes whether they want Mass and sacraments, or whether they want their way.
“On Sunday at 9:55 AM I was amazed to discover that the chapel was almost full. But I shouldn’t have been surprised: all the churches in the area have been closed indefinitely. It makes sense that even those Nursini who don’t go to the Traditional Latin Mass would go fulfill their Sunday obligation at the monastery.” Dorothy Cummings McLean, Visiting the Benedictine Monks of Norcia [before the basilica was destroyed].
Yes, that’s essentially correct: the policy of the Military Archdiocese is, and has been for the 15+ years I’ve been in, that the Masses of obligation (Sundays and Holy Days) need to be offered according to the new rite and in the vernacular. Similar to the requirement that every priest in the Military Archdiocese say Mass every day (something not required in the Church’s universal law), this requirement is freely accepted by those priests who volunteer to join the military.
I’m not sure we disagree on the other matter: I certainly don’t think that those congregations have a legitimate right to feel somehow “abused” by having their Novus Ordo Mass replaced by the traditional Mass. (And the good God knows that I have had my share–as have we all–of enduring abuses in the Mass simply in order to be ordained and then in order to be received into the military!) Nevertheless, people are not always reasonable, and some will not hesitate to complain as high up as they feel they need to go: the base commander, the chief of staff of whichever branch of the Armed Services, etc.
The archbishop (a good and orthodox man, to be sure) also has his share (I have no doubt) of “turbulent priests,” who will make trouble for His Excellency if they can, and they would almost certainly rebel in some degree if a tradition-only option were introduced. Perhaps the archbishop is picking his battles for the present?
And so to LB236, I would say: yes, it is bitterly ironic. But I can’t say I’m willing to cause “scandal of the pusillanimous” (as St. Paul mentions), just because that, and worse, was done to others in the past. (Nevertheless, I intend to keep on fighting for the full restoration of our holy traditions!)
Dear Father J,
your information is very interesting. I thought that your Archbishop was being extremely fair and sensible in his wish to avoid any unnecessary fights amongst the clergy. (or laity for that matter). I have the same problems here in Europe and I do not think it is just something for military chaplains. Although it is very frustrating to not be able to use one’s right as a priest to just celebrate as traditionally as possible, it is necessary to compromise.
I know some priests (diocesan and religious) who have absolutely refused to celebrate the novus ordo. And in some cases it was refused to such an extreme, that they would rather leave a church full of people without a Mass at all, than celebrate NO. Or as another example, where in a parish with a full Church, with a very traditional style ars celebrandi, and only a high altar, but NO, the priest concerned refused to assist the celebrant by giving Communion (not as a concelebrant, but just coming into the Church at Communion time), because some people still wanted to receive in the hand. There were over 350 people at Mass, and giving out Communion took then more than 20 minutes, as that parish uses no Extra-ordinary Ministers on principle.
The All-or-Nothing position, – on both sides of the fight – does not help the traditional community, because they will end up having to go back to the NO. And not slowly building up tradition in the NO community will not help to get them to be more open to having Vetus ordo Masses.
The reconquista, so to speak, cannot be won overnight. Here in Europe we call it the salami tactic. Bit for bit. That is how many good things were taken from us, but it is also the best way to get the aggressively anti-traditional people to gradualy accept more and more tradition.
God bless you and your diocese.. hope that more priests will volunteer to serve there.
Thank you for the reply! My perspective is largely the same: it’s easier to influence the relatively few Mass-going Catholics towards tradition if one is at least able to begin with what they’re accustomed to (or have ever known, for the younger among them). I can see the dilemma for priests from Traditional Mass institutes: agreeing to say the Novus Ordo could easily mean, in the US military, not being able to offer the traditional Mass on a Sunday (because of trination or what have you).
I think, too, there is a lack of classical formation in moral theology with some of the younger traditional priests: they become too absolute in their refusals because they see any countenancing of the effects of harmful practices (communion in the hand, for instance) as some kind of cooperation in evil, whereas in reality, material cooperation or even tolerating certain abuses, at least for a time, can certainly be morally licit.
Father, I wish you well. Thank you for your blessing and your good wishes! Fr. J.
Tradition does not need the help of the Novus Ordo Missae.
How do you celebrate a rite of mass “traditionally” which is devoid of any clear mention of it being a propitiatory Sacrifice?
How do you say a “traditional” Novus Ordo “offertory” (actually the preparation of the gifts) when it is a sacrifice of bread and wine offered, not by a Priest acting in persona Christi, but by the gathering of the assembly of the people of God? To what end or purpose? For sin? As a memorial of the Last Supper? As a symbol of the Bread of Life and a “spiritual drink”? It doesn’t actually say. Then you put the bread back on to the paten, like a meal, instead of on to the Corporsl, as in a sacrifice on the Altar.
350 people missing out on such a defective and harmful worship service – even if it’s all dressed up with chant and incense – is a better outcome for all…well maybe for many.
Oh dear. I do not think that I wrote anything about tradition requiring the help of the Novus Ordo. Our discussion was about how best to serve faithful Catholics. One cannot, at the least I cannot, leave a group of faithful Catholics without the Sacraments, just because the traditional Mass is better, more spiritual, and clearer in its sacrificial language.
Part of my job, as a priest, is to lead as many people, especially those who are already Catholics to a fuller and -yes- better understanding of the Sacraments and their celebration. The only question being, “which method is the most effective for the most amount of people”. People always have two basic options, like with removing a sticking-plaster; rip it off, or pull it off slowly. I firmly believe that in this present time, we need to proceed with a complete re-catholisation program, as most people going to normal Catholic parishes and Chaplaincies know little to nothing about their faith. We need to gradually, but steadily recatholicise them. Maybe, there are some people who do not require this gently, gently method, but they are a very tiny minority.
However, to respond to some of your comments above. I must point out to you that what you said is not correct. Of course the offertory rite of the Tridentine Liturgy is better than the Blessing of the gifts liturgy in the NO. But neither are necessary and neither are particularly traditional. The Offertory rite as given in the Tridentine Mass is quite modern. Many of the pre-council of Trent liturgies had no offertory rite AT ALL! In fact my own Cistercian Rite, which is five hundred years older than that of Trent has no offertory rite.
And it is a valid and sacrificial Mass!
That does not mean that having the offertory of Trent is not better, I think it is; but it is not necessary, and it does not make the Mass either a Sacrifice or valid. It is alone the use of the valid Eucharistic Prayer (Canon) by a validly ordained Priest that counts. Not the number of confiteors, the calendar name given to a certain Sunday, how many readings one uses or from which lectionary, or which offertory prayers. A priest can always celebrate the Holy Sacrifice with using the NO if he does so correctly. That is what counts for the people.
But to close this mail. It is the saving of souls which is my first and foremost concern, not arguing about what is better or worse.
Would it be better if the whole Vat II and Novus Ordo never happened? In my opinion, YES
Would it be great if we could wave a magic wand and return 100% to tradition tomorrow, YES
But would that be the best way to save as many souls as possible? NO it would not.
Yes, that’s true about the Offertory. However its addition was the fruit of legitimate organic development. That is, by adding it to the Roman Rite, it manifests the nature of the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice to an even greater degree of perfection. It makes the Mass more perfect. It makes something that was already in the mass more glorious and visible. Its addition was a continuation of the theology of the Mass which had been there from the beginning.
At the right moment in history, when the organic development of the liturgy had reached its zenith, the Pope declared the Roman rite perfect and fixed. The Offertory was obviously part of the Mass. The de Defectibus says that the Offertory is essential.
Before Vatican II, Catholics were taught that to fulfil one’s Sunday Obligation, one has to be present at least for the Offertory, the Consecration and the Priest’s Communion. These three elements constitute the renewal of Calvary.
Now, the Novus Ordo Offertory, the “preparation of the gifts” is not an offering of the Divine Victim as a propitiatory sacrifice by the ordained Priest, is it?
It is a kind of Jewish Seder prayer, thanking God for bread and wine, (fruits of the earth) offered by the gathered assembly, with the priest merely presiding over them, not acting in persona Christi. There is no Victim. It is not offered to make satisfaction for sin.
Abel’s sacrifice was a victim offered to God and was accepted, but Cain’s victimless offering of the fruits of the earth and the work of human hands was rejected.
Anglicans have their Holy Communion rite as part of their service. It has the correct matter and form, but there would be no Transubstiantion due to defect of intention caused by the souuounding rite, should an ordained Priest dare to use it. The surrounding rite does not present the Catholic Faith regarding the Mass.
The Novus Ordo, with its pattern of omission and suppression of the Faith regarding the Mass, causes, in my opinion, a manifest defect of intention on the part of the minister.
It is all about operational requirements and creating adaptive personnel. The author’s comments about bi-ritual and Anglican faculties doesn’t represent the realities of military life. The Military Archdiocese has to oversee all Catholics in the military. They don’t really have parishes, they don’t really control where their priests go, and they have to make sure their priests conform to the needs of the DoD.
The DoD is not a fan of “this is what you get” models anymore. That creates too much cookie cutter problems that would take years to discuss and is still a topic at the Army War College to this day. Instead, it has shifted–especially in the Army–to the adaptive force. Every person is trained to be able to fill a myriad of roles–driver, gunner, grenadier, etc–to better serve the mission. Chaplains are no exception. With minimal budgets and increasing requirements, having one chaplain who can’t leave his one assignment because he has to serve a very specific community isn’t going to go over well.
The DoD also, paradoxically, requires standards. An EF obviously has different requirements than an OF and some of those requirements the DoD won’t be on board with. A major one is time. Here is shocker: servicemembers have no right to religious services. The Chaplaincy is the commander’s program and can be rescinded if he believes it is affecting the mission. A standard OF is about 45 minutes, 30 or 20 if the priest is fast. A standard EF can range from 45 minutes to an hour. If you are a commander who has 297 days of mandatory training to fit into 256 available training days, you will direct your chaplain to go with the service that take 20-45 minutes because yes, the military works on Sundays too. So you need a standard. You need something that your head chaplains–not always a Catholic by the way–can give to the commander in their annex for operations order because the military is about planning.
You are right by the way: beggars cannot be choosers. That is why the military archdiocese has had to take whatever priests the dioceses or orders will give them. That is why the need priests who can be flexible and adapt to the needs of the military because that is ultimately what is going to be required of them.
” At the same time, the Military Archdiocese (which is extremely generous in its implementation of Summorum Pontificum) is reasonable in seeking to avoid “rebellions” by certain military (or retiree) congregations that would be in high dudgeon if the traditional Mass were, so to speak, foisted on them.”
I don’t think that is the case. Remember that the chaplaincy is the commander’s program, that the military ordinariate has limited power in terms of manpower allocation, and that he needs to meet the needs of not just Roman Catholics, but Eastern and Anglican as well.
The commander determines what resources the chaplains get and whether there is a chaplain at all. It isn’t a right; it is something the commander provides when he deems he is able in the mission environment. Chaplains therefore have to fit into the operational requirements; they don’t get to do whatever they want. Things that are ok for a parish priest can’t fly in the military because of those operational requirements. Having a chaplain restricted by objectively malleable convictions is a liability and the DoD won’t go for it.
The military ordinariate does not get much say in where chaplains go. The DoD makes all those decisions and the ordinary might have some advice. So suppose an FSSP priest is sent to Ft. Hood and the commander deems they can afford two Catholic chaplains–REALLY unlikely, even on a post as large as Ft. Hood–that FSSP priest may be sent to Korea next where no one wants the EF. Or on a post accepting of the EF, but there is a strong community of Eastern Catholics. If the FSSP priest is unwilling to be bi-ritual or obtain other faculties, he is useless to the DoD who are all about versatility and Swiss Army knife people. Again, such a chaplain would be a liability and the DoD won’t go for it.
While religious support is the commander’s program, he/she has zero control over how many Catholic chaplains are accessioned for active duty, which was the point of my original inquiry. Right now, there are less than 60 Catholic chaplains on active duty in the Army. That means most – in fact, the overwhelming majority of Catholic soldiers have almost zero access to the sacraments on the battlefield. THAT is the point. A Traditional priest-chaplain can do everything that a Novus Ordo priest-chaplain can do and in most cases do it better because the average age of a NO priest in the US is 64 while the average age of an FSSP priest is just 37. Just where do you think the next generation of Catholic chaplains will come from? Priest retirement homes?
I am trying to see this strategically – not just hitting a 50-meter target to get the enemy temporarily repelled – because the NO does not produce vocations. And I have a LOT of skin in the game as all my children were raised in AMS parishes and have all left them for Traditional Latin Mass communities.
The TLM itself is militaristic, it’s strong, it’s manly, it’s what conquered Jerusalem at the first Crusade and nation after nation,. of course they don’t want trained military men to have it.
Suddenly, priests need to be bi-ritual? Funny.
If only the “bi-ritual” mantra had been in vogue in 1969 and 1970 when the Novus Ordo was introduced and the Tridentine Rite was completely trashed and practically vanished from the planet. I remember the ’70s well. There was no talk of being “bi-ritual” back in those days. It was Novus Ordo or nothing. Any demonstration of sympathy for the Tridentine Rite was an invitation for the suspension of priestly faculties and/or excommunication. And it happened essentially overnight. There was no pastoral (I just had to work in that liberal buzz word) concern for the liturgical sensibilities of Catholics in the pews. “Here’s your new Mass…….get used to it”, was pretty much how it went.
Uh……sorry…….I’ve never gotten used to it. What…..it’s facing competition from the Tridentine Rite?? Oh dear…….cry me a river!
“bi ritual”. LOL.
Ugh…Back in the day, I met Archbishop Broglio a couple of times. I think I even may have served Mass for him once. He seemed to be a decent archbishop.
This is disappointing…and stupid
I remember him from the National Geographic doco on the Vatican.
I am retired Navy and attend Mass at an FSSP parish in San Diego. Beginning in July, I will discontinue my donations to the Archdiocese for the Military Service and increase my donation to my parish by the same amount.
Not only was the traditional Roman rite not established by the Council of Trent, Fr Hunwicke (https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk) quite often presents evidence for the Roman Canon being the oldest still extant of any rite.
Even the Russian Orthodox accept that the TLM is the oldest rite in Christendom.
they do not not the ones I deal with almost daily
See Alexei II’s official response released by the Moscow Patriarchate two or three days after Summorum Pontificum. He explicitly stated that the TLM is acknowledged by all Christians as the oldest rite existing.
First off, set up a chapel off post and get a traditionalist priest from one of the aforementioned orders to say mass there. Point one for military traditionalist Catholics – you have rights. Demand that you have a traditional priest come and most importantly perform the rite of Extreme Unction on those who are dying and like. What if a soldier’s ID tag said “Roman Catholic – CMRI” on it? They’d have NO choice. They allow all sorts of religions to be practiced. The military diocese should not be an obstruction.
A fair number of Catholic military chaplains are not ordained, for better or worse. This obviously doesn’t directly affect which type of Mass is being offered, but does certainly affect the general availability of the Mass. There may be a Catholic chaplain available but that doesn’t mean Mass of any sort is being offered.
Also, we’ve been hearing about the “vocation boom” in traditional orders and seminaries for almost two decades now, but the boom doesn’t seem to be translating into very dramatic changes in the number of men being ordained to the priesthood. (I think EWTN even has a radio show entitled “Vocation Boom.”) Some anecdotal good news here and there—yes certainly—but nothing that I can see that qualifies as a “boom.”
I now wonder whether whether this much-ballyhooed vocation boom is mainly folkloristic feelgoodism. Let’s see some numbers.
Seven men were just ordained to the priesthood from the FSSP at the end of May in the U.S. Two more were just ordained this past Saturday in England (the first time in decades in the traditional rite). The first native African FSSP seminarian will be ordained in August on the feast of Our Lady’s Assumption. And this is just from one traditional fraternity, which can only operate at the invitation of diocesan bishops.
When you compare that to what’s happening at the diocesan level, especially in Europe but coming soon to the U.S., these numbers are cause for jubilation. One Peter Five here just ran a story a few weeks ago about how two German dioceses did not ordain any new priests this year. So what exactly are you complaining about?
My point is that 7 ordinations does not constitute a boom when one looks at the scope of history and the need for priests. Sure, things in some areas are comparatively better than many other areas, but how low can we set the bar?
The attitude among many people is that the shortage of priests is over or very soon will be, along with any urgency for praying for vocations—”because I heard there is a vocations boom.”
Considering the wrecking ball taken to the liturgy—and, by extension, the very essence of priestly identity as a man ordained primarily to offer sacrifice—over the last 50 years, I’m amazed we are in as strong a position as we are. I don’t see it as setting the bar low; rather, I see it as celebrating the success of fraternities that have clung to the traditional rites—and are reaping the rewards with copious vocations—while simultaneously shaking my head as the mainstream diocesan bureaucracies continue to deny that the experiments of the past half century are directly responsible for the self-created vocational crisis in the Novus Ordo.
Before long, dioceses are going to have no choice but to turn to nondiocesan clergy from traditional orders in order to fill the inevitable vacancies; there are only so many parishes that can be closed and consolidated. As I argue further down the thread, when that happens, the FSSP and other orders need to remain true to their principles and refuse to offer the Novus Ordo. At that point, the bishops are going to have a choice to make: do they allow traditionalist clergy into their parishes to say only the traditional Mass, or will they stubbornly refuse the services of traditionalist priests and allow the problems of their own making to continue?
Oh but it does constitute a “boom” when an entire diocese has NONE..zilch, zip, nada, no confessions, no Holy Host for this cycle and every diocese has pretty much unlimited funds to pay for seminarians but yet, young men for the most part, don’t want any part of it. My diocese here in Florida which covers a HUGE area had ONE…one single priest and thank God for that one but still one for the three million people in this area? Seven is a BOOM especially when you consider it pulls from the small pool of FSSP families and worshipers which is comparitively small compared to an ENTIRE novus ordo diocese or dioceses from across the country.
That is not correct: every US Catholic military chaplain is an ordained priest. Seminarians can only be “chaplain candidates” and are not allowed, by either the military or the Archdiocese, to act as chaplains.
I personally know three Catholic military chaplains who have M.Div.s but are not ordained, nor will they be.
Not in the US, you don’t. They may be “lay leaders” (or a similar title), but they are not and cannot be chaplains. The Military Archdiocese will not endorse anyone except a validly ordained priest to the Armed Services; and endorsement is absolutely necessary to become an officer in the chaplain corps of whichever branch of the military.
Having said that, I would be curious to know exactly what they did or are doing that would give the impression that they are chaplains.
We don’t need “lay leaders”, we don’t need full time deacons, we need priests, period. I want no part of this lay nonsense, I want many traditional priests and I want the priests in charge in a hierarchical structure up through the bishop and directly to Rome so all can be right in the world again. Well, I can dream anyway.
You and me both, my friend!
The “lay leaders,” though, in my experience, are good-hearted, devout people who try to get everyone together once a week to say the Holy Rosary or look over the readings of Sunday Mass together. They are also very useful for passing the word when the priest is finally able to visit their ship or unit and offer Mass. (Still, we need many, good, and holy priests–to quote the famous prayer for vocations.)
You AREN’T alone
Check the websites of the institutes involved. Yes, there is a boom but growth is organic – when you start from nothing, it takes decades to reach the point where you are ordaining hundreds of men each year.
“Interestingly, the archbishop doesn’t see the irony in the reverse being the case now for those who desire the Extraordinary Form.”
Precisely! Precisely! Precisely! Precisely!
And here we have in stark relief the refusal to see the obvious right in front of one’s eyes. The solution is to get rid of the “Ordinary Form” (very, very ordinary!) along with everything it represents and return to Tradition.
It is precisely the Novus Ordo anti-Church that is evermore powerful on the one hand, but dying on the other.
Bishop Fellay might look at how the SSPX can help, even if Masses are said off base.
Yes Josip, I am in complete agreement with you ─ dumping the Ordinary Form. However, as impractical as it is, due to shortage of priests, Nu-church opposition and diocesan TLM bi-ritual celebrants, the SSPX solution is
the only acceptable answer. My unhappy experience with military chaplains is usually avoided however the photo of the saintly Fr Kapaun celebrating Mass on the bonnet of a jeep brought back certain memories.
The first Mass I attended in South Vietnam was celebrated by a priest in the field on a ‘thunder box’ covered with an army blanket, He had no problem with that. Later he accompanied us on a patrol and I saw him carrying
the gunner’s M60. I asked him what he thought he was doing and he explained this ‘act of charity’ because the gunner was tired. I told him he had better be prepared to use it. Later, during a downpour, he sat next to me on the ground whilst continuously making the sign of the cross and swatting his leg. Asked what the hell he was doing he replied he was baptizing the leeches before killing them. I ran into this case recently at the funeral of a Svn vet. He, still a priest, was the MC, wore sport coat and tie, with clapping, cheer leading, joke telling, celebrating of life etc. No God and not a prayer.
My second Svn Mass was celebrated by a different RC chaplain. He choppered into a fire support base armed with a 9mm Browning (forbidden for priests) together with C of E and other protestant denominations (OPD) chaplains (unarmed). We went to respective huts where, before hearing confessions and commencing Mass, he noted that no one went to the lonely OPD chaplain’s service. He ordered half of the Catholics to go there. Nice ecumenical gesture! So much for the soldiers who missed confession and Mass and left for the field the next morning.
I have other bad experiences with military chaplains but it is not necessary to relate them; the above should suffice. Those were TLM days no NO and these priests were orthodox by today’s standards. In those days, like most, I did not know up from down. I do now and that is why I share your view that Bp Fellay might look at how the SSPX can help.
Lest I incur the wrath of our US friends for denigrating their military chaplains, the above persons, priests, soldiers and myself are not Americans.
An Aussie, Gerry? Sadly England had gone so far socialist by then that the then PM refused to get us involved in that little jaunt.
Many think that the SVn conflict was primarily an American war. Other combatants included Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and South Korea. But did you know that there were other members of the Commonwealth who fought? They included Canadians and Englishmen. Not a few
Brits with service in N Ireland, even Cyprus, joined our units and it was not uncommon for Brit infantry officers to resign their commissions and be commissioned into the Aust Army. Some remained, some returned to the mother country after 12 months in Vn. I think 22SASR quietly
attached a few of their chaps to gain CRW experience. Pay was a big incentive to stay with us (not to mention the weather). A Brit major earned the same rate of pay as an Aussie corporal. There’s a bit of history for you Josef.
Yes I was aware that the British Tommy was always badly paid. Very interesting, I didn’t know anything about the involvement of Brits in that war. Very glad Gerry that you came out of it in one piece.
I’ve worked with the Brits, Malaysian and US Army on a couple of occasions. I learned about the appalling Brit rates of pay when I worked with the Hong Kong based Kings Regiment. Their company commander explained to me that their tour of duty was near completion and that they hoped to go back to N Ireland. They could not afford to live in the UK. All of his officers and SNCOs had served there previously. My entire platoon HQ was wiped out by a Chicom mine. Seven months later I was discharged from hospital and returned to the regiment. I’m now waiting for the big one with a change in Commander-in-Chief. I noted that you have signed up recently with Her.
What about the Special Boat Squadron that helped so much in the Mekong Delta. They had a strange English accent too,
I doubt that there was an SBS unit in SVn however it was probable that individual SBS operators were attached to US Seal teams. The US Navy Swift boats operated in the Mekong Delta so there may have been some involvement there. Exchanges between various Nato and Anzus SF personnel are common. For example in 1999 twenty SBS members were attached to the Aust & NZ SAS to secure the airport and seaport in East Timor. They also gave the Indons and their militias considerable encouragement to leave E Timor.
Later, during a downpour, he sat next to me on the ground whilst continuously making the sign of the cross and swatting his leg. Asked what the hell he was doing he replied he was baptizing the leeches before killing them.
I loved this part of the story. The rest…not so much.
The conclusion ‘it is better to have no priest-chaplains than to have ones devoted exclusively to the Traditional liturgical books’ does not seem to be logical. The Archbishop’s response is quite reasonable. Conversely, with there being more Catholics who appreciate the Novus Order, ‘it is better to have less priests per capita for the larger community or more priests per capita for the smaller community?’
Recently Archbishop Prendergast of Ottawa, a Jesuit ordained new FSSP priests in Quebec and Vancouver. They were wonderful occasions and none of these ordinations were reported here. When Catholics refuse to attend Holy Mass celebrated in Novus Ordo form, they are saying it is better to have no Mass than not have the Tridentine Rite. A true Catholic knows they are in the presence of God, whether it is in the Novus or Extraordinary Form. There is a tangible Presence that makes the heart leap.
I fail to see the illogic in this.
There is a diocese with a “desperate” priest shortage.
A member of that diocese suggests, “Perhaps you should consider allowing priests who do not offer the normative Mass you’re looking for, but do offer a valid and licit Catholic Mass, to begin filling in where you have no priest.”
The bishop rejects this proposal for reasons that do not outweigh the good of ensuring his flock receive sacraments.
Ergo, he is saying, “If I can’t have it the way I want it, I don’t want it at all.”
This is a gross oversimplification, but this is precisely what he’s doing.
Thank you, Steve. That’s all I am saying. GIVE IT A CHANCE, YOUR GRACE. What is the very worst that can happen? A TLM-only priest offers the holy sacrifice of the Mass on a military base and some of the the people decide to worship with the Novus Ordo off base. It would be happening ANYWAY because there was no military chaplain on that base. This is not that difficult to figure out. Father Kapaun, ora pro nobis!
If I ever find myself in a situation where the only thing available is a novus ordo, and a tradtional Roman Rite of Mass offered by a validly ordained Priest is impossible, I will stay home and undertake other pious activities, incuding praying for a Priest and a Mass.
The Novus Ordo cuts us off completely from our identity as Catholics – receiving, participating, and handing on the traditions that come from the Apostles, which St Paul commands us, by Divine authority, to hold fast to.
What always gets overlooked in these discussions is that the New Mass of Paul VI was never juridically promulgated. Pope Paul VI never juridically abrogated the Tridentine Mass. As Pope Benedict taught, the Latin Mass was never abrogated and always permitted. The Missal of Paul VI was never juridically promulgated as law. He merely introduced a new Missal/Mass and hoped the Church would use it. There is no Church law mandating the use of the New Mass. Every Catholic priest is free to celebrate or not to celebrate it.
And so….. when we disregard that Vital Piece of information, Our Discussions turn dark……
The Extraordinary Form was not banned. It was never banned.
Not OFFICIALLY, however, you don’t and indult for something permitted.
Actually Summorum said no priest can refuse to say it on principle. Wrong again!
If it was not legally promulgated, i.e, not officially from the Church, why do you insist it’s valid and licit? What guarantee do you have, if it’s not from the Church? Avoid it and stop defending it. It’s dangerous.
Pope Benedict got some things wrong too. He invented an EF/OF distinction that has no basis in history, theology, and tradition. He said they were two forms of the same rite. He is dead wrong. These two different Masses are two different distinct rites. The Roman rite of the TLM and the Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI.
Not juridically promulgated does not mean it’s not officially from the Church. That is was not juridically promulgated means. It only means that it does not have the force of law. It is not a legally required Mass. The rite of Paul VI is optional. It’s a vaild and licit rite and Mass officially promulgated by Paul VI for optional use. It was his hope it would be widely adopted. It was promulgated, but not juridically promulgated. It is not legally binding.
I don’t defend the Novus Ordo Mass. I only defend it’s validity. It’s valid and that’s the extent of my defense. It is a dangerous and bad liturgy that was a mistake. It needs to be immediately abrogated.
If a Catholic disagrees with you, and sides with Pope Benedict XVI, who are you to say they are wrong?
Ultimately history will have the final word. I am not the only one who thinks they are distinct rites. So do many priests and laymen. A future Pope will have resolve and answer the Novus Ordo Mass. We will see in the future if they were the same or different rites. I am confident my side will be right. The Modernists have made too many political compromises along with their double talk.
I don’t recognise the Novus Ordo as a Catholic rite at all. It is simply impossible for the Church to have produced such a thing. Considering such things as:
1. The suppression of the Catholic theology in regards to the Mass being a sacrifice that makes satisfaction for sin and replacing it with something else entirely; and;
2. The original vernacular rendering of “pro multis” as saying “for all men”, which fails to signify the res sacramenti, the grace proper to the sacrament. This grace proper to the Sacrament is the union of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ with the Head, and with each other.
But only “many” are members, not “all men”. So the “for all men” mistranslation failed to signify the effect of the sacrament. As you probably know, according to dogma, a sacrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies, or there is no sacrament at all.
Since, as you observe, the Novus was not made binding as law for the Church, it didn’t come from the Church. Thus there is no guarantee of its Catholicity or it’s validity. You should take the fence on this, and not insist that it’s defective, but still valid. Let the future decide, and until then, treat it as doubtful.
Pope Paul VI was the valid Pope in 1969. I don’t know how you can keep claiming it was not from the Church. Whether you like it or not, it did come from the Church. Pope Paul VI was Pope of the Catholic Church. The Novus Ordo Mass was promulgated by a Pope and the Vatican. That is the Church.
The original Latin text of the Mass has pro multis. In the official Latin, it’s pro multis. No problem there. There have been faulty translations of the official texts. In English, the erroneous translation has been corrected. In the USA and in English, it is now pro multis. It is no longer a problem in this country.
I can’t believe this. You are all over the shop. Look at what you wrote. You said the Novus Ordo was NOT promulgated in your last post (I.e, not made as law), and now you’re saying it was. I’m shaking my head as I type. I think you see the shakiness of your thinking and keep moving the ideas around trying to make them fit. Did TOFP leave you confused?
“For you and for all men” was officially approved by Paul VI. He used the Italian “per tutti” himself.
Look at the objection I raised to the use of “for you and for all men”. Has it been refuted? I didn’t come up with it myself, and I have not found an answer. Have you got one?
So, was the new mass promulgated or not? There is no such thing as official or unofficial promulgation, keep in mind.
I said it was not juridically promulgated. Promulgated is one thing and one word and juridically is a different word and a different thing. It was promulgated, but it was not promulgated juridically. Juridically promulgated is a different meaning from promulgated. Something can be promulgated juridically or not promulgated juridically. That is why the word juridically goes before the word promulgated.
I don’t know what you mean by official or unofficial. A Missal is an official thing. That is was publicly released by Pope Paul makes it official. It would be unofficial if it was released by someone else other than the Pope and Vatican. That it was promulgated by the Pope and Vatican makes it official.
So the layman in the pew – what’s he going to do? The novus ordo presented a distortion of the Catholic Faith to countless millions. They are all gone: Apostasy, heresy, schism and hell.
Now you say that the joke’s on them, because they didn’t stop to investigate whether the new mass was promulgated juridically or just promulgated.
The layman in the pew needs to wake up to the crisis and find a TLM. Go to a diocene, ICK, FSSP, or SSPX TLM. TLM Masses have been growing and they need to grow more and more. Those lay Catholics who are truly seeking truth and are devoted, eventually find Tradition and the TLM. The rest of them in the pews are infected with Modernism. The fact is that the vast majority of Catholic laymen have already apostatized. Over 75% of lay Catholics do not practice their faith.
This crisis and this apostasy were caused by the laity doing what they are supposed to do: submit to the Pope, accept his new mass, his new rites of Sacraments, his new doctrines, his new laws. As long as the pope is the pope, this is always the safe and sure way to be a Catholic.
Now you say on one hand that one must submit to the pope and the hierarchy, and on the other hand that one cannot submit to the pope and the hierarchy, because it is a danger to the Faith.
You say it is imperative to avoid the mass that the pope and all the bishops celebrate every day and reject their Council and the doctrine they teach.
If this is not refusal to submit to the legitimate pastors of the Church, then what is? This is the insane corner you end up in, if you solely rely on Salza and Siscoe to sort it all out for you. Both men are SSPX, and practice the true faith completely outside of the diocesan structure and against the permission of the pope. In practice they are sedes, like you and I, but the theory they force you to accept is completely novel.
I love the SSPX and thank God they have preserved the faith and the Sacraments in their entirety by the way.
The Pope and hierarchy have valid authority and jurisdiction. We recognize this authority and jurisdiction. Not every single thing is automatically to be rejected. The hierarchy still teaches orthodox magisterial doctrines in accord with tradition every once in awhile. They also teach Modernism. You accept what is orthodox, true, and tradition. You reject what is Modernism. Submit to their authority, but reject what is against the faith. Recognize and resist, which has been the tradition of the Church since St. Paul recognized and resisted. He resisted Cephas, St. Peter to his face.
Tell me very simply, what is the point of the Papacy. You have reduced it to a useless, optional extra. That sounds like Gallicanism to me.
There have been 266 Popes. When it comes to doctrine, and not the personal moral conduct of the Popes, the Popes and papacy have worked out in being orthodox and teaching true doctrine. Only a few have taught heresy throughout the centuries like Popes Honorius and John XXII. It has only been in the last 60 years, that we have had the Modernist crisis and 5 Popes infected with varying degrees of Modernism. 5 Popes out of 266 Popes, show that this a unique and special crisis affecting a tiny percentage in the history of Popes. It will pass. Orthodox traditional popes will return and the Modernist Popes will be confined to the history pages like the Avignon Popes who lived in France.
You’ve been taken – hook line and sinker by TOFP. It shows how wrong you are in the fundamentals. You have sold the institution of Papacy out completely. Yes, I’m being strong because you are stating very serious errors against the Church and the Papacy in public. Salza and Siscoe are not the magisterium, you know.
Do you think I’m going to fall for your tired examples? I’ve done my own homework. Honorius never taught heresy. That is a complete lie. Its calumny. Take it back.
John XXII taught a theological opinion that had not yet been defined. It was not heresy. Had he taught it fifty years later, it would have been, because he would have taught a doctrine that was contrary to the established teaching of the Church. Your two examples of “heretic popes” falls flat. You’re trying to equate them with the conciliar popes? You must be desperate.
Modernism is the “synthesis of all heresies”. Modernism is the worst heresy that has ever appeared. To be infected with heresy is to be a heretic. To publicly profess heresy is to be a public heretic.
Question: Is your religion the same religion as Francis? Does he profess what you believe? Does he profess what the priest in your SSPX chapel says from the pulpit? If your priest said the things Francis says, your district superior would remove him.
Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and anathematized by an ecumenical Council of the Church. I didn’t need TOFP for that. That was common knowledge I knew about years ago. The Third Council of Constantinople declared him a heretic. There is no doubt. It’s in the decrees and canons of a dogmatic Council of the Catholic Church. Doesn’t get any more clear than this:
“And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”
The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”
There’s more to it that that. You might not like the author, fair enough, but the references are sound. You can read more here.
As far as whether you need pro multis for validity and if “for all” invalidated the Mass, there is this article:
“…We, therefore, read the second quotation from the Roman Catechism in number 9 above to mean that those words of the consecration of the wine “which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Our Lord,” namely, “This is (the chalice of) my Blood,” are absolutely necessary for the validity of the sacrament, while the following words “moreover express certain admirable fruits of the Blood shed in the Passion of Our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this sacrament,” but, at least word-for-word, “are not so essential as to affect its validity…”
“… 13. St. Alphonsus Liguori. In his great work of moral theology St. Alphonsus says: “What is the form of the consecration of the Eucharist? … Although the truer and more common opinion is that of St. Bonaventure, Suarez, Bellarmine, and others that the essential (words) are only these: This is the chalice of my Blood (or) This is my Blood (or words equivalent to these); nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely. … The consecration is valid but illicit: 1) if the one consecrating says: This food, this drink, this chalice, or this thing, or what is contained under these appearances, is my Body or my Blood; 2) if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my Blood (Lk 22); 3) This is my Body, which I took from the Virgin – This is my Blood of infinite value; 4) This is my Body – This is my Blood [changing Corpus meum to meum Corpus or changing calix Sanguinis Mei to meus Sanguis] or This is my Blood [with an ungrammatical demonstrative: Hoc est sanguis meus]. The reason why these are valid is that the same sense remains and there is no substantial change [of meaning]….”
This is really a deadlock issue. I have looked at both sides in depth – both for and against the validity of the “for you and for all men”. We could quote eminent theologians on both sides of the debate all day long, and het nowhere.
My position is that it cannot be proven beyond doubt either way. I do not know for sure if this mutilation produced a valid or invalid mass. You would do well to look at the arguments raised by Patrick Omlor. Know your opponents arguments.
Actually, Fr McCarthy, the one who wrote the article you linked to, was writing in direct response to Omlor. Fr McCarthy doesn’t mention Omlor’s name, so as not to give him too much publicity. Obviously the issues he raised were taken very seriously by the novus ordo apologists.
The arguments you quoted from the article are not answering the problem of a mutilation of the remainder of the Form. For you and for all men is a significant change in the meaning of the form. St Thomas teaches that the “many” refers to the Mystical body of Christ. “For all” gives an entirely different meaning. Thus, it gives a different signification.
“In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are NECESSARY for the form, but the words This is the chalice of My Blood only, not the remainder which follows. … But this does not seem suitable; for all which follows is a determination of the predicate: HENCE IT ALL PERTAINS TO THE MEANING OR SIGNIFICATION of the same statement. And because, as has often been said, IT IS BY SIGNIFYING THAT THE FORMS OF SACRAMENTS HAVE THEIR EFFECT, THE WHOLE (sentence) BELONGS TO THE EFFECTING POWER OF THE FORM.” St Thomas Aquinas
“The words of consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: ‘FOR THIS IS MY BODY; FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.’
If anyone omits or changes anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words the words do not mean the same thing, then he does not effect the Sacrament. If words are added which do not alter the meaning, then the Sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a mortal sin in making such an addition.” Excerpt from De Defectibus, which Pius V placed in every altar missal.
“For all men” is undoubtedly a change of meaning. The issue is under a doubt either way. It’s best not to take sides.
Can anyone imagine how it would have appeared to any and every Catholic prior to 1962 that one day the form of the Mass they offered weekly as had their ancestors for at least 14 centuries would one day be diagnosed as a cause that would make Catholics walk out of their chapels and churches? The Mass of the Ages a cause of offense to CATHOLICS? So much so, that an Archbishop would refuse to incardinate priests expert in that form of liturgy for fear of offending Catholics? Am I alone here to realize how bizarre this situation is?
“…the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The canons of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.”
-Ottaviani Intervention, 25 September 1969
Nope, you’re not alone…I’ve often thought about stuff like that. I asked my mum (NO afficionado) if when she was a child, she would ever have imagined standing up after communion? Tabernacle in another room? High alters literally smashed up / thrown in ditch (St
P’s seminary, dioc. of London Ontario)? She just gave me blank stares
Ottaviani did another Letter praising the Novus Ordo in 1970……
Can you post a link to this letter? Did Cardinal Bacci ever rescind his judgment? And why then did Alfons Cardinal Stickler praise the Intervention if it had been renounced by Cardinal Ottaviani?
“A purported letter of February 17, 1970, supposedly with the Cardinal’s signature, was adduced to prove the story. However, by that date it is known that the Cardinal, then 80, was totally blind and would not have known what he was signing when presented with the purposed letter by his secretary, Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni. [Ed. Agustoni was later made Bishop, then Cardinal, by John Paul II]
Now it has come to light that this Agustoni [Ed. along with his brother, Fr. Luigi Agustoni] was a member of the Consilium which that fabricated the “New Mass” and which the Arch-Architect of the New Order service, Hannibal Bugnini, led. At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal’s signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal’s secretary.
So, it seems that Agustoni insinuated his way into becoming the Cardinal’s secretary and in that position created a fraud in an attempt to undermine the Cardinal’s public document, which questioned the validity of the New Order service, by a phony “retraction,” which Agustoni had himself written with others. In any case, co-author Antonio Cardinal Bacci and the Roman theologians never “retracted,” in any manner, shape, or form the devastating document, which they courageously published.”
Wow! Talk about slime.
If Cardinal Ottaviani went so far as to fire the secretary for forgery, why didn’t he make some kind of public announcement that the letter that was circulating with his name was fake?
” Jean Madiran, a critic of Vatican II, and editor of the French journal Itinéraires, claimed that this letter was fraudulently presented to the elderly and already blind cardinal for his signature by his secretary, Monsignor (and future Cardinal) Gilberto Agustoni, and that Agustoni resigned shortly afterwards. Monsignor Agustoni resigned as Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary in 1970 to join the Ecclesiastical Magistrature as Prelate Auditor of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota , and there is no evidence to suggest his departure was anything more than a routine change of assignment. Furthermore, Jean Madiran admits that he was not in the room to see this alleged deception of Cardinal Ottaviani. ”
Jean Madrian wasn’t there to see the Deception.
That whole story is under a cloud of doubt. Not one of his concerns raised in the Intervention were addressed. The 1969 and 1970 misdials are identical to the object of his scathing critique. Nothing changed, and then he does a mysterious 180 and approves what he condemned.
No, Johnny, I’m with you!
Broglio’s letter simply states the obvious. The episcopate in very large numbers would prefer to have no priest, and no laity, who adhere to the Extraordinary Form. But that is only half the
story. They would prefer to have no laity at all who adhere to the perennial Magisterium
– that is as long as they retain their position, prestige and perks.
Clerical culture has decomposed to such a degree that Archbishop Broglio produce such a letter without shame. This morning I read Bishop Barron is lauding mentally deranged Luther as a “mystic of grace.”
We are largely without leadership in the Church due to the abandonment of the faith by men who, while ordained, have reject the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church – and without fear of eternal consequence.
They are consumed with self-appreciation, have a nostalgic regard for a God in whom they no longer believe, and no fear of Hell or the Devil at all. That provides a long leash indeed…
The Number of Priests in the Archdiocese is dropping rapidly. Wouldn’t the Archbishop Welcome the Tradtionally Minded Priests ? The More Priest the better right ?
Traditionally minded, yes. Traditional Latin Mass only – he’d rather have a shortage of Novus Ordo priests than an abundance of TLM-only priests.
Following a Divine Intervention on July 4th 2014, I began a process of personal conversion which is ongoing to this day which is the third anniversary of that Intervention.
In my journey I discovered quickly that at the local SSPX church great reverence was always the norm no matter the hour of day or event taking place.
Initially my attempts at praying in several local catholic churches proved futile as the irreverence in all was most annoying and impeded any chance of being still in His presence.
So very early last year, I attempted to find parking before attending at the 7pm mass at what was originally a Jesuit church but which the SSPX bought; it was lying idle for some time.
I failed to find parking which was unusual and eventually accepted that I had to get to the local Redemptorist for the 7.15pm mass or I would have to miss mass altogether. I really did not want to go there as solitude and prayer is a rare thing amongst the people who attend; it seemed that way to me – I can think extremely critical of behaviour of others at times.
As soon as I knelt down to get my focus before prayer in front of Our Blessed Lady’s altar, I felt a power or force surge through my body from my shoulders down to my feet.
Immediately I was given to understand that Our Lady was welcoming me to the church She preferred me to pray in – and that I was to cease attendance at the SSPX. The knowledge was suddenly clear and left no room for doubt.
The force or power that surged through my body was as a cooling refreshing power which felt like it was cooling my very soul which was burning up and I had no idea it was in such a state, until that moment.
It also felt as though my blood was being cooled too.
I still don’t know for sure which is which as it is very difficult to tell exactly where the soul resides and where only the body only is. There seems not to be a border line between them.
Following that surging intervention, I paid close attention to Our Lady’s wishes for me. She let me know through persistence that I was to attend at Knock on the feast day of Her Assumption, August 15th. I had no idea it was that feast day until afterwards.
Long story short, She presented me with the attached image. In it I see the Father and Son with the face of darkness visible on the left side of the Face of Jesus.
God the father’s Face is formed on the top right quarter of the Face of His Beloved Son. These two faces appear with the face of evil most prominent and appear above what may be some souls in purgatory; my own visage is there.
I see clearly Jesus is being blasphemed by the devil just as Jesus Himself told us he was – day and night without reprieve.
That howling raging evil is also ever present in the world today and Our Blessed Lady of Knock gifted this image to us in the manner She choose for what may or may not be obvious reasons.
It is not of my making, I did edit from the digital ‘RAW’ original but that is necessary so the image can be presented in jpg format.
This image was given following Her taking me away from the SSPX and back to the flawed and sickly true church.
It is what it is.
Also, in the image below, She is visible behind those souls in purgatory and to the right can be seen the visage of the Holy Spirit, but that’s my opinion. Many faces are visible, the image changes as it is viewed from different distances. A larger high gloss print displays better.
The bishop’s concerns are valid. First, the military chaplaincy is the commander’s program. What that means is there is no legal right to religious services; they are provided by the commander as the mission allows. I feel like a Sergeant Major should know this but maybe he is just super bad at being a chaplain’s assistant at the corps level. He certainly should know better than to seemingly break the chain of command and petition the bishop instead of giving it to his chaplain to address. Stay in your lain SGM!
The bishop has to lead the entire U.S. military’s Catholics, work with the resources the DoD gives them, AND operate within the operational requirements of the DoD.
His comments about Eastern Catholic and Anglican Ordinariate faculties is important because he has the rare post of being in charge of all Catholics. There are no military eparchies or ordinariates. He is one of a handful of bishops who has jurisdiction over Catholics of a different rite. So he has to get priests trained in those rites and uses to meet the needs of the diverse groups of Catholics he oversees. But by and large, he has to go with what the DoD will give him, which is not much. In short, he has to make sure his priests are Swiss Army knives of liturgy rather than trained in one specific form.
So bearing in mind that he has to meet the needs of probably the most diverse “diocese” of Catholics in the nation, he needs to cast the net wide because he doesn’t have the budget, time, or manpower AND the DoD requires him to keep it simple.
So not everyone is going to go to an EF Mass. Not everyone is going to go to a Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The DoD has basically tied him to the OF standard through budget constraints and shared spaces. Can’t have a high altar when the general protestant service is right after Mass.
And the reason the DoD requires this standardization is because these priests need to go anywhere and serve more people than EF attendees. He makes a crucial point where he says that the Army is not going to allow him to have two priests go to assignments together so that two parish communities can spring up. A priest that is unwilling to do the OF is basically rooting himself to one post for his career. The DoD laughs at such follies and will move him and likely to a place where no one wants the EF. Seeing as Summorum Pontificum puts the impetus for bringing the EF to a diocese on the laity, when that EF only priest goes to a post where no one wants it, how is it follow SP?
The ad hominem attack is predictable. And no one within the Army or the archdiocese has accused me of breaking any chains of command. Your posts continually miss the point about the priest crisis and the real losers – the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen and their families deprived of Catholic ministry while they themselves sacrifice for everyone else. In fact, your posts lead one to believe that you don’t even admit to any crisis; that this is simply a policy issue for DoD forces and authorized personnel having to be adaptive and flexible and that chaplains are no different.
You ignore the fact that almost none of our uniformed personnel even bother with Mass anymore even when there are options available. On Ft. Hood we had 39,000 uniformed personnel out which about 9,000 self-identify as Catholic. Now, subtract dependents, retirees and civilians, and less than 200 Soldiers were attending Mass on any given weekend at Ft. Hood.
The reason for this is not simply a lack of Catholic chaplains (although that is an obvious factor as many Catholic troopers end up attending protestant services because they are more accessible in the field and in deployment), but the larger crisis of faith caused by the misguided theories adopted at Vatican II and incorporated into Bugnini’s man-made liturgy have so weakened Catholic faith.
You can attack me all you want – I’m nobody – but you will have to come to the realization sooner or later that the faith is collapsing in the West and the only place there is growth, vitality, vocations, and large families in is Traditional communities.