I myself was actually present at the Mass with the bishop and the girl with the hat, serving at the altar, and visibly cringed at when he place the mitre on the girl's head. Despite his more modern habits (such as when he visited our church we had to remove our temporary altar rail), a ray of hope does seem to shine through, for his homilies, although usually shrouded in roundabout and strange ways of getting to points, are generally underpinned with a more surprisingly forceful calls to stronger faith. I just wish we could see that in other aspects of his work. God bless.
I am sure in his own way he is serious about the Faith, but he is probably the victim of a terrible (mal)formation in seminary and beyond, and he does't seem to see the connection between faith and tradition, between the interior and the "externals."
I'm also in his diocese. It seems that at every school he visits, he puts his zucchetto on a girl. The miter of course is even bigger and even less appropriate. Agreed about his homilies which tend to be long but not bad. He seems to say some Eucharistic Prayer that starts out as III but changes part way into something else. Agree with Dr. K. (below) that Bishop's formation was during a very confused time (the later 1980s or so) and his priestly background is in schools, except 1 year in a parish. I pray for him daily, for his enlightenment and growth in orthodoxy.
Apropros bad bishops and a bad Pope: I had a most disconcerting experience this week whilst reading Fr Hardon's Catholic Dictionary. Coming across the entry 'ACCLAMATION', I almost fainted thinking our illustrious Pope might revive the old practice, then remembered he had ready done so by other means.
Regarding the Romanesque adornment of churches with iconographic frescoes, it seems like there was less difference between East and West prior to Trent or shortly before. Medieval churches often had rood screens, like Eastern iconostases, and prolific iconographic programs. They also used little to no instruments in liturgical music and hierarchical government was more local and less bureaucratic, similar to the East. Gothic in some ways started the barren quality in Western churches, but one can see from the Sainte-Chapelle how illustrious, both in painting and stained glass, they still were, and in the carving of pews and other pious devotions which A Catholic Pilgrim has shown. During the Renaissance and especially after Trent, screens were removed, art became more classical/less iconographic, music became more diverse and complex, Church governance was increasingly centralized, etc., i.e. more incongruous with the East.
I would agree with you 95%. The 5% difference is that Gothic was not barren at all. Most of the churches were brightly painted, and covered with artworks. The trouble was that after many centuries the artworks had faded or been covered with soot, and so a "dreary gothic" was the impression gained by the Romantics. And sometimes in the Baroque the gothic churches were whitewashed. If you look at today's Chartres after its restoration, you can see just how glorious gothic is capable of being.
Right. Sainte-Chapelle being another excellent example. I think I had in mind the restored Notre Dame de Paris, which seems somewhat barren, but its original art may not have been fully restored.
Yes, I think to a large extent we cannot quite recapture the glory of the Gothic in its original form, though some speculative artistic reconstructions exist.
One of my favorite "speculative artistic reconstructions" is the Victorian neo-Gothic St. Birinus church in Dorchester-on-Thames, complete with rood screen. Unfortunately I can't include a picture of it.
Absolutely!! That is one of my all-time favorite chapels in the world (from photos; haven't ever been there). I am a huge advocate of rood screens, among other things.
You're right that the laity have no business governing priests, at least in matters that pertain to priests alone. But in spiritual matters that concern the laity as well such as the liturgy where corrupt priests have done so much harm to all of us the laity need someone or some group to act like the tribune in the Roman Senate who can veto whatever garbage is coming out of your local chancery or the Vatican.
Yes, I tend to agree. But I see this as a manifestation of the baptismal and confirmation characters, of the sensus fidelium, and of the prophetic charism that is at work in the entire body of the faithful. That is, not a special office for some layman (imagine how quickly whacked THAT could become), but just how the laity respond to garbage by rejecting it, protesting it, witholding donations, and the like. Basically, how the trad movement has been operating for 60 years now, and with a bit of success against a very stubborn hierarchy.
You're right. I suppose that you're correct in that ultimately where the laity has the most impact is simply where and when they vote with their feet. That said I do kind of wish sometimes that we had another Charles V who could take his army and sack the Vatican, or at the very least scare the begeezes out of them
Agreed. I have to think that even somebody as worldly to the bone as Louis XIV would have laughed at Paul VI if he tried to disturb the peace of his realm by messing with the Mass
Thank you for yet another marvelous compilation of news and views! The Bridgettines' Little Office of the Holy Ghost reminds us of the Church's traditional devotion to the Holy Ghost, and of the neglect to which the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is subjected in modern spirituality (even traditional communities nowadays often celebrate Pentecost with a disconcerting lack of emphasis and festal solemnity). In any case, for those who are interested, I wanted to share links to a couple examples of medieval Offices of the Holy Spirit, contained in prayer books intended for the laity:
This one has attractive decorations, and it has a relatively legible script if you want to try to follow the prayers. You might notice, for example, the "emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur" on fol. 206v.
This one begins with a charming illustration of Pentecost, with Our Lady front and center. The marginal decorations are delightful (and rather strange...), and the script is again relatively legible. It begins with the "Domine labia mea aperies..." and the "Deus in adiutorium meum intende...," then the "Gloria Patri," then the invitatory with the antiphon "Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum, venite adoremus, alleluia" and Psalm 94, then the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, then Psalm 1 ("Beatus vir qui non abiit..."), and so forth.
I was interested in your opinion that one ought not to practice NFP at the start of marriage (and tbh not convinced by your reasoning). Is that a view widely held by, you know, 'theological authorities'? I hadn't come across it before.
I'm not resting my claim on any particular authorities. I rest it on the fact that, in the order of nature as in the order of gracae, the reason a man and woman get married is to start a family. If they are getting married principally for some other reason, that's a bad sign. Now, it is one thing to be confronted with a sickness or difficulty once married that may require periodic abstinence; it is another to start marriage healthy and well, but conscientiously defer the primary end of it.
I'm don't see the warrant for your assumption that the couple must be getting married *principally* for some other reason. (More importantly, for purposes of moral analysis, they are certainly not *in principle* *excluding* the primary end.) I suppose you must reject marriage of post-menopausal women too?
This is clearly not to the point. When people marry who are not able to have children for natural reasons, they are not choosing not to have children. When young people get married, they may reasonably assume that they are fertile, and should not take steps to avoid having a family. The difference in these situations is enormous and obvious.
"should not take steps to avoid having a family" -- right! But what you forgot to mention/failed to notice: delaying the first child is not that. You need to add the word "immediately"; but then you're begging the question. As for non-fertile couples, they are choosing to marry not just principally, but entirely(!) for some other reason than the principal reason for marriage existing.
Scenario A: By all known probability, this young couple can conceive a child, but they get married with the intention of not having a child in the natural course - "later on" they will.
Scenario B: By all known probability, this older couple, or this infertile couple, will not be able to have children, but they get married with the intention of adhering to the other legitimate goods of marriage.
I do not see a problem with B the way I see one with A.
Again, I am not saying that the couple in A are sinning mortally; only that there is here a moral confusion and imperfection that would better be avoided.
The break from Tradition is a direct result of the rejection of the Finality of Truth. And the power of the world has been given to the modernists in the Church by the intelligentsia (Venerable Sheen) and the lukewarm laity/hierarchy. I explain this in greater detail at Canon748.org.
We have a new priest in our church. His first day, he removed the Crusifix from the Altar, told the Altar boy that he didn't have to use the Paten during comunion, removed the Veil from the tabernacle. Weeks later he removed the knealer. Stopped the lienare prayers that the other young Priest used to pray every week days masses, also no longer pray the Saint Michael prayer at he end of mess. My wife asked him if he could bring back the knealer at least during the week, he told her; Definitely Not. We ware devastating with the changes. He's from EU, city near Magigori. He got the same idea as the Bishop, that knealing disrupted the comunion line, slow it down, plus receiving comunion standing and on the hand is more reverend! The seminaries need a big clean up, just as the school's, bad teaching. We can only pray!
I am very sorry to hear about this. It sounds like you now have a progressive or even a modernist for a priest. He is undoing everything his predecessor did to restore Catholic tradition.
I myself was actually present at the Mass with the bishop and the girl with the hat, serving at the altar, and visibly cringed at when he place the mitre on the girl's head. Despite his more modern habits (such as when he visited our church we had to remove our temporary altar rail), a ray of hope does seem to shine through, for his homilies, although usually shrouded in roundabout and strange ways of getting to points, are generally underpinned with a more surprisingly forceful calls to stronger faith. I just wish we could see that in other aspects of his work. God bless.
Thank you for coming here and leaving a comment!
I am sure in his own way he is serious about the Faith, but he is probably the victim of a terrible (mal)formation in seminary and beyond, and he does't seem to see the connection between faith and tradition, between the interior and the "externals."
I'm also in his diocese. It seems that at every school he visits, he puts his zucchetto on a girl. The miter of course is even bigger and even less appropriate. Agreed about his homilies which tend to be long but not bad. He seems to say some Eucharistic Prayer that starts out as III but changes part way into something else. Agree with Dr. K. (below) that Bishop's formation was during a very confused time (the later 1980s or so) and his priestly background is in schools, except 1 year in a parish. I pray for him daily, for his enlightenment and growth in orthodoxy.
Apropros bad bishops and a bad Pope: I had a most disconcerting experience this week whilst reading Fr Hardon's Catholic Dictionary. Coming across the entry 'ACCLAMATION', I almost fainted thinking our illustrious Pope might revive the old practice, then remembered he had ready done so by other means.
Regarding the Romanesque adornment of churches with iconographic frescoes, it seems like there was less difference between East and West prior to Trent or shortly before. Medieval churches often had rood screens, like Eastern iconostases, and prolific iconographic programs. They also used little to no instruments in liturgical music and hierarchical government was more local and less bureaucratic, similar to the East. Gothic in some ways started the barren quality in Western churches, but one can see from the Sainte-Chapelle how illustrious, both in painting and stained glass, they still were, and in the carving of pews and other pious devotions which A Catholic Pilgrim has shown. During the Renaissance and especially after Trent, screens were removed, art became more classical/less iconographic, music became more diverse and complex, Church governance was increasingly centralized, etc., i.e. more incongruous with the East.
I would agree with you 95%. The 5% difference is that Gothic was not barren at all. Most of the churches were brightly painted, and covered with artworks. The trouble was that after many centuries the artworks had faded or been covered with soot, and so a "dreary gothic" was the impression gained by the Romantics. And sometimes in the Baroque the gothic churches were whitewashed. If you look at today's Chartres after its restoration, you can see just how glorious gothic is capable of being.
Right. Sainte-Chapelle being another excellent example. I think I had in mind the restored Notre Dame de Paris, which seems somewhat barren, but its original art may not have been fully restored.
Yes, I think to a large extent we cannot quite recapture the glory of the Gothic in its original form, though some speculative artistic reconstructions exist.
One of my favorite "speculative artistic reconstructions" is the Victorian neo-Gothic St. Birinus church in Dorchester-on-Thames, complete with rood screen. Unfortunately I can't include a picture of it.
Absolutely!! That is one of my all-time favorite chapels in the world (from photos; haven't ever been there). I am a huge advocate of rood screens, among other things.
You're right that the laity have no business governing priests, at least in matters that pertain to priests alone. But in spiritual matters that concern the laity as well such as the liturgy where corrupt priests have done so much harm to all of us the laity need someone or some group to act like the tribune in the Roman Senate who can veto whatever garbage is coming out of your local chancery or the Vatican.
Yes, I tend to agree. But I see this as a manifestation of the baptismal and confirmation characters, of the sensus fidelium, and of the prophetic charism that is at work in the entire body of the faithful. That is, not a special office for some layman (imagine how quickly whacked THAT could become), but just how the laity respond to garbage by rejecting it, protesting it, witholding donations, and the like. Basically, how the trad movement has been operating for 60 years now, and with a bit of success against a very stubborn hierarchy.
You're right. I suppose that you're correct in that ultimately where the laity has the most impact is simply where and when they vote with their feet. That said I do kind of wish sometimes that we had another Charles V who could take his army and sack the Vatican, or at the very least scare the begeezes out of them
At least until we have a proper "secular arm" again!
It was wonderful when you had emperors who could say to popes: "Clean up your act, or I'll come into Rome and kick butt."
Can you imagine?
Pope Francis wouldn't have lasted a week if we still had Christian kings.
Agreed. I have to think that even somebody as worldly to the bone as Louis XIV would have laughed at Paul VI if he tried to disturb the peace of his realm by messing with the Mass
Thank you for yet another marvelous compilation of news and views! The Bridgettines' Little Office of the Holy Ghost reminds us of the Church's traditional devotion to the Holy Ghost, and of the neglect to which the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is subjected in modern spirituality (even traditional communities nowadays often celebrate Pentecost with a disconcerting lack of emphasis and festal solemnity). In any case, for those who are interested, I wanted to share links to a couple examples of medieval Offices of the Holy Spirit, contained in prayer books intended for the laity:
https://manuscripts.thewalters.org/viewer.php?id=W.177#page/414/mode/1up
This one has attractive decorations, and it has a relatively legible script if you want to try to follow the prayers. You might notice, for example, the "emitte spiritum tuum et creabuntur" on fol. 206v.
https://manuscripts.thewalters.org/viewer.php?id=W.90#page/273/mode/1up
This one begins with a charming illustration of Pentecost, with Our Lady front and center. The marginal decorations are delightful (and rather strange...), and the script is again relatively legible. It begins with the "Domine labia mea aperies..." and the "Deus in adiutorium meum intende...," then the "Gloria Patri," then the invitatory with the antiphon "Spiritus domini replevit orbem terrarum, venite adoremus, alleluia" and Psalm 94, then the hymn Veni Creator Spiritus, then Psalm 1 ("Beatus vir qui non abiit..."), and so forth.
Wonderful! Thank you, Robert, for these links!
I wrote something once at 1P5 called "Did the Church ‘Forget’ the Holy Spirit until the ’60s?"
https://onepeterfive.com/forget-holy-spirit/
I was interested in your opinion that one ought not to practice NFP at the start of marriage (and tbh not convinced by your reasoning). Is that a view widely held by, you know, 'theological authorities'? I hadn't come across it before.
I'm not resting my claim on any particular authorities. I rest it on the fact that, in the order of nature as in the order of gracae, the reason a man and woman get married is to start a family. If they are getting married principally for some other reason, that's a bad sign. Now, it is one thing to be confronted with a sickness or difficulty once married that may require periodic abstinence; it is another to start marriage healthy and well, but conscientiously defer the primary end of it.
I'm don't see the warrant for your assumption that the couple must be getting married *principally* for some other reason. (More importantly, for purposes of moral analysis, they are certainly not *in principle* *excluding* the primary end.) I suppose you must reject marriage of post-menopausal women too?
This is clearly not to the point. When people marry who are not able to have children for natural reasons, they are not choosing not to have children. When young people get married, they may reasonably assume that they are fertile, and should not take steps to avoid having a family. The difference in these situations is enormous and obvious.
"should not take steps to avoid having a family" -- right! But what you forgot to mention/failed to notice: delaying the first child is not that. You need to add the word "immediately"; but then you're begging the question. As for non-fertile couples, they are choosing to marry not just principally, but entirely(!) for some other reason than the principal reason for marriage existing.
Scenario A: By all known probability, this young couple can conceive a child, but they get married with the intention of not having a child in the natural course - "later on" they will.
Scenario B: By all known probability, this older couple, or this infertile couple, will not be able to have children, but they get married with the intention of adhering to the other legitimate goods of marriage.
I do not see a problem with B the way I see one with A.
Again, I am not saying that the couple in A are sinning mortally; only that there is here a moral confusion and imperfection that would better be avoided.
The break from Tradition is a direct result of the rejection of the Finality of Truth. And the power of the world has been given to the modernists in the Church by the intelligentsia (Venerable Sheen) and the lukewarm laity/hierarchy. I explain this in greater detail at Canon748.org.
We have a new priest in our church. His first day, he removed the Crusifix from the Altar, told the Altar boy that he didn't have to use the Paten during comunion, removed the Veil from the tabernacle. Weeks later he removed the knealer. Stopped the lienare prayers that the other young Priest used to pray every week days masses, also no longer pray the Saint Michael prayer at he end of mess. My wife asked him if he could bring back the knealer at least during the week, he told her; Definitely Not. We ware devastating with the changes. He's from EU, city near Magigori. He got the same idea as the Bishop, that knealing disrupted the comunion line, slow it down, plus receiving comunion standing and on the hand is more reverend! The seminaries need a big clean up, just as the school's, bad teaching. We can only pray!
I am very sorry to hear about this. It sounds like you now have a progressive or even a modernist for a priest. He is undoing everything his predecessor did to restore Catholic tradition.
I had an awful realisation tonight: if Pope Benedict XVI would have held on, there is no doubt by his death, the Bergolio danger would have passed.
If the pointed miter symbolizes the Spirit's tongues of fire maybe she was the one who had it just then.