New status for the Pont. Comm. “Ecclesia Dei”?

 

The French paper Le Croix has an article speculating that the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" will undergo a change of status.

What are the main points of the article?  Keep in mind that this is the article, and not my predictions, though I agree with some of them.

  • The Pont. Comm. (PCED) has competence in the implementation of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum.
  • The PCED will probably be given a stronger set of statutes.  [In years past the Secretariate of State had somewhat limited what the PCED could really do in contrast to what it could do on paper.]
  • The PCED will act as a kind of court of appeal.
  • The PCED will respond to questions.
  • The PCED will still handle the cases of groups of religious.
  • The PCED will perhaps become a Pontifical Council.

Furthermore, I personally think that the Council will be renamed.  I can’t imagine that they would retain this name of "Ecclesia Dei", after the 1988 Motu Proprio of John Paul II Ecclesia Dei adflicta provoked by the illicit episcopal consecration.  That name itself harks to the very issue that Summorum Pontificum seeks to heal.  So, a change of name is in order.

What could the new Commission be called, I wonder?  I bet readers here have suggestions.

Be nice.  Remember the Rules.

 

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to New status for the Pont. Comm. “Ecclesia Dei”?

  1. clayton says:

    The Pontifical Council for the Ancient Use

  2. danphunter1 says:

    Ecclesiam Purificas.

  3. Florida John says:

    The Pontifical Council for the Extraordinary Form of the Eucharist

  4. mike says:

    How about “The NFL” under Commissioner Zuhlsdorf. Fines of $500,000 when the coach cheats. Team!

    m

  5. danphunter1 says:

    The Holy Office.

  6. Berolinensis says:

    I agree with Clayton: Preferably “Pontificium Consilium de (or, even better, pro) usu antiquiore”. Or “Pontificum Consilium de (ritus Romani) usu extraordinario”. Not realistically, but expressing the Holy Father’s intention: “Pontificium Consilium de reconciliatione interiore”.

  7. Tom S. says:

    Pontifical Council for Catholic Identity and Revival – or – Pontifical Council for the Revival of Catholic Identity.

    Father Z. is right, I believe. The restoration of Catholic identity is what this is all about.

  8. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    Congregatio pro exsecutione et interpretatione de motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum”

    (vel “Congregatio Summorum Pontificum”)

  9. Tim Ferguson says:

    This could be difficult, since the dicastery would have a sort of anomalous authority – over certain liturgical things, as well as religious orders, and some legal interpretation and, if you will, ecumenical outreach to schismatic and irregular bodies. I suppose Council for the Extraordinary Use would be the easiest name.

    An argument could be made for the fact that the name of the dicastery need not specifically mention the tasks of that dicastery, as in the Council Cor Unum. Perhaps the Council of the Hermenuetic of Continuity? or Simply the Council of Continuity.

    Has anyone else noticed that on the Vatican Website, under the tab for the Roman Curia, there’s not a title for “Offices” between the Synod of Bishops and the Pontifical Commissions, but, as yet, there are no “Offices” linked there? Any idea what this might mean, or what might be going there?

  10. Tim Ferguson says:

    forget the last part of my comment, the link to “Offices” is there, but can only be accessed from the main page of the curia, and it lists the Apostolic Camera, the prefecture for Economic Affairs and the Administration of the Patrimony. Nothing new, just a little bit of a website glitch.

  11. Now, this is just a thought.
    Don’t everyone get themselves in a state.
    But, supposing there is a change in the status of the “Ecclesis Dei” Commission, does it necessarily have to become a permanent discastery ?
    Could the Congregation for Divine Worship and The Sacraments not do the job ?
    I don’t know.
    I said it was just a thought.

  12. milanta says:

    Let’s think beyond:

    Pontifical Council Sacramentum Caritatis

  13. dcs says:

    Sacred Congregation of Rites.

  14. James Straight says:

    I have thought for some time that the PCED would somehow eventually be integrated into the CDWDS.

  15. Tim: as in the Council Cor Unum. Perhaps the Council of the Hermenuetic of Continuity?

    ROFL!

    I will share that with Fr. Finigan instantly!

  16. Daniel Preciado says:

    Yes, yes, yes… Eventually the PCED will be integrated to the CDWDS. It will. (Or I have a little too much enthusiam…)

  17. michigancatholic@hotmail.com says:

    I think that before it is integrated into the Congregation for Worship & the Sacraments (or any other pre-existing structure), some real changes have to happen in the destination congregation. After all, it was under the existing Congregation, that they could not get the Catholic identity and worship mess straightened out for whatever reasons.

    I am very happy to have the PCED in charge of this, for now. Pope Benedict is in charge of this, and this issue is very near to his heart, I believe. So just keep praying for him and the church, and it will be fine.

  18. Syriacus says:

    Congregatio pro Traditionibus Occidentalibus

  19. Andrew says:

    In an ideal world it would be dismissed because it would have nothing to do.

  20. Wm. Christopher Hoag says:

    While we are at this whole business, could we not just reorganise the curia?

    …Say…

    SACRED Congregation of the Holy Office and Universal Inquisition
    SACRED Congregation of Rites
    Congregation of the Council
    Congregation de Propaganda Fide
    Congregation of the Index
    Congregation of
    SACRED Penitentiaria
    Apostolic Signatura
    Camera Apostolica
    Cancellaria Apostolica
    etc.

  21. Timothy James says:

    What Does Summorum Pontificum Really Say?

  22. Legisperitus says:

    I’d rather see the CDWDS merged into the PCED!

  23. Mark says:

    Timothy:

    It says: Of The Supreme Pontiffs or The Supreme Pontiff’s (Genitive Plural).

    In Christo fratrem tuus,

    Mark

  24. “Illicit episcopal consecrations”

    Yes, Father. “Illicit” in the eyes of the Novus Ordo hierarchy and priests, but very “licit” in the eyes of God.

  25. Tim Ferguson says:

    Wm. Christopher Hoag, while returning the appelation “sacred” to the Congregations might not be a bad idea, returning the curia wholesale to some earlier form ignores the reality of history – many of the more recent introductions to and reforms of the Curia have value and the Curia ought not suffer the fly in amber treatment – as the arms and legs of the Pope, they need to be adapted not only to the demands of the times, but also the needs and desires of each particular pope.

    Nearly every pope has introduced some alteration into the Curia – either creating or disbanding dicasteries, or transferring duties from one to another. In fact, there’s an ancient joke that goes: What was the first thing St. Peter did when he arrived in Rome? He set about to reform the Roman Curia.

    And Ecclesia Militans – what you seem to be arguing is the very relativism that has been so destructive to modern society. It is an objective fact that the episcopal consecrations that Fr. Zuhlsdorf mentions were illicit. It’s not a matter of one’s point of view.

  26. Tim,

    If we are strictly speaking from a canonical perspective, then yes the consecrations were illicit. But one thing can be canonically illicit and still morally licit.

    The consecrations were morally licit because every bishop accepted Vatican II and the New Mass, except Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer. Archbishop Lefebvre was instrumental in preserving the Tridentine Mass. Anybody who claims otherwise is either ignorant or just a plain liar!

  27. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    How’s this:

    Consilium Instaurare omnia in Christo?

  28. vacath says:

    – Pontifical Council for Liturgical Authenticity
    — Pontifical Council of the Liturgy Ever Ancient Ever New

    Tim, Pontifical Council for Liturgical Continuity?

  29. hugh says:

    How about:

    Pontifical Council Coram Te (Coll: “In Your Face”) ?

    Sorry … just reacting to a few hostile bishops’ incredibly narrow readings of SP I’ve read on this blog.

  30. Jeff says:

    PCFWOLA Pontifical Council for Wiping Out Liturgical Abuse

  31. Marc says:

    I wonder if PCED won’t be raised to the status of a congregation, a la the old Congregation of the Council, and given the responsibility for ensuring the authentic interpretation of… it would be difficult to square such an office’s functions with those of offices already existing et cetera.

  32. RBrown says:

    If we are strictly speaking from a canonical perspective, then yes the consecrations were illicit. But one thing can be canonically illicit and still morally licit.

    That’s true, but it doesn’t apply in this case.

    The consecrations were morally licit because every bishop accepted Vatican II and the New Mass, except Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Meyer. Archbishop Lefebvre was instrumental in preserving the Tridentine Mass. Anybody who claims otherwise is either ignorant or just a plain liar!
    Comment by Ecclesia Militans

    Yours is the classic argument of proportionalism, which tries to justify evil by the good that can result.

    Just because something is morally useful doesn’t make it morally licit. For example, it is morally useful when a very powerful liberal bishop dies. But that doesn’t make it morally licit to have him murdered.

    Thus the episcopal consecrations by Msgr Lefebvre were morally illicit even though they were morally useful.

    Having said that, the circumstances in the Church (including the persecution of the SSPX) certainly would mitigate culpability.

  33. Publius says:

    I really like Timothy’s idea: “Pontifical Commission WDSPRS–What Does Summorum Pontificum Really Say?”, with its own website and blog: http://www.wdsprs.va/blog! ;-)

  34. Mr. R. Brpwn,

    Give your argument to St. Athanasius who was excommunicated several times by the pope and yet continued the Faith, despite his condemnation.

    An evil act results from an abuse of the object of the act, its circumstances, and/or the intention. To consecrate a bishop (object of the act) is obviously a good thing. To do so during a crisis is still also a good thing. The intention to preserve the Faith is definitely a good thing. Archbishop Lefebvre positively (i.e., for the good) fulfilled all three conditions. When only two bishops in the WHOLE world rejected the errors of Vatican II and the New Mass, would you not say that continuing the Faith despite the condemnations, is a good thing? To say otherwise is preposterous.

    My question to people that think like you is this:

    What the heck would it take before the good Archbishop would be JUSTIFIED in consecrating?

    He did the right thing and at the right time.

    Deo Gratias!

    One day you will be praying to St. Marcel Lefebvre!

  35. Jordan Potter says:

    EM said: What the heck would it take before the good Archbishop would be JUSTIFIED in consecrating?

    It would take getting permission from the Pope.

    To consecrate a bishop (object of the act) is obviously a good thing.

    Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it is a bad thing. Even if some good has come from Msgr. Lefebvre’s sin, it doesn’t justify what he did.

    When only two bishops in the WHOLE world rejected the errors of Vatican II and the New Mass, would you not say that continuing the Faith despite the condemnations, is a good thing?

    IF Vatican II taught any errors, it would of course be good to reject those errors. The Catholic Church, however, does not believe that Vatican II taught any errors. But rejecting the New Mass, and a valid Oecumenical Council, is not something any Catholic should do, and if only two bishops in the whole world rejected Vatican II and the New Mass, that is a good thing.

    As for Archbishop Lefebvre and his alleged likeness to St. Athanasius the Great, I would not be so rash as to put Archbishop Lefebvre or anyone else in his company. And St. Athanasius never committed any schismatic acts that I’m aware of, despite his unjust condemnation.

  36. RBrown says:

    An evil act results from an abuse of the object of the act, its circumstances, and/or the intention. To consecrate a bishop (object of the act) is obviously a good thing.

    Consecrating a bishop is a good thing when the candidate for episcopal consecration is proper. Thus it’s not a good to consecrate a bishop who is a practicing homosexual, or a thief, or a liar.

    Similarly, to consecrated a bishop without permission of the Holy See is a schismatic act, which is not a good thing.

    To do so during a crisis is still also a good thing. The intention to preserve the Faith is definitely a good thing. Archbishop Lefebvre positively (i.e., for the good) fulfilled all three conditions. When only two bishops in the WHOLE world rejected the errors of Vatican II and the New Mass, would you not say that continuing the Faith despite the condemnations, is a good thing? To say otherwise is preposterous.

    See above. Your presumption about the goodness of the moral object in a schistmatic act is erroneous.

    My question to people that think like you is this:

    What the heck would it take before the good Archbishop would be JUSTIFIED in consecrating?

    Simple–permission of the Holy See so that it wouldn’t be a schismatic act.

    He did the right thing and at the right time.
    Deo Gratias!

    Rome was ready to give him what he wanted before the schismatic consecrations.

    One day you will be praying to St. Marcel Lefebvre!
    Comment by Ecclesia Militans

    I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

    BTW, I met Msgr Lefebvre in 1972-3 when I was at Fontgombault.

  37. “Despite his unjust condemnation”

    Just as the Archbishop was unjustly condemned.

    Jordan,

    You are a perfect puppet of the Vatican II church.

  38. RBrown,

    Perhaps you should get more training in moral theology. The goodness of the object of the act does not depend on the circumstances or intention. If an act is objectively evil, then it is INHERENTLY evil and thereby cannot be justified for whatever reason. Understanding this first, you should then come to understand that the object of Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s act was simply the consecration of a bishop. Period. The fact that he did it without the pope’s permission relates to the circumstances of the consecration. Furthermore, if you know your Canon Law, you will see that the consecration of a bishop without permission does NOT fall under acts of schism. You probably read that error in that canonically and theologically erroneous document called “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta”.

    You and Jordan should read the life of St. Athanasius. Then you will learn that in times of crisis the breaking of Canon Law could be justified. Since you fail to realize the serious crisis we are in, you speak as you do. One day you will learn the truth.

    God bless

  39. RBrown says:

    RBrown,

    Perhaps you should get more training in moral theology. The goodness of the object of the act does not depend on the circumstances or intention. If an act is objectively evil, then it is INHERENTLY evil and thereby cannot be justified for whatever reason. Understanding this first, you should then come to understand that the object of Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s act was simply the consecration of a bishop. Period.

    Nope.

    Your mistake is not distinguishing the moral object as genus and species.

    1. The genus of the moral object can be good or evil. If it is evil, it is malum intrinsicum (e.g., bestiality) and can never be good in its species.

    2. If the genus of the moral object is good, the species can be good or evil. Such an evil is not malum intrinsicum because it is not evil in its action but rather because it lacks a suitable object (secundum obiectum conveniens). This distinction has nothing to do with intention or circumstances.

    For example, the genus “drinking a glass of wine” is good. But if the species is “drinking a sixth glass of wine”, it is evil if inebriation is involved.

    Thus we have the genus “consecrating a bishop”, which is good. But in its species it can be evil when the person consecrated is not suitable (cf obiectum conveniens), e.g., a homosexual or someone disapproved by the Holy See.

    I refer you to ST, Ia-IIae, 18


    The fact that he did it without the pope’s permission relates to the circumstances of the consecration.

    Incorrect. See above.

  40. Jordan Potter says:

    EM said: Just as the Archbishop was unjustly condemned.

    In your opinion. The Church disagrees. It’s difficult to see what could be unjust about excommunicating a bishop who illicitly and unnecessarily consecrates bishops without papal approval, thereby severing his communion with the Holy See and thus with the entire Catholic Church.

    Jordan,

    You are a perfect puppet of the Vatican II church.

    It’s the only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church around, so if you want to fault me for being a faithful member of that Church, go right ahead.

    Since you fail to realize the serious crisis we are in, you speak as you do. One day you will learn the truth.

    When I was a fundamentalistical sectarian heretic, I too spoke as you do, as if “the truth” were an esoteric thing to which only my sect, my party, my clique, were really privy. One day you will learn that the catholic Church is not just a small, elite faithful “remnant” outnumbered by the vast hordes of pseudo-Catholics like me.

    Finally, I’m already familiar with the life of St. Athanasius, which is why I know it is irrelevant to the case of Msgr. Lefebvre’s schism.

  41. danphunter1 says:

    So if someone dies in the state of excommunication are they damned?
    If so, there will never be an St. Archbishop Lefebvre.
    One certainly hopes this is not the case.
    God bless you.

  42. RBrown says:

    So if someone dies in the state of excommunication are they damned?

    No.

  43. Being excommunicated is of no import in and of itself when it comes to canonization.

    If this were so, Athanatius could not be a Saint, nor Joan of Arc, nor
    Cyprian or Hippolytus. Schism is a much more complex issue than
    being a heretic. Even an orthodox Catholic such as Joan of Arc,
    falsely condemned as a heretic at the time by a score of Bishops,
    can be vindicated over time. Lefebre only wanted to practise the faith with his
    small society of priests, Joan of Arc re-ignited an already devastating 100 year national
    war against England, contrary to the Bishops’ orders!

    It always depends on the circumstances.

    For instance, at the time of the Great Western Schism, the Catholic Church was
    so corrupt as an institution, and as a heirarchy, that many canonized Saints
    like Vincent Ferrer found themselves supporting one anti-pope or another.

    In fact, the Pope who would re-unite the Church was himself an unapologetic
    schismatic Cardinal who had voted in an illicit conclave for not one,
    but two successive anti-popes. This “schismatic” – Cardinal Collona would
    become Pope Martin V. Incidentally, Alexander VI (a notoriously corrupt pope)
    himself had viewed the antipope Alexander V as being legitimate pope, taking
    the name of Alexander VI.

    It is up to the Church of the future to decide if the circumstances of late
    Twentieth Century Catholicism, with the benefit of hindsight and clinical study
    were likewise so screwed-up, confusing, and perhaps even immoral from a
    leadership standpoint, to at least vindicate Marcel Lefebvre if not actually
    even canonize him.

    We already have a Pope who has vindicated the man’s lonely thesis that the
    Traditional Mass was never abrogated, the subtantical issue upon which his
    entire “schism” rested, so don’t be so sure of labelling him as a villain.

    We know that all Saints MUST rest on the side of truth, regardless
    of who is pressuring them to do what, even the Pope himself.

  44. Jordan Potter says:

    Matt said: Lefebre only wanted to practise the faith with his
    small society of priests

    Or what he thought the faith to be.

    We already have a Pope who has vindicated the man’s lonely thesis that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated, the subtantical issue upon which his entire “schism” rested, so don’t be so sure of labelling him as a villain.

    No, Msgr. Lefebvre’s schismatic act wasn’t just about the Traditional Mass. But otherwise you are correct: it’s not inconceivable that someday Msgr. Lefebvre might be canonised. It’s not terribly likely, but none can say what might happen a few hundred years from now. It’s rash to assert it with any confidence, however. Deliberately going into a schism, for whatever reason, is definitely a big mark against one.

  45. dcs says:

    If St. Hippolytus can be venerated as a saint, then so might Abp. Lefebvre some day. Leaving aside the issue of the SSPX (and I don’t think His Grace can be held responsible for some of the excesses of the SSPX in the years after his death), he really was one of the greatest missionaries of the XXth century.

    Bickering is pointless. What’s done is done. Can we not admire BOTH Abp. Lefebvre and our Holy Father?

  46. I would never counsel anyone to go into schism,
    Lefevbre included.

    However, the “faith he thought to be” Catholic, despite
    his personal eccentricities, was measureably orthodox
    compared to the legion of Bishops who left the
    Church “in their heart” yet did not have the conviction
    to make that schism open for all to see.

    In my fallible, but not unreasonable opion, those
    Bishops will be judged more severely.

    The million dollar question was why the authorities
    in the Church bent over backwards to appease and
    accomodate apostates like Kung (who to this day
    has never been suspended “ad divinis” for his plethora of
    heresies) while they came down so hard on Lefebvre from day
    one.

    The weight of responsibility for schism falls on both sets
    of shoulders, not just the one who leaves. The responsibility
    of the shepherd is to avoid schism as well, and was this
    truly done and done in true caritas?

    One looks at 1982, and the state of the Church. Like
    1382 did the situation not mitigate the crime of schism?

    I chose 1982 because that was the year I had my First
    Communion.

    My local ordinary was in visible communion with the Holy
    Father, yet my First Communion was invalid – via
    invalid matter – a “honeycake” recipe approved by my
    local Bishop, and used frequently in major events…even
    ordination masses. I committed, unknowinglly, but
    still objectively, a sacrilege and sin of idolatry
    on what was supposed to be a very special day in my life.

    A priest who had a troubled ministry and left in 1993,
    had this bread used at his ordination Mass –
    I know becase my Mom made the bread on that occasion
    (again in 1982) and she showed me the recipe a few years back.

    Eggs, honey ect were in the mix. She did not do this
    knowingly….on the contrary, she did it out of obedience
    to the Bishop’s personal request.

    But still, this terrible thing happened…obedience or no.

    Given, the incredible institutional chaos and breakdown
    of even the basic sacramental life of the Church,
    does not the insanity of the situation not mitigate
    his crime?

  47. ALL: A couple rather awful comments about other commentators have been made under this entry. I have shown a couple people to the door for that.

    Remember: issues, not people. Okay?

  48. Jordan Potter says:

    Matt said: Given, the incredible institutional chaos and breakdown of even the basic sacramental life of the Church,
    does not the insanity of the situation not mitigate
    his crime?

    Perhaps, somewhat. Still, his crime was a part of the institutional chaos, and he can’t be commended for going into one ditch while most others were going into the opposite ditch. (Even though, in many ways, his ditch has much nice flowers along its banks than the other ditch.)

    dcs said: If St. Hippolytus can be venerated as a saint, then so might Abp. Lefebvre some day.

    I know what you’re trying to say — since St. Hippolytus apparently was the first “anti-pope,” and his Christology and Triadology was defective also. Still, unlike Msgr. Lefebvre, St. Hippolytus is a martyr, and I think he was reconciled with the Pope in the salt mines, where the Pope also suffered martyrdom. So his case is not really a good analogy.

  49. RBrown says:

    My local ordinary was in visible communion with the Holy
    Father, yet my First Communion was invalid – via
    invalid matter – a “honeycake” recipe approved by my
    local Bishop, and used frequently in major events…even
    ordination masses. I committed, unknowinglly, but
    still objectively, a sacrilege and sin of idolatry
    on what was supposed to be a very special day in my life.

    A priest who had a troubled ministry and left in 1993,
    had this bread used at his ordination Mass – I know becase my Mom made the bread on that occasion
    (again in 1982) and she showed me the recipe a few years back.

    Eggs, honey ect were in the mix. She did not do this
    knowingly….on the contrary, she did it out of obedience
    to the Bishop’s personal request.

    But still, this terrible thing happened…obedience or no.
    Comment by Matt Robinson

    Hosts are to be made from flour and water.

    Just from what you say, it seems that recipe would have produced illicit matter of doubtful validity. But that’s not invalid matter.

    But: If the eggs, honey, etc., substituted for all or a large quantity of the water, then the matter would have been invalid.

  50. Sean says:

    Pont. Comm. Diversity and Equality Outreach Team

  51. Berolinensis says:

    Matt Robinson:
    What you tell here about the “honeycake” recipe being used for making hosts is very grave and it is indeed very probable that such matter is not only illicit, but invalid. It is hard to beleibve that a bishop should actually allowed, even encouraged this. If you are aware of this “recipe” being still used, you have to report this grave abuse to the new ordinary (bishop), and in case he doesn’t end it, to Rome.

  52. RBrown says:


    What you tell here about the “honeycake” recipe being used for making hosts is very grave and it is indeed very probable that such matter is not only illicit, but invalid.
    Comment by Berolinensis

    There is valid matter, invalid matter, and doubtful matter. There is no category of “very probable” for invalid. If the matter is considered very probably invalid, then it is doubtful.

    The host is bread, and, as I noted above, is to be made from flour and water–those are always to be the main ingredients. Additives produce illicit matter, but as long as it is bread, the presumption is validity. Additives do not produce invalidity UNLESS they significantly replace the flour and water.

    Obviously, there is a grey area, but we cannot assume that grey is black.

  53. Matt Robinson says:

    I don’t have the recipe at my house, but it is indeed very doubtful, and leaving room for doubt is still a scandal. I don’t know what cosmic odds are for or against validity, (ultimately no one earth does), but this practise was another roll of the dice in an already high stakes game of liturgical experimentation. (Incidentally the practise of honeycake communion was discontinued in my Diocese by the early 90’s).

    Added to the crazy experimentation, was the fact that we had First Communion at age 8 and First Confession at age 10 or 11 and our
    Catechisis came from the Dutch. (An abuse which continues to this day). Instantly, the connection between the two sacraments became completely obscured.

    I had an argument about 8 years back with my brother, who is a high school teacher, has a graduate degree, and is a committed Catholic. He firmly believed that receiving communion had nothing to do with a person’s state of grace. (He was shocked to learn about “mortal” sin and Communion…but thankfully accepted the idea once he could verify it himself). The only reason I knew different was from reading books / listening to apologetics tapes and asking my Mother. I was 23 he was 31. He was a “loyal” Catholic and took his Catholic priest’s and teacher’s instruction as gold when he was a kid.

    Now we both came from the same home, and he is a very intelligent person. My parents practised their faith and we went to Mass each week. I use this to illustrate how devastating bad parish / school environments can be to the faith even of people from “good” families.

    The insanity of that era, left huge swaths of Catholics without any solid foundation. Even the ones who tried to practise their faith, had no idea what it was really about. And all this came about in the era of “active participation” and “springtime of the liturgy”. The SSPX’ers argued that living an authentic Catholic life was virtually impossible in many Church institutions….I know exactly what this means. By the grace of God, I stayed in communion with Rome, but many reasonable people came to the conclusion that “if this is Catholicity…then give me schism”.

    I pray the Moto Proprio heals this wound.

  54. Richard T says:

    Matt Robinson makes interesting points about the dire state of Catholic formation.

    I think I’ve mentioned this here before, but I was brought up a Catholic, Mass every Sunday, Catholic school until 18 with frequent school Masses, confirmation classes from a bishop – you get the idea. But I reached the age of 20 without knowing that the Mass was a sacrifice (I was first told about it by a Protestant, and my reaction was much the same as Matt’s brother’s to being told about mortal sin).

    Now, I was brought up under the Novus Ordo – which was designed to help the people understand what was going on so that we could participate more fully. Was I not taught about the Sacrifice of the Mass because of sloppy catechesis, or was there a deliberate policy to not teach proper Catholic doctrine?

    Together with other examples we’re getting here, there is a picture building up that suggests pastors, including bishops, were deliberately corrupting Catholic teaching – through both formal teaching and the way the Mass was celebrated.

    Would that justify Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions? I don’t know, and personally I wouldn’t put myself outside the Church as he did. But it will be interesting to see what the Church says about him 200 years from now.

  55. Maynardus says:

    Hate to get away about arguing about Lefebvre and cakebread – subjects which have provoked many hours of heated discussion at my house – but to get back to the subject at hand:

    The sugggestion “Congregatio pro Traditionibus Occidentalibus” may be close to the mark. While Summorum Pontificum’s definition of a united Roman Rite would seem to quell the notion of any sort of ritual church or patriarchy being erected for the TLM there are certainly *practical* parallels between the responsibilities of Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus and what we might logically expect a beefed-up PCED to be look like. Definitely food for thought…