Via Media

Via Media


More on the Trad Confab

posted by awelborn

Whispers at the Loggia has the text of the Pius X’ s society comment on the meeting, as well as this observation:

Today’s Bollettino of the Press Office of the Holy See (found here) did not list an audience with Bernard Fellay, even though Joaquin Navarro-Valls issued a statement about it at its close. This emphasizes the personal nature of the meeting and it wasn’t one of the official engagements of the Pope’s day with bishops, heads of state and others. And Fellay was strictly referred to as "Mons. Bernard Fellay" — Eccellenza and/or Vescovo were nowhere to be found.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(77)
post a comment
TonyDoc

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:21 pm


Don’t let the “Mons.” v. “Vescovo” fool yah! As the title “Monseigneur” literally means “My Lord”, it is a common European practice (Holy See included) to refer to any bishop in such a manner.
Incidentally, a Trad bishop consecrated in Brazil by the “Lefebvrite Four” (Bp. Rangel) later reconciled with Rome, and his episcopal orders were recognized.
Personally, I think one of the Four (Bp. Richard Williamson)should be referred to as “His Insanity”. He is a raving loon whom the SSPX should disavow before ANY reconciliation with Rome.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:23 pm


Rocco brings up the many difficulties with the SSPX, but there are difficulties with every partner in dialogue.
If the East is a “priveleged” partner in dialogue, the SSPX is preeminent. We should manifest the same good will and opennenss to dialogue with the SSPX that we do with everyone else (and, thankfully, I think the Holy Father has).



report abuse
 

Ian

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:23 pm


Hmm… I wonder how the Pope’s schedule lists the Orthodox or Nestorian bishops?



report abuse
 

John Bianco

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:24 pm


Regaurdless of small details of what the Vatican called Bp. Fellay, the big news was he met Pope Benidict XVI, and the initial announcement sounded fairly positive.
I pray that certain members of the SSPX and in the Vaticans curia put aside their egos to regularise the SSPX again, it would be a great day for the church.



report abuse
 

Der Tommissar

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:33 pm


pray that certain members of the SSPX and in the Vaticans curia put aside their egos to regularise the SSPX again
This I think, is the comment that’s made the most sense today.
For all the talk about VII and liturgy and how much Bishop Williamson’s monthly medication bill runs, John hit on the big reason for the trouble between the Vatican and the SSPX.
If I had to put down money, this is exactly how the whole situation started back in 1988. Ego.



report abuse
 

TT

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:42 pm


Sadly, I agree with those who don’t think that the Society will ever be fully reconciled with the Church, but I am hopeful that most SSPXers will find their way back home.



report abuse
 

TT

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:43 pm


Sorry O/T
Test



report abuse
 

David Kubiak

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:58 pm


I have said before that it is of interest that the Vatican has never challenged the validity of the Lefevbre consecrations, where it could have been argued had Rome wanted that the Archbishop was as Alzheimer-y at the time he took this action as poor Bishop Thuc was when he made half the male population of Europe a bishop at one time or another.
The whole “were the excommunications legal” discussion has never made a whole lot of sense to me either. It isn’t as if Canon Law were something sent down from God to which the Church is held accountable by a third party. The Church creates it, and will interpret it in a way that secures the goals it has in mind. If the Vatican were to “revoke the excommunications” it would 1. be repudiating the authoritative teaching of the Pope it is currently putting on the fast track to sainthood, and 2. give the world the impression that the SSPX line on this affair was correct, i.e., that a situation of emergency created by the dereliction of the late Pope did exist. I cannot see any possible way Pope Benedict will agree to this.
I have always viewed this whole affair as God mysteriously bringing good out of what was not so good. Anybody with the true “mens Catholica” would have trembled for the fate of his soul if he were one of the people referred to in “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta”. The SSPX is indeed afflicted with a Protestant mentality, and the longer it is out of humble communion with Rome the worse things will get. If they were to be reconciled will the Holy Father have to submit his future writings to the SSPX bishops for approval or risk them bolting again? I find the whole scene impossible.
As for Bishop Williamson, people have neglected one aspect of his voluminous writing that must be appreciated. He is tremendously funny, whether consciously or not, I don’t know. Try reading the archive of his famous missives. Trust me, you will be laughing out loud. Sort of a cross between P.G. Wodehouse and Ronald Firbank.



report abuse
 

Samuel J. Howard

posted August 29, 2005 at 4:59 pm


(While I know more than the average American, I don’t put myself forth as an expert.)
“Don’t let the “Mons.” v. “Vescovo” fool yah! As the title “Monseigneur” literally means “My Lord”, it is a common European practice (Holy See included) to refer to any bishop in such a manner.”
If someone is a Mons. but is not a Bishop isn’t that even more of a confusion, since it implies that they are a.) some sort of honorary prelate by virtue of special attachement to the Holy See (chaplain of his holliness/prothonotary apostolic numerary or supernumerary) or b.) a judicial or general vicar (which would make absolutely no sense).



report abuse
 

Dan LaHood

posted August 29, 2005 at 5:14 pm


I never met a member of SSPX that wasn’t grumpy.



report abuse
 

Der Tommissar

posted August 29, 2005 at 5:28 pm


I never met a member of SSPX that wasn’t grumpy.
You should look harder.



report abuse
 

Kenjiro Shoda

posted August 29, 2005 at 5:32 pm


I read so many comments from contributors hoping that the Society of St. Pius X reconciles with the Church…..as if the Society has done something greviously wrong.
What the Society has done over these past 35 years is try to preserve the Roman Catholic Church. As much as liberal radical Catholics, or the EWTN John Paul II We-Love-You Vatican II Rah Rah Squad Catholics would disavow it, the Society of St. Pius X which adheres to everything of the pre-Vatican II Church has practically the most seminarians for an Order of its size than any other in the Church. The Society has almost 200 seminarians, and nearly 500 priests.
The Society has also attemped to restore and preserve all the time honored Catholic liturgical traditions and treasures which gave birth to our greatest Saints, the greatest of Church music and art and architecture, the thoousand of religious Orders, and a missionary spirit which held firm and uncompromising in Faith right up until 1965.
I and millions of other Faithful Catholic applaud Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X and the expanding and flourishing network of Catholic tradition built up by Him and the Society.
By His lifework and untiring holy example, and by the great outpouring of Grace and acheievment for the Faith in His own lifetime, Archbishop Lefebvre could legitimatly be called a saint.
The same, alas can not be said of John Paul II, who presided at the greates destruction of the Catholic Church since the Protestant Reformation, and did nothing to halt its decomposition. In fact, many of HIs initiatives (inter-religious dialog, ecumenism, liturgical changes, lack of resolve in liturgical and disiplinary matters including the clergy sex-abuse cases) actually has hastened the collapse of the Church. And they call this man a saint…..NOT!!
I pray that Benedict XVI has the Grace and the will and the courage to stand up to the liberals in the Church and issue a proclaimation giving an unconditional and free return to the Tridentine Latin Mass everywhere in the Catholic Church.



report abuse
 

Ian

posted August 29, 2005 at 5:48 pm


“The whole ‘were the excommunications legal’ discussion has never made a whole lot of sense to me either. It isn’t as if Canon Law were something sent down from God to which the Church is held accountable by a third party.”
Nobody considers their excommunications “legal.” The Lutherans don’t, nor do the Orthodox. For that matter, the “Uniates” (I hate that word) don’t believe they were ever excommunicated! They believe that the Pope and the Western bishops recanted their heresies in the 16th century and became Orthodox!



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 29, 2005 at 6:02 pm


David,
I think the entire validity of the excommunications discussion is very relevant. Obviously, the Church creates canon law, but the Church is bound by its terms and it has to follow its own procedures. At a minimum, there is a colorable argument that the excommunications were not valid. As for lifting the excommunications, I would hope that Pope Benedict would be motivated in his actions more by charity and justice than by the concerns of the keepers of the flame of John Paul the Great.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 29, 2005 at 6:37 pm


I think it’s those who ordain bishops by appealing to “necessity” over the pope’s head who have the problem with justice and charity.
“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.” The idea of “preserving” the Church by going into schism simply doesn’t work.



report abuse
 

CampCatholic

posted August 29, 2005 at 6:43 pm


“Sort of a cross between P.G. Wodehouse and Ronald Firbank.”
How DARE YOU accuse Bishop Williamson – a man of God – of being a filthy sodomite! After all, a man who won’t even name the sin, calling it by “the sin of H,” would never be caught dead doing such an evil thing!
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/May-2002.htm



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 29, 2005 at 6:57 pm


Kevin,
I don’t think even you could deny that there were profound problems in the Church during the last pontificate. I doubt that Lefebvre’s recourse to “necessity” was meant as a personal affront to Pope John Paul.
Regardless of whether Lefebvre’s disobedience was justified, it’s hard to see how it could constitute a “schism.” However, arguing the matter at this late date is a little like pointing out that the War Between the States/Second American War of Independence doesn’t really fit the definition of what most people would consider a Civil War.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:04 pm


There were profound problems during Peter’s Pontificate as well. Corinthians were sleeping with their father’s wife, for Pete’s sake.



report abuse
 

chris K

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:14 pm


What the Society has done over these past 35 years is try to preserve the Roman Catholic Church.
While in reality, I don’t believe the majority of Catholics, conservatives included, have even missed them. Sorry, but the true test of holiness throughout history has been one of obedience. And, if the excuse is that one is obedient to their personally chosen higher authority than the Vicar of Christ, then what would Christ’s choice or will even matter in the mix?
Speaking of the title of Monsignor, before moving to eastern PA I had never encountered so many monsignors. In the 5 surrounding parishes there is at least one in each. Does it merely have something to do with serving at the chancery at one time or another? We had one in the family too. My father-in-law had red bedroom slippers and when he wished to put them on, he would call for his “monsignor” slippers. Anyone familiar with that movie, “Monsignor Quixote”? Great little film.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:35 pm


Jason,
But Peter never presided over any ecumenical shindigs at Assisi. When Peter was rebuked, it was merely for pretending to keep kosher. And Peter took fraternal correction.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:40 pm


Peter never called for a Crusade either. Peter never did a lot of things. That’s why Peter’s office didn’t die with the man.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:53 pm


Jason,
Who knows, I guess if Peter had done some outrageous things, there may have been the necessity at that time for episcopal ordinations without the first-century equivalent of a papal mandate. That’s the way it is with counter-factual history. (But, just so you are aware, there have been some popes who actually have done some very nutty stuff.)



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:54 pm


As for lifting the excommunications, I would hope that Pope Benedict would be motivated in his actions more by charity and justice than by the concerns of the keepers of the flame of John Paul the Great.
Very well said.
I don’t see why it isn’t possible to say that the late Pope made mistakes in prudential judgment. We say the same thing about Popes who have already been beatified or canonized. So why can’t we question the prudential/pastoral judgment of a Pope who is not (yet) beatified or canonized? Shouldn’t there be a serious examination of Pope John Paul II’s legacy anyway, if he really is on the “fast track” to sainthood? Shouldn’t that examination include topics on which serious Catholics disagreed with him?



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 7:58 pm


I have said before that it is of interest that the Vatican has never challenged the validity of the Lefevbre consecrations, where it could have been argued had Rome wanted that the Archbishop was as Alzheimer-y at the time he took this action as poor Bishop Thuc was when he made half the male population of Europe a bishop at one time or another.
Has the Holy See ever challenged the validity of the consecrations done by the late Abp. Ngo (in Vietnam the surname comes first and his name was Ngo Dinh Thuc — his brother was Ngo Dinh Diem)?



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 29, 2005 at 8:07 pm


…the Society of St. Pius X which adheres to everything of the pre-Vatican II Church…
Except, of course, obedience to Peter. We do well to consider the sad case of England, which began by repudiating papal authority, and within 50 years, their religion was thoroughly Protestant.



report abuse
 

Philip

posted August 29, 2005 at 8:50 pm


“”the Society of St. Pius X which adheres to everything of the pre-Vatican II Church “”
That is exactly the problem. The spirit is in-fallible when in ecumenical councils. You have to adhere to Vatican two or not be Catholc at all!!!
Vatican II was guided by the spirit just like the council of trent. You can not choose which one to follow.



report abuse
 

Philip

posted August 29, 2005 at 8:51 pm


also, if they were following the church in everything before Vatican II they would listen to the Pope. They certainly did that before Vatican II.



report abuse
 

James Kabala

posted August 29, 2005 at 8:54 pm


Since I suspect that a lot of traditionalists are reading this thread, I hope that no one minds if I hijack it for a question I have wondered about occasionally in the past that was recalled to my mind after I read a piece about ember days in a church bulletin I picked up today:
Did people in mid-twentieth century America actually observe ember days the way church law said they were supposed to? Numerous people of both left and right talk about the lifting of the no-meat-on-Fridays ban as if it were an epochal event in their lives, and occasionally one hears mention of the erstwhile ban on eating between meals on all days of Lent, but no one ever mentions ember days. Since there were twelve ember days a year, I would think that if they had actually been observed pre-Vatican II, their disappearance after Vatican II would have been more noticeable.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 9:14 pm


I don’t know about the Ember Days, but my mother-in-law has spoken about observing the other fast days (vigils of important feasts, like Christmas — whence the Italian custom of seven fishes on Christmas Eve — and the Immaculate Conception). Her birthday is August 14 (the Vigil of the Assumption) and she recently lamented to my wife how much she disliked it because she always had to fast on her birthday unless it happened to fall on a Sunday.



report abuse
 

Maureen

posted August 29, 2005 at 9:15 pm


Hey, why chatter about all this stuff, when we could talk about the doctrinal complications of time travel!
If you went back in time before Vatican II, you would of course be bound by the Church discipline and practices of the time.
But since you would carry what you knew of the future Magisterium in your head, you would of course have to follow that fullness of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals.
This would of course mean that Providence called you to preach the Theology of the Body, to make sure it got popular before the flower children really got going….
What else? (And play nice!)



report abuse
 

Maureen

posted August 29, 2005 at 9:20 pm


When I said “all this stuff”, I wasn’t referring to the Ember Days discussion (which hadn’t been posted yet when I got to the bottom of the page).
I’d like to know about Ember Days, too. And the feast fasts.



report abuse
 

Julia

posted August 29, 2005 at 9:45 pm


I graduated from university in 1967 – so I remember Ember Days and lots of other stuff. I have an old missal of my father’s from the 1930′s and a later one of mine from the 1950′s as well as the throwaway ones that came later.
I’ll dig them out tomorrow, but in the meantime, off the top of my head, I can tell you that there were lots of little changes along the way to the English Mass. Witness the big differences between the two Missals mentioned above. The earlier one had lots of complicated stuff to determine what Mass was being said any particular day – a big chart and which kind of feast trumped what other kinds of feasts. That was gone by the time of the 1950′s missal. The 1930′s Missal had absolutely everything in Latin and English, but the later one only has Latin for the words said aloud. Did you know there was a final Gospel read just before dismissal? That’s gone as well as the prayer for the conversion of Russia. I think both of those may have been dropped before the English Mass came about.
I think there is more mention of fish on Friday than talk of Ember Days because it was every week and it marked you as a Catholic to non-Catholics who really didn’t know about Ember Days or scapulars.



report abuse
 

Boniface McInnes

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:06 pm


“Witness the big differences between the two Missals mentioned above. The earlier one had lots of complicated stuff to determine what Mass was being said any particular day – a big chart and which kind of feast trumped what other kinds of feasts. That was gone by the time of the 1950′s missal.”
Who published each Missal in question? I have two missals published in the same year (1953, off the top of my head) which differ greatly in such details.
“The 1930′s Missal had absolutely everything in Latin and English, but the later one only has Latin for the words said aloud.”
Again, my Marion Missal (1958, again off the top of my head) has everything in Latin and English, but my St. Andrew’s, from about the same time, only has the Latin for the Ordinary. Not even the Canon is in Latin.
“Did you know there was a final Gospel read just before dismissal?”
And it, the First Chapter of the Gospel of John (In the Begining, the Word was with God , and the Word was God…”), was still there in 1962, just as it had been for centuries before.
Comparing two missals really only gives you an idea of the similarities and differences between two missal publishers.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:17 pm


Did you know there was a final Gospel read just before dismissal? That’s gone as well as the prayer for the conversion of Russia. I think both of those may have been dropped before the English Mass came about.
Yes, the Last Gospel and the Leonine Prayers for the conversion of Russia were suppressed in 1965 by the aforementioned instruction Inter Oecumenici.
Re: the Ember Days. These were days occuring roughly with the start of each season of the year (after Dec. 13, after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost, after September 14). Three days (Wednesday, Friday, Saturday — the traditional Roman penitential days) in each of the four “Ember Weeks” would be dedicated to fasting, partial abstinence (total abstinence on Friday of course), and prayer. The prayers offered were for those about to be ordained. Lots of good information about the Ember Days can be obtained by searching for “ember days” on Google.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:19 pm


I’ll dig them out tomorrow, but in the meantime, off the top of my head, I can tell you that there were lots of little changes along the way to the English Mass. Witness the big differences between the two Missals mentioned above. The earlier one had lots of complicated stuff to determine what Mass was being said any particular day – a big chart and which kind of feast trumped what other kinds of feasts. That was gone by the time of the 1950′s missal.
This is true. Pope Pius XII suppressed the old Octaves, leaving only three — Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. It was the Octaves that made the determination of what Mass was to be celebrated so difficult.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:23 pm


I’d like to know about . . . the feast fasts.
This is easy. One was obliged to fast and abstinence on the Vigils of certain feast days (Christmas, the Immaculate Conception, SS. Peter and Paul, etc.) unless the feast day fell on a Monday (one could never be obliged to fast on a Sunday). For example, under the old Calendar one would be obliged to fast on August 14, the Vigil of the Assumption. However, August 14 fell on Sunday this year, so one would not be obliged to fast.
There was an Indult allowing one to fast on Dec. 23 in place of the fast on Dec. 24.
There was also an Indult for U.S. Catholics dispensing with the Friday abstinence for the day after Thanksgiving (leftover turkey and all that).



report abuse
 

DarwinCatholic

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:24 pm


Since we’re digressing into pre-Vat II questions… Some people I know insist that the readings were also in Latin, though my Father (graduated high school in ’66) insists that when he was growing up the readings were in English. Was this a Pre-Vat II liturgical abuse, or were the readings turned vernacular as some point well before the mass itself went vernacular?



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:24 pm


Well — I still offer my rosary for the conversion of Russia. Isn’t that what Mary asked us to do? As far as I know, that still stands…



report abuse
 

DarwinCatholic

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:28 pm


And since we’re moving into minor points, can I just mention that I love the word “suppressed”, which like Alice I always picture to mean “being put in a sack and sat upon.”



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:28 pm


I think it’s those who ordain bishops by appealing to “necessity” over the pope’s head who have the problem with justice and charity.
Did you know that Card. Husar was consecrated bishop without a Papal mandate (by Card. Slipyj)? One account says this happened in Rome, another at Castelgandolfo (!).



report abuse
 

Nancy

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:36 pm


Unless they are in an Orthodox Church, Christians who are not obedient to the Pope are called “Protestants.”
It’s not a dirty word. Many carry the name proudly. To call the Society of St. Pius X “Catholic” is merely a mislabeling.



report abuse
 

James Kabala

posted August 29, 2005 at 10:41 pm


At present-day Tridentine Masses I have been to, the readings are read first in Latin, then in English. I have no firsthand experience of the pre-Vatican II Mass, but my understanding is that this was the practice then as well, except reading the passages a second time in the vernacular was optional and was not always done. The Epistle, in particular, was often read only in Latin, according to what I have heard.



report abuse
 

David Kubiak

posted August 30, 2005 at 12:19 am


“The sin of H”? Correspondent “CampCatholic”?
The comedy is getting better and better.



report abuse
 

David Kubiak

posted August 30, 2005 at 12:43 am


People do deserve an example of Bishop Williamson’s prose. From his encyclical “Girls in Universities” (shamefully composed in the vernacular):
“Ten years ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university…because of all kinds of natural reasons almost no girl should go to any university!…Alas, women going to universities is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.”
_______
“Well said, Bertie!”



report abuse
 

Michael Tinkler

posted August 30, 2005 at 6:21 am


About titulature (“mons.” vs. “vescovo” and “eccelenza”).
The Curia has its style of title usage. Rocco’s opinion of whether the style used for Fellay was typical of Curial references to bishops is more likely to be accurate than those who don’t read the Curia press releases in Italian all the time.



report abuse
 

Father Ethan

posted August 30, 2005 at 6:23 am


Can. 377 ß1 The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints Bishops or confirms those lawfully elected.
I’m a bit late in this discussion, however, let us just imagine that Pope Benedict XVI decided to reform the Mass of Vatican II (i.e. ad orientum, mandatory Latin parts, Gregorian chant, no glass chalices, no altar girls, etc.) and the liberals are not happy with the reforms. Then imagine one of the unhappy retired liberal archbishops decides to open his own seminary, ordain his own priests, makes an agreement with the Vatican, then decides to ordain four liberal bishops.



report abuse
 

David L Alexander

posted August 30, 2005 at 7:21 am


Darwin, James, et al:
Regarding the reading of the Epistle/Gospel in the vernacular using the classical missal…
With the 1965 revisions, readings were presented in the vernacular. It was the intention of the Council that this be one of the innovations allowed. Since the few years before that were a period of variations in practice, all under proper sanction, it is possible that in some places, the readings were proclaimed in both Latin and the vernacular before 1965.
Possible, but I’m not really sure.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 30, 2005 at 7:35 am


David
I am pretty sure it was authorized (at least outside of solemn high Masses) before the council. I have also read that in some places the readings in the vernacular would simply constitute the opening part of the sermon, which is was a very easy out on this issue.



report abuse
 

James Kabala

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:00 am


Liam: At the present-day Tridentine Masses I’ve been to, the English readings were indeed treated as part of the sermon, so probably that does reflect past practice, or at least the past practice in some areas.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:00 am


I have also read that in some places the readings in the vernacular would simply constitute the opening part of the sermon, which is was a very easy out on this issue.
It would depend on where you were. In France (and Germany, too, I think) it was common to read the lessons in the vernacular concurrently with the lessons in Latin. In the U.S. it was common to read them in the vernacular before the sermon. I’m sure there were times at which they were omitted, just as there are times at which they are omitted today (such as Holy Week).



report abuse
 

Judy Smith

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:04 am


I graduated HS in 1962. I think t was in 58 that Sr. Marie Therese got all excited about the Missa Recitata – not sure of the spelling. The Latin was on one side of the page and English trans. on opposite it. I still think Mass was still all in Latin, but at least we knew what it meant. And I think the congregation started saying the Credo/Pater Noster aloud around that time.
One of the more interesting things about this day/boarding school run by semi-cloisered Visitation nuns, was that a nun did all the responses of the altar boy in the Tridentine Mass as their were no men but the priest on the premises. Judy



report abuse
 

Eric Giunta

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:12 am


In the Tridentine rite, only during Holy Week may the Passion Gospels be read only once in the vernacular.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:13 am


One tidbit I have long found interesting has to do with the Last Gospel. (One of my favorite scripture passages, I personally am glad this practice was surpressed, because I am concerned it’s repitition and placement would dilute the power of the passage.) I always wondered what happened on the third Mass of Christmas, when that gospel text was (and remains) the gospel of the day (and it really is the text par excellence for Christmas, Luke’s manger/shepherds/angels notwithstanding). Turns out that for that Mass, the gospel for Epiphany was used as the Last Gospel.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:18 am


Unless they are in an Orthodox Church, Christians who are not obedient to the Pope are called “Protestants.”
That’s funny, I thought they were just called “disobedient Catholics.”
One of the more interesting things about this day/boarding school run by semi-cloisered Visitation nuns, was that a nun did all the responses of the altar boy in the Tridentine Mass as their were no men but the priest on the premises.
Yes, this was permitted but women were still not allowed to enter the sanctuary during Holy Mass. They would say the responses from a spot outside the sanctuary.
This is also why one might see pictures of St. Therese of Lisieux acting as a sacristan. In a cloister there would be no men to act in this role.



report abuse
 

Patrick Rothwell

posted August 30, 2005 at 9:13 am


Liam:
The readings are read at the beginning of the sermon at Old St. Mary’s in DC – at least when I have been there.
I actually liked the Last Gospel and the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar very much. When I was an altar server at an Anglo-Catholic (Episcopal) parish in DC in the late 1980s, the Last Gospel was interpolated into the liturgy and recited aloud, (which I think is different from usual Tridentine practice)? In any event, I wish they had not been abolished. Instead, the revisions should have directed that the opening prayers be said in the sacristy by the sacred ministers (or servers as the case may be) and the Last Gospel should be said by the priest during the recessional. That is, if the revisers needed to revise them at all.



report abuse
 

Mary Alexander

posted August 30, 2005 at 9:25 am


The lambasting of well meaning but ignorant Catholics with the accusation of being “disobedient” has led to the more rapid dissolution of the Post Vatican II Church. Is keeping your chidren from Diocesan required sex education programs “disobedient”? And as for the horrors of excommunication- put this into historic perspective- St. Joan of Arc, St. Athanasius, Bishop Rangel, Bishop Rifan and I’m sure there are others. Authority can be abused and if we have not learned that in the last 40 years we never will.



report abuse
 

Sandra Miesel

posted August 30, 2005 at 10:06 am


As someone with Catholic memories going back to the 1940s: the Epistle and Gospel were read in English from the pulpit after having been read in Latin at the altar. Dual language missals had only been available from the late 20s, I think, but we had the complete Mass in both languages. The wonderful little Fr. Lasance Sunday pocket missal may have popularized this. Even in my little rural parish we were using the Dialogue Mass, developed in Europe, where the people chimed in on all the Latin responses. By college we was singing along with the Gloria etc.
Yes, Ember Days were kept right up to the suppression and were announced at church. I don’t remember an indult for the Dec 24 fast, only for St. Patrick’s Day (in Lent). I do remember causing a family problem in the 1950s because I couldn’t eat meat on Christmas Eve. (The elaborate Italian and Polish customs for Christmas Eve were developed around the Church’s fod restrictions.)
The Last Gospel and Prayers after Mass lasted up until the day they were suppressed. I wish we still did the latter. People were quite earnest about praying for the conversion of Russia and the protection of St. Michael.
Yes, the categories of feast and multiple prayers for layers of saints got complicated. The rules didn’t change until after the Council although the Missal publishers stopped trying to explain them.
My 1930s Missal has lots of strange votve Masses that no longer exist, including prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor which had already been suppressed.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 30, 2005 at 10:16 am


My 1930s Missal has lots of strange votve Masses that no longer exist, including prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor which had already been suppressed.
I don’t think they were actually suppressed until the Pius XII changes to the Missal. After all, in the 20s and 30s there was still hope that the Emperor might be restored.



report abuse
 

Christine

posted August 30, 2005 at 10:25 am


“The Last Gospel and Prayers after Mass lasted up until the day they were suppressed. I wish we still did the latter.”
As do I. It was a beautiful way to conclude the Mass.



report abuse
 

Mila Morales

posted August 30, 2005 at 12:23 pm


I have very fond memories of the Tridentine Mass, and several missals dating from the early 60′s before the NO was introduced. If memory serves me well, back home in Cuba, in my hometown’s cathedral in the late 50′s and early 60′s, someone would read the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular while the celebrant (on most Sundays, our bishop) was reading them in Latin. We used a version of the “dialogue Mass” that was called “participating in the Mass”. Everyone was expected to say the responses, and to recite the Confiteor, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei. I can still remember them in Latin, and I was only 12 or 13 at the time.
As far as feast days were concerned, in the 1962 missal there were First, Second, Third, and Fourth Class feasts, which more or less corresponded to today’s Solemnities, Feasts, Memorials and Optional Memorials. The Lectionary, however, was limited, and whenever there was a Fourth Class feast,which were days where a saint’s feast was not observed, the previous Sunday’s readings were used. Sometimes this went on for days and days…
Ember days, as someone noted above, were celebrated to roughly coincide with the changing of the seasons and in some dioceses seminarians received the different orders, including priestly ordination, on Ember Saturday.
I do remember the indult for observing the fast on Dec. 23 instead of the 24th. However, some indults depended on the country or even the local diocese. Countries that were considered “mission lands” (Cuba was one of them)observed different fast days, and most if not all vigils were under the indult.
Also, since there were no official translations of the Mass texts, the vernacular differed from missal to missal depending on the editor’s preferences. In Spanish this was very noticeable, as it was less formal if the missal was printed in the Americas, more formal if printed in Spain.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 30, 2005 at 2:06 pm


Also, since there were no official translations of the Mass texts, the vernacular differed from missal to missal depending on the editor’s preferences. In Spanish this was very noticeable, as it was less formal if the missal was printed in the Americas, more formal if printed in Spain.
It is noticeable in English as well. The St. Joseph handmissal I own (printed in ’56 or ’58 or so) uses the “Confraternity” version of the Scriptures and a strange translation of the Psalms (my guess is that it is the Pius XII Psalter rendered into English). The English translation of the Psalms so obviously doesn’t match the official Latin. Quite embarrassing in my opinion. Other handmissals use the Douay-Rheims translation of Scripture. I believe there is one missal that uses the Msgr. Knox translation.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 30, 2005 at 2:41 pm


“Prayers for the Holy Roman Emperor” . . .
Let’s bring that back!



report abuse
 

julian

posted August 30, 2005 at 3:20 pm


“The SSPX is our only hope…..”
Yes, and John XXIII was a freemason and Paul VI was kidnapped and replaced with an actor. Of course, Cardinal Siri would have prevented all this, but he was forced to abdicate immediately after his election.



report abuse
 

dcs

posted August 30, 2005 at 3:33 pm


Yes, and John XXIII was a freemason and Paul VI was kidnapped and replaced with an actor. Of course, Cardinal Siri would have prevented all this, but he was forced to abdicate immediately after his election.
. . . none of which is held to be true by the SSPX.



report abuse
 

bearing

posted August 30, 2005 at 3:38 pm


Is nobody going to answer Maureen? Darn, I wanted to see how that thread turned out…



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 30, 2005 at 4:00 pm


Bearing, to reprise Maureen:
“Hey, why chatter about all this stuff, when we could talk about the doctrinal complications of time travel!
If you went back in time before Vatican II, you would of course be bound by the Church discipline and practices of the time.
But since you would carry what you knew of the future Magisterium in your head, you would of course have to follow that fullness of the Magisterium in matters of faith and morals.
This would of course mean that Providence called you to preach the Theology of the Body, to make sure it got popular before the flower children really got going….
What else? (And play nice!)”
* * *
Need not even deal with Vatican II.
For example, just think of trying to cajole the hierarchy to embrace the decrees of Trent in, say, 1465. Or 1365. Et cet. That would have touched off quite a fight, don’t you think?



report abuse
 

TonyDoc

posted August 30, 2005 at 4:03 pm


Boy, this discussion is getting interesting! Just a couple of points.
1)In one of his interview texts (I can’t recall which), then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave a great explanation on the ins and outs of excommunication. He stressed that the nature of the punishment is to draw the offender back to the bosom of the Church by pointing out the seriousness of their offense. If the offender recants, then the excommunication is lifted–and it does not necessarily assume that the excommunicate was “right.” If B-16 (who negotiated the Protocol that Lefebvre signed and then spurned) lifts the SSPX excommunications, it will be because he judges they have abandoned the schismatic attitudes which made them excommunicate in 1988. It will be no black mark on the judgment of JP-2.
2)Thank you for that excerpt from the letter of Bp. Williamson. As an act of charity and filial devotion to “Eternal Rome,” may I suggest that Bp. Fellay leave him out of any reconciliation agreement with Rome?



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 30, 2005 at 4:16 pm


Tony – a thought occurred to me…
That should this work, Williamson would go off about a “betrayal” and remove himself from a reconciliation — and in the process, the “Williamson problem” (if we may call it that) would be dealt with, especially to the extent his own behavior served to discredit him.
(I wasn’t actually aware of him being a freakazoid; I am simply relying on what others are saying here.)



report abuse
 

julian

posted August 30, 2005 at 5:07 pm


Anyway, I think it’s a given that Williamson will split. If he refuses to accept the idea that girls can wear trousers or go to college, then I don’t think he’ll like what’s going on in the Church today. Also, since he – like many SSPX clerics – is still hung up on John Paul II’s Assisi meeting, he’ll probably not react well to Benedict’s various apostolic voyages to date.



report abuse
 

Kenjiro Shoda

posted August 30, 2005 at 6:41 pm


As interesting as all these comments are lamenting this or that in the Church today, or opposing this or that or defending whatever…it that had the Church maintained all the purity of its Faith for the last 40 years intsead of warping into the creature we all comment about in these columns…all of us would have nothing to comment/gripe/lament/ criticize/ or argue about. We would all miss contributing to a fine site like this….but we would all be happy with our Church and I think that would be a good trade.
I am too young to remember the Tridentine Latin Mass growing up in Japan, but I attended it here in Philadelphia area and would never go back to the Novus Ordo. When I researched and found out how Protestant-inspired it actually is, I was stunned. “How could a Pope ever do something like this?” I thought.
Obedience is fine in the Church, but not at the expense of watching the whole structure of the Church come tumbling down, which has happened under the watch of Paul VI and John Paul II (the Great….I don’t think so).
Archbishop Lefebvre had the courage to stand up for the Truth of the Faith…to point out the very grave danger to the Faith Vatican II and the Novus Ordo is (and how protestant it really is). He risked everything to stand for the Faith. he was branded a heretic, schismatic, traitor, lunatic, etc. but never waivered. Only Saints can do that.
Funny thing is that the Society He established is enourmously influential and powerful in some parts of the world despite its small size. It is tremendously respected in the Phillipines,France, Mexico, India, and Japan. It’s seminaries are flourishing, and it has helped many religious Orders re-found traditionalist branches to save their Orders from extinction.
I hope someday, those who cry “Obedience to the Pope and the Council” at any cost regardless, or “You can’t be a Catholic and disobey the Pope”, take a good hard look at the Church as it was in 1958, and the wreck it is now and objectively step back and say “Thank you Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X for attempting to save our Catholic Church”.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted August 30, 2005 at 8:36 pm


Hmmm. Now Amy, why exactly are we being enCouraged to read a blogger (Whispers in the Loggia) who (if you scroll down the screen far enough) is very vaguely and faux-innocently implying something not so very nice about our beloved Pope Benedict VI? I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of his posts I’m referring to.



report abuse
 

Ken

posted August 30, 2005 at 10:59 pm


but never waivered. Only Saints can do that.
No, psychotics do it as well. I spent 15 years working with those folks and assure you that a fixed delusion is, indeed, fixed.
The real Catholic saints have submitted their personal opinions to the authority of the Church. They sometimes lived in periods of Church history as disturbing as our own, but managed to trust that God guides his Church, through the bishops in Communion with Peter.



report abuse
 

james jeffers

posted October 10, 2005 at 11:25 am


I have heard that Archbishop Thuc had publicly stated that when he consecrated traditionalist bishops after Vatican II, that he withheld his intention. Is there any evidence of this?
Thanks.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted October 24, 2005 at 5:28 pm


St. Thomas Aquinas said the last temptation to face priests in the last days would be “politics” which is another way of saying HUMAN RESPECT.
Now I came to Tradition in 1995. But I heard someone lament that stalwart catholics were lawfully working within the Church for 20 years (1969-89) to restore Tradition to its rightful place in the Church, then in one masterful POLITICAL stroke the enemies INSIDE the Vatican divided Trads into 2 camps – those with the Pope, and those “against the Pope”.
What does it mean to be against the pope? Whatever the Revolution (now surrounding the Papal throne) deems it to be.
I tell conservative novus ordo catholics that in a CHURCH APPROVED apparition in Akita, Japan, Our Lady said “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.”
The SSPX’s situation is a fulfillment of Akita. They would not compromise the FAITH. Now, many catholics don’t know the 4 marks of the Church, namely, that She is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The 4 marks are NOT exclusive to the SSPX, but certainly the SSPX possesses all 4. I left the Indult compromise for the SSPX because of the “sins of the tongue” I heard the Indult crowd level against Abp. Lefebvre and the 4 bishops. They put words into Bsp. Williamson’s mouth directly contrary to what I heard the man say on tapes. The Indult crowd’s sin of rash judgement led me to examine the SSPX more closely.
A friend of mine ran into liberal Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee in an airport. My friend asked his Excellency if Abp. Lefebvre was really excommunicated. Weakland answered “of course not, but HE LEFT US NO OTHER CHOICE.” This answer to me is an admission that Abp. Lefebvre’s only crime was to be catholic. But he wouldn’t play politics, so he and the 4 bishops “had to go” out of the new dogma-less church being constructed by the “one world” crowd.
In a way, its a blessing. For if the SSPX is “excommunicated” then Rome cannot order them in anyway. That is Providential. The principles of 1789′s French Revolution have been brought into the Vatican II church. Charismatic Cardinal Suenens of Belgium even admitted this. He lauded it, in fact.
God bless the SSPX! They will save the West.



report abuse
 

Pregnant, Barefoot, and Loving It

posted October 24, 2005 at 10:00 pm


Big DITTO Mike! I had to post this because many Catholics today, women and men, need some major education. Women are too busy being men and men are too occupied with how to get away from their “manly” duties! I can’t do this letter any justice by quoting his Excellency, so I’m posting the unabridged version.
Bishop Williamson’s Letters
Girls at University
Emancipation’s Mess of Pottage (Gen. XXV, 29-34)
Winona, September 1, 2001
Dear Friends and Benefactors:
Canadians strike me as a gentle people; but “strike” is the word! Ten yeas ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university. The answer now to the second question may be as stormy as the answer to the first:- because of all kinds of natural reasons, almost no girl should go to any university!
The deep-down reason is the same as for the wrongness of women’s trousers: the unwomaning of woman. The deep-down cause in both cases is that Revolutionary man has betrayed modem woman; since she is not respected and loved for being a woman, she tries to make herself a man. Since modem man does not want her to do what God meant her to do, namely to have children, she takes her revenge by invading all kinds of things that man is meant to do. What else was to be expected? Modem man has only himself to blame.
In fact, only in modern times have women dreamt of going to university, but the idea has now become so normal that even Catholics, whose Faith guards Nature, may have difficulty in seeing the problem. However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests – can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.
NATURE OF UNIVERSITIES
Let us begin with the true university. As defined by Cardinal Newman in his famous “Idea of a University”, it is “a place of teaching universal knowledge”. Universities in this sense were a creation of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and, as the Cardinal splendidly recalls, theology held pride of place there because, as science of the Supreme Being, it is the supreme science which alone can appoint to all other sciences their proper place. So a true university is a place for all-round learning of reality beneath the queenship of Catholic theology. The value of sciences and this need of theirs for theology is why the Catholic Church is always tending to create universities, and why she alone can create true universities, directing all study ultimately to the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
From which, one must question what kind of queenship can be exercised by Novus Ordo theologians, even conservative. Normally, “conservative” Catholics who have left Tradition are in bad faith, so will be bad teachers, while those who have never known Tradition will be ignorant, and so bad teachers. Both will make a point of “rescuing” a damsel in”schismatic” or “excommunicated” distress. Therefore a Traditional girl putting herself under “conservative” teachers will, to keep her Faith, require a special effort to resist the menfolk whom God designed (and her parents paid) her to follow. She will then be voluntarily so setting her true Catholic Faith against her true feminine nature that one or the other is almost bound to suffer.
It also follows from the queenship of Theology that a democratic age like ours, rejecting God and dethroning Theology, will make a nonsense of universities. Sure enough. All around us we see “universities” which are much worse than brothels, because not only does democratic “equality” indiscriminately herd there together all kinds of boys and girls with little or no interest in ideas so that they should not be studying in the first place, but also, by silencing Theology and rendering Philosophy ridiculous, these “universities” corrupt the highest part of the youngsters’ nature, their minds, leaving their lower nature with little or no means of resisting the aided and abetted promiscuity of the two young sexes. Survey the waste on any “university” campus today – feckless unmen and trashy unwomen whose noblest activity is throwing frisbees at one another!
Such “universities” dedicated to the defiance of God and Nature, make mincemeat of the youngsters’ Faith (if they had any), of their morals and of their common sense. Poor parents. But they have mocked God, and God is not mocked. Obviously no boy, let alone any girl, should be sent to such a “university”. What needs to be proved is that even to a decent university, if such could be found, few or no girls should be sent. This is because of the God-given nature of girls. Which, despite today’s massive propaganda to the contrary, is quite different from the God-given nature of boys!
NATURE OF GIRLS
For a sane grasp of woman’s nature, let me appeal to the Church’s Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, distant now by three-quarters of a millennium from our own disturbed times. The three reasons he gives in his Summa Theologiae (2a, 2ae, 177,2) why woman should not teach in Church in public can all be applied to why she should not teach or learn in a public university. Firstly, he says, teaching is for superiors, and women are- not to be superior, but subject, to their men (Gen III,16). Secondly, women stepping up to teach in public can easily inflame men’s lust (Ecclus IX,11). Thirdly, “Women are not usually (“communiter”) perfect in wisdom”.
To grasp these three reasons, let us back up another five millennia, to Adam and Eve. Since the word “nature” comes from the Latin word for “being born”, then to study a thing’s nature one goes back to its birth. Eve was created by God to be a “help” to Adam (Gen. 11,18). She was to help him, says St Thomas Aquinas elsewhere (1a,92,1), not for any other work than that of generation (or reproduction), because for any other work man could be more suitably helped by another man. It follows that woman’s nature is intrinsically geared to motherhood, so that in all things pertaining to motherhood she is man’s superior, in all else she is his inferior, and in none of all the things in which the two sexes are complementary are they equal.
Now to attract a man so as to marry and become a mother, to nurture and rear children and to retain their father, she needs superior gifts of feeling and instinct, e.g. sensitivity, delicacy, tact, perspicacity, tenderness, etc. by which her mind will correspondingly be swayed, which is why no husband can understand how the mind of his wife works! For to do the work of generation, i.e. to ensure nothing less than the survival and continuation of mankind, God designed her mind to run on a complementary and different basis from her man’s. His mind is designed not to be swayed by feelings but on the contrary to control them, so that while his feelings may be inferior to hers, his reason is superior. And reason being meant to rule in rational beings, then he is natured to rule over her (Gen. III, 16), as can be seen for example whenever she needs to resort to him for her feelings not to get out of control.
Correspondingly, while she senses family (and loves to talk about it), he responds to the world around and wants to master it (Gen II,15,19,20). While she is people-oriented, he is reality-oriented. (How often will a woman pull an idea or a question of reality back to family! – “You’re against drink? You’re attacking my husband!” This is in woman’s nature. One does not mock her for it.) So while she is queen of feeling within the home, he must be king of reason over the home. So while he must love her and listen to her, at the end of the day she must obey him, because he is natured to take the broader view and to be the more reasonable (Eph V 22,25: Col III, 18,19).
FIRST REASON
Now what does a university call for? Whereas in modem “universities” the males all believe in “if it feels good, do it,” which is why they are, as they wish, overrun by feeling females, on the contrary in a true university one thinks about universal reality, which is the prerogative of men. A woman can think in this way, or do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be properly thinking as woman. The dilemma is inescapable: she cannot do what is properly men’s thinking or work without cutting across her deepest nature. Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.
Moreover, true university thinking tends to produce leaders because true students have pondered on more or less universal reality. Cardinal Newman may argue that the cultivated mind is an end in itself, but if Mother Church has always raised universities, is it not because an elite of all-round minds will in any society powerfully help many souls to get to Heaven, if those minds’ studying has been governed over all by the true Faith? But women are neither meant, nor normally gifted, to be leaders! Therefore girls should not be at university. As for a Queen Isabella the Catholic, Spain was her family and she never went to university! Nor did Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna or Joan of Arc.
Concretely, if a girl devotes several years of her youth and much money of her parents to acquiring a university education, especially a decent one, how easily will she submit to her husband, especially if he has not had that education? And how may she not argue with him if he has had it? And if she has a “degree”, how will she not think herself above the multiple humiliations of being “barefoot and pregnant”? And if she is a “graduate”, how will she not hold-herself superior to being-a “vegetable at the-kitchen-sink”? And if making a family makes her forget in the right kind of way all about “graduating”, “degrees” and “university”, why go there in the first place? The dilemma is inescapable: in doing manly things like going to a university, either she is merely going through the motions or she is damaging her potential for motherhood – conclusion: she should not go there.
SECOND REASON
We come to St Thomas’ second reason: the inflaming of lust. Enough said about today’s unibrothels. What will happen if heaps of boys and girls are thrown together with mention of God even forbidden is massive common sense, but that is not the whole story!
Just suppose that a decent girl can find a decent university which is cultivating on a broad front minds of an elite of boys who will provide tomorrows world with its leaders. If she is smart enough to study, will she not be smart enough to know that even if she does not wish to distract the boys, she will still be a distraction? To this reason there is no exception. So if she is that decent, will she not prefer to hang back from distracting the future leaders that she and all her society tomorrow will need? Then the more decent the university, will she not the more keep away? What woman can be imagined taking part in Plato’s Dialogues? Not even the Blessed Virgin Mary took part in the Last Supper. Girls at university are a double source of confusion, both doing what girls were not created to do, and distracting the boys from doing what the boys were created to do.
At any true university, the worthwhile students do not want to be distracted by girls. Those are exactly the potential husbands that the really intelligent girls will go after. That is why even really intelligent girls should not be at university.
THIRD REASON
For indeed – St. Thomas’s third reason – “women are not usually perfect in wisdom”. This is because woman’s family-wisdom is priceless, it comes straight from God, but it is as wisdom, because it orders only a part of reality.
Woman’s thinking is subjective, inward, intuitive, concrete, small-scale, with a gift for loving details. University thinking needs to be objective, outward, rational, abstract, large-scale, with a drive towards the grand principles. Her thinking follows her heart. University thinking can only follow the head. While a university professor is teaching, the boy will be listening to and learning from the words but the girl will naturally be listening to the man and learning by osmosis. Only by an effort will she listen to the words, because her heart is elsewhere – usually on the boys. Naturally docile and possibly possessed of more than sufficient brains, she can always do a good imitation of a good student, especially if she wishes to please a particular male professor. Nor, again, should she be mocked for that, insofar as God designed her to please and to attract – a husband. Rarely, however, will the impressive studentess be a really good student, because the Lord God simply designed her heart and mind for a quite other task. Girls, do you really want to spend so much of your time and of your parents’ money on doing something God almost for sure did not mean you to be doing?
OBJECTIONS
But Pius XII encouraged you to make the best of being forced out into the world? – Maybe he was making the best of an already bad situation in the 1940′s and 1950′s, when he hoped women would bring to bear their femininity on the public domain. However, by the definitions of “feminine” and “public”, that is a contradiction in terms. Fifty years later, who can deny that the public domain has de-feminized, woman? As a friend said, “Women used to have careers open to them only in nursing and teaching, which they did well. Now they no longer know how to do either!”
It is high time for Catholics to buck the current and to buck the world! Europe, center of Christendom, is collapsing, because European girls are all being taught to go to “university” and to “put off’ having babies! Woman and family are in desperate crisis – do we want to follow the swine over the cliff?
But men today are unfit to lead, so you have to go to university to take their place? – You cannot take their place!!!! (The exception proves the rule). Today you are merely following them into “universities”, tomorrow you will be following them out. By hook or by crook, do something motherly, play your part as God meant you to do, and God can give you back from above the manly leaders and the husband that you pray for and need, but that you cannot by the nature of things wrest to yourselves from below. You cannot restore God’s order by breaking it. Get behind your men! Behind, you have an enormous power to inspire and guide. In front, you will merely make them more irresponsible than ever…
But what about the Dominicans’ school for girls in Idaho? – As much as St Thomas Aquinas disapproves women teaching in public, he approves their teaching in private, in other words at home, “or in a home-like setting”. A university cannot resemble a home, but wise Mothers can keep a girls’ secondary school like a home. See the enclosed flyer for an encouragement to support the same Dominican Mothers’ primary and secondary schooling in France.
But where will girls’ secondary schools find women teachers if no girls go to university? -One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage” – Pius XII’s timeless list, to the Union of Catholic Women, June 24, 1949. Of course if the law of the land, as now in France, demands “university” “diplomas” for women to teach or to open girls’ schools, then some women’s “university” attendance becomes, for the duration of that law, an exceptional necessity. However, exceptions make bad rules!
But what about the co-educational college of the Society of St Pius X at St. Mary’s in Kansas? – It is still a family-scale operation, typical of the true Church’s drive to teach the true Faith in as much depth as possible amidst difficult circumstances, but according as it may expand and rise in the future to a truly university level of teaching, I for one piously hope that the boys will by then be giving such a lead and example, creating such a new world, that the girls will no longer feel any need to attend.
But what are girls in the meantime to do, who have a brain and are not ready to get married? – Let them use their brain: firstly, to grasp how God designed them, and for what role; secondly, to pray God He grant us all some men; thirdly, to read at home on their own (for instance Jane Austen, a classic example of how much domestic woman can do); fourthly, to devise with their parents a feminine place and function where they can mature towards marriage. Or – for Heaven’s sakes – let them think of a vocation! Old saying: “A woman is once a woman, a nun is twice a woman”!
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, domestic girls are not by nature for public universities. Where did modern man go wrong?
As man puts himself in the place of God, so this life on earth blocks out of view any after-life in God’s Heaven or Hell. Man’s pride unchains his inclination to pleasure here below. Self comes first But children – however unconsciously -demand and reward selflessness in their parents. Therefore the children, and the demand, and the reward, most go. But woman’s life is natured to center around children. Therefore woman’s life in particular becomes empty, as does her home, especially if working conditions take her husband also away. She will inevitably follow him into his domains, eg. university, where she is liable to impose female patterns that do not belong, but that are frustrated at home. She will not let her being remain meaningless!
As this letter has often argued, such a breaking of family, home and woman is too deep a violation of Nature for the modem way of life to be able to survive. With men in the lead, Catholics, whose Faith should give them a handle on Nature, will be wise, according to circumstances, to take remedial action now. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
Men, think! Give substance to the home! Girls, I bless you, your parents and all dear readers.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Richard Williamson



report abuse
 

Pregnant, Barefoot, and Loving It

posted October 24, 2005 at 10:26 pm


I forgot to post something important. Some years ago, I was watching a documentary on writers and ecumenism. It caught my attention because one particular female author was talking about how she was brought up by very traditional nuns and right before Vatican II, she was thinking about forging a so-called career and so she had to decide about which university to attend. Lo and behold, her high school teacher in full habit warned her of the dangers of such ambitions in the modern world (the crazy 60′s). The nun told her, that if she wanted to lose her virginity, she should go to a university; if she wanted to lose her faith, go to a university; and finally, if she wanted to lose her soul, then by all means go to a university. Well the blossoming young lady after high school graduation went off to an ivy-league school and lost the first two. I don’t know about the third part because the documentary had no follow-up series, but how I pray, if she is still alive, that she will not lose her soul!
“Star of the stormy sea of my mortal life, may your light shine upon me so that I do not stray from the path that leads me to heaven.”
~ Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, Quito, Ecuador
http://www.OurLadyofGoodSuccess.com



report abuse
 

Pregnant, Barefoot, and Loving It

posted October 24, 2005 at 11:08 pm


Dear David,
I believe you have only a bird’s eye view of the SSPX and you lack substantial knowledge of what actually transpired between the Vatican and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. You need to read the book “Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican” by Rev. François Laisney published by Angelus Press to KNOW the TRUTH.
And in response to your comment on his Excellency, Bishop Richard Williamson, sadly, you can’t recognize a real hero when you see one. The Conciliar Church is so full of “pooftahs” and lavender skirts, that most Novus Ordo Catholics praise the queer and pro-queer clerics and “excommunicate” th REAL MEN. A few days ago, my 10-year old daughter was learning about vertebrae and non-vertebrae species. Bishop Williamson, like St. Pius X and Cardinal Newman, will go down in history as one of the very few Roman Catholic Bishops whose colossal backbone was used as a hammer of heresies!!! Viva Cristo Rey ! ?
?”For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories.”
?”Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”
?”They deem him the worst enemy who tells them the truth.”
~ Plato



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.