I like posting positive things.
So, with joy I present an interview over at angelqueen.org. I suspect this translation could have used a little different approach. But it is readable. Other than the questions my emphases and comments.
So, here it is. The Second Annual Interview with Father de Tanoüarn of the GSI. Thank you and bless you Father.
The Good Shepherd Institute was founded in September 2006 – can you give us some feedback of this first year?
Back then, some the SSPX called us “the mutineers” – a word that was supposed to indicate we were meaningless. They no longer do. [That means they are doing better than expected.] Since September 8th, 2006, when it was erected, the Good Shepherd Institute has had 7 priestly ordinations, and 35 seminarians now study in the seminary we created in Courtalain. A handful of priests joined us – others didn’t formally join but are close to us. The Institute exists in Europe and Latin America. Among our seminarians are Poles and Brazilians – this indicates that we have a future there. In France, the Saint Eloi church in Bordeaux was erected as a personal parish February 1st, 2007. We have priests here and there, celebrating their private masses, but we did not –not yet– get the chapels we hoped for. [Hopefully this will shift and they will have more opportunities for pastoral work. After all, I know priests in France with a dozen or more parishes and chapels under their care. Why not entrust some of them to these guys? Would that be so bad? (Of course, that depends on your perspective!)]
Doesn’t the Moto Proprio help?
Somehow, the bishops seem to grow stiff. [This probably refects a phase like "digging in their heels".] It looks as if the Motu Proprio for the traditional Mass that was released July 7th made them seek vengeance on the “specialized institutes” as Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos calls them, such as the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King – and, yes, the Good Shepherd Institute. In Avignon [Southern France] for instance, Bp Cattenoz started a transdiocesan group called “Totus Tuus” with priests celebrating the traditional Mass, in order to avoid resorting to our traditional institutes. [You know, I frankly don’t have a problem with that. As I have stated many times, my preference will always lie not so much with "specialized institutes", as good as they are. I will favor diocesan priests serving in their dioceses in diocesan parishes. I think they should always have priority. Also, and this is important, if this "Totus Tuus" is successful, then… good! Everybody wins. With the work in Pope Benedict’s Marshall Plan to be done, if there are more groups and they succeed, the more the better. This doesn’t have to be seen as a zero-sum game.] In Marseilles Bp Pontier asks the faithful to move to another church where he imposes upon them a priest of his choice. Not to mention Lyon and Versailles, where the FSSP lost control over its biggest French congregations. There is no denying such difficulties, but at the same time the traditional Mass is prodigiously propagating among priests and the laity. When the traditional Mass is largely diffused and widely available, Catholics will stop fighting each other and harmony will prevail. Those attached to the new liturgy will learn on their own about the traditional usage, and their hostility will disappear by itself as it is frequently induced by their ignorance of it. [Right! That is part of what I mean by the "gravitational pull"!]
What specific role does the Good Shepherd Institute play in this whole context?The way I see it, we have a double function. We are quite near the bishops as we meet lots of them. Real relations can be built that way little by little –at least with some of them. It takes time, but scars from the past can be healed and mutual trust can develop between individuals, beyond personal agendas. Another thing we do is we try to unify all the forces on favor of Benedict XVI’s ecclesial policy, by organizing public events – such as the congress we’re planning in Paris next January to thank the pope, at the occasion of which there may be a little surprise. [I would love more information on this.]
Speaking of Benedict XVI’s ecclesial policy, what part does the Motu Proprio play in it?
Pope Benedict XVI himself wrote the Motu Proprio, at least the essential parts of it – Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos indicated this to us by saying “I keep at your disposal the GERMAN original”. The pope proceeded with much strength and great prudence, he doesn’t impose a thing upon the bishops, but he sort of puts ‘the cause of the Mass’ in the hands of stable lay groups. Such groups have already appeared – it is inevitable that more will follow and grow in the future. In his letter to the bishops that accompanies the Motu Proprio, the pope doesn’t announce a revolution, he wishes “that all is done in peace and serenity” – at a quiet and peaceful pace. The pope acts in the Church’s time – that is a time that goes slowly but irreversibly, since it’s the Holy Spirit’s time. The irreversible thing here is the pope’s recognition of the legitimacy of the faithful attachment to the traditional liturgy.
Does the pope regard both missals as equals? He doesn’t say – but he commands “the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage” – a sacrality that “the mass according to the missal of Paul VI [should] be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto”. He commands “the spiritual richness and the theological depth of [the traditional] missal” – that are to “enrich” the new one. To me, that’s a clear indication of the pope’s mind on the liturgical question, to say the least.
However, didn’t the pope put the traditional rite aside, so as to speak, by calling it an “extraordinary rite” – as opposed to the ordinary rite, which is the Paul VI missal?
No. In fact, the pope does NOT speak of “two rites”. On the contrary he speaks of two forms of the one same Latin rite, which means both forms – whether ordinary or extraordinary – basically enjoy the same legitimacy and the same rights. [That is something still to be seen. After all, the Motu Proprio does define some parameters.] That cuts out all the talk about our attachment to the traditional liturgy being a mere ‘nostalgia’ for ‘the old rite’– there is no ‘old rite’ but the extraordinary form of today’s rite. The Missal we use is recognized as the “Missale Romanum of Pope John XXIII,” and it has never abrogated.
What is required from the faithful is that they acknowledge the supernatural value and the objective sanctity of the new missal – in other words, its sacramental and sacrificial validity, by virtue of its promulgation by Pope Paul VI. Abp Lefebvre spoke of the ‘essential validity’ of the new missal and he required all his seminarians to recognize this essential validity prior to their ordination by swearing an oath. I swore that oath 20 years ago, and I certainly intend to keep to it.
The Good Shepherd Institute was founded in September 2006 – can you give us some feedback of this first year? I find this interview very encouraging. This fellow sounds like he is squared away.
Loading ...
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos indicated this to us by saying “I keep at your disposal the GERMAN original”.
Can we see a copy of this sheet? It might help explain what was in the Pope’s mind regarding “stable groups” and “sufficiency” in Latin.
Even though most of what you blog about (or quote) goes right over my head…I love your awesome blog!! Thanks for your comments in your posts – they usually help explain things! GOD BLESS!
Tanoüarn: \”Somehow, the bishops seem to grow stiff\”.
The unfortunate is that sometimes they have plenty of reason to do so, at least in the case of the GSI. By the news and follow-up of the happenings, I can say with such a certainty that the Institute is, in some places (especially Latin America), depending on or associating locally with the wrong people – from problematic or suspended priests to nearly-schismatic institutes or associations (in Brazil, for example, they are closely associated with and funded by a cathari and sedevacantist filled \”association\”).
If being traditional is already a \’stepping on eggs\’ position, why give more ammo to the \”opposition\”? Why can\’t they just do it right and all legally correct in order to at least achieve and impose some respect?
Rafael Cresci:
“in Brazil, for example, they are closely associated with and funded by a cathari and sedevacantist filled “association””
If you are talking about the Cultural Association Montfort, they are not sedevacantist!
They only don’t accept the ecumenical and modernist teachings of the Vatican II.
They are great defenders of the faith, loyal to the Pope and to the old rite.
They also visit this blog!
http://www.montfort.org.br
In Corde Iesu, semper,
SMJ
Fr. Z. said: “As I have stated many times, my preference will always lie not so much with “specialized institutes”, as good as they are. I will favor diocesan priests serving in their dioceses in diocesan parishes. I think they should always have priority.”
In some way I would agree, but as a counter point, aren’t most (original) FSSP and Good Shepherd priests really diocesan priests before they went with LeFebvre? Weren’t LeFebvrists, and then FSSP and Good Shepherd, et al. not just made to be a refuge from modernism, but also to serve in a diocesan capacity? Although they are now looked at more as religious orders, wouldn’t their goal be to be functioning in a pastoral role in a parish setting? Or am I just wrong about their charism? I wouldn’t think their sole purpose is just to preserve the old Mass.
Maybe it begs the question of where do they fit into the Church, especially as the old Mass becomes more “ordinary.”
Some brazilians think it’s better to be associated with any charismatic sect (as Canção Nova and Felipe Aquino) to combat modernism. Having aliance with the Devil they believe they’ll help to spread the Veritatis Splendor…
Of course there is a tendency to favor diocesan priests. A normal parish priest should have an easier time arousing people’s interest in tradition. There would be a traditionalist on their home turf, under their own bishop. This would go a long way in disarming people’s fear that the older form of the Mass is something polemical. “Church-shopping” is not the best trait of the contemporary Church (though it could be argued that it is necessary). People who don’t “church-shop” will have a hard time coming to tradition, unless tradition comes to them in a natural manner.
At the same time, the traditional institutes are an important refuge. These priests can get a more focused education (and not be left alone in trying to understand the situation in the Church) and their chapels can breath more purely the Extraordinary form. As this form of Catholicism grows, so will the number of people who are attached to it. This will still radiate eventually into the typical parish.
Of course it is not impossible that the “pure breathing” of the extraordinary form and traditional doctrinal formulations (without a rejection of Vatican II) is not a pleasant thought for some bishops. Some may view it as a kind of practical rejection of that council, but in actuality it is proabably a very important piece of the puzzle of how we will come to view that council in the future. The problems may arise when there is a difference of opinion between bishops and traditional institutes as to what is their charism (or a difference of opinion as to what is involved in accepting the holiness and validity of the post-conciliar expression of the faith).
Fr. Z writes:
“As I have stated many times, my preference will always lie not so much with “specialized institutes”, as good as they are. I will favor diocesan priests serving in their dioceses in diocesan parishes. I think they should always have priority. Also, and this is important, if this “Totus Tuus” is successful, then… good! Everybody wins. With the work in Pope Benedict’s Marshall Plan to be done, if there are more groups and they succeed, the more the better. This doesn’t have to be seen as a zero-sum game.”
I agree with 100%! BUT we must not forget about SSPX, who were the Catalyst for all these good things: From Good Shepherd, Christ the King, to Summorum Pontificum, etc. You see, their “rebellion” has had meaning, much as St. Athanasius’ and other Saints “rebellions”, in light of tradition, have had meaning.
Of course, you also have women ordaining women priestesses, and those seeds will bear no fruit. But clearly, SSPX has born fruit. It is time to regularize them ASAP, even if it means a clarification on the documents on religious liberty (all it would take it BXVI saying that it is open to interpretation–that’s easy). I hope our Pope has extreme humility, since, frankly, Vatican II is a hodgepodge of ambiguous documents.
But SSPX also needs to show extreme humility and come home, ASAP. I am extremely sympathetic to them, but they, too, must be careful with their humility, as all people and groups must be.
All in all, I am very hopeful for the future of the Church; we are beginning to dig our way out of 40 years in the desert, replete with being buried with many layers of sand all these years, while the clowns of the Church danced on our heads….
Btw:
Father,
I surf between your blog and angelqueen, and there are some bloggers in the latter that say you don’t appreciate the Vetus Ordo mass completely. For what it is worth, I think you are right on cue. Most at angelqueen appreciate the great work that you do, if there are a few dissenters, so be it. Shake it off. Let it roll off like water off a ducks back. I don’t agree with everything that you do, either, but, so be it. We are human. I really appreciate the majority of your work. I think your heart is in the exact right place. If I disagree with you it doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you. We live in a world of too-touchy people. If someone disagrees with me, so be it! Get over it, and quickly! Move on!
Thanks, Father Z, for the great service you are providing!!
I have posted on AQ and here, and try to take into account the different sensibilities and opinions of posters on these respective sites.
Not every “hard line” traditionalist was born that way. Often it’s a reaction to extreme liturgical reforms plus unapproved changes that can endanger the faith and very validity of the sacraments, in some cases.
This is why we need as many priests as possible to return to the TLM. Catholics of good will need to work together, even if they disagree.
Above all, we need to pray for priests and bishops and the return of orthodoxy: right doctrine, right worship.
Rafael Cresci,
The greatest problem is that they aren’t just “depending on or associating locally with the wrong people – from problematic or suspended priests to nearly-schismatic institutes or associations”: they think like them. Good Sheperd Institute achieved an agreement with Rome that doesn’t make them to refuse not even one of their ideas from SSPX. After Summorum Pontificum, their most famous priest, Father Aulagnier, issued an article: I REFUSE THE NOVUS ORDO, asking the Holy Father where can be found the santity of a mass like the one of Paul VI.
So, they’re not playing with this “nearly-schimatic institutes or associoations”: they have the same ideas, and you just need to know them with some depth to discover this.
They’re not as Father Rifan…
Malta: Some of the folks there have demonstrated one reason why the traditional liturgical movement couldn’t get traction in the years before Summorum Pontificum, and why the Motu Proprio may fail to be applied well in some places.
The bitterness they display is sure to turn off many of the priests and bishops they would have to deal with. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their positions or their aspirations: when you are a jerk, it is harder to persuade people to do what you want. That thread is a case in point.
I think it is great when people discuss issues and positions. The personal attacks, however, suggest their that their thought isn’t very clear. What I find inconsistent is their claim of traditional values and reverence for the saced expressed together with such profound disrespect for the sacred.
Sadly, the traditional thing tends to attract the sort of person who is happy only when he is unhappy. And they share. We have to be very understanding. Many of those folks have suffered great injustices and indignities over the years. Much, I daresay most of that suffering (at least via Holy Mass) has come at the hands of priests and bishops! It doesn’t surprise me that they lash out with such little regard for the lasting consequences for their future success and their souls.
It is written into GSI constitution that they may engage in a constructive criticism of Vatican II, while respecting the ultimate authority of the Apostolic See to give the final interpretation. There is nothing wrong with legitimately criticizing those documents of the council, which are vague and consequently lend themselves to heretical interpretations. If people say Vatican II is a good thing and that it produced no new ecclesiology to justify the scandals of Assisi 1986, Bishops conferences, etc – then the onus in on them to prove it.
So far Rome has failed to answer the questions posed by traditionalists on the issues of ecumenism, religious liberty and liturgical reform. Archbishop Lefebrve and Prof Romano Amerio have shown clearly how liberals have used the council and even inserted ambiguous phrases into the conciliar texts to get away with what is now papally approved. It is not enough to say that there must be no more hermeneutics’s of discontinuity and leave it at that – you have to prove that it can be so. That is what the GSI requests the Holy See to do, not only for themselves, but for every confused Catholic in the world today.
Roman Sacristan: I can’t count the times someone urged me to join a group like the FSSP. While what they do is great, I simply wouldn’t let go of my conviction that a priest shouldn’t have to be segregated into a specialized group, as if into a ghetto, to be able to what is truly his RIGHT to do. I paid a huge price for that. Things are starting to look brighter now, however.
Good point, Fr. Z.
Fr Z: “While what they do is great, I simply wouldn’t let go of my conviction that a priest shouldn’t have to be segregated into a specialized group, as if into a ghetto, to be able to what is truly his RIGHT to do.”
Bingo! I could not agree with you any more than that, and I’ll extend a bit this:
I wonder what is in the mind of some people that think a Church where the structure is segregated: priests in the sacristy and people in the pews and no one interfaces with each other. This has never (and by never I say even in the Middle Ages) been the case.
On some so-called traditionalist groups (do not confuse with the specialized institutes), I see people renegating personal attention to their priest’s needs (forgetting completely that is is also a human being) and putting them (the priests) into bubbles. The “community” is also composed, on cases I’ve seen, of selfish-ego people that will only care for their own families. It’s the kind of people that only meet when attending mass and don’t care for the others’ needs and will only meet again outside mass time if it is to criticize bishop X or father Y for their non-receptivity of the extraordinary form (In fact I’ve seen more community-life even in SSPX parishes, who’d else be considered more radical, where for example the parishioners help the other parishioners even in financial troubles; plus Campos has retained their community life since they have kept it from the first moment of the “breaking”). There is no “community life” and action in some of these groups.
Some will claim that this thing of community life is a “modernist result of the evil Vatican II Council” and thus they will reject it. But then are they really being catholic?
While I worked here in diocesan level as a Universities Pastoral agent, I could get a glimpse of the need of community-centered work and action (not biased to interpretations on left or right tendencies, but specifically on church and people’s personal needs). The faithful, being traditionalist or not, have needs that not always the clergy alone or even less a specialized institute can provide. Thus, there is all the parish-diocese structure, to supply these needs not only in the terms of clerical hierarchy. It is really needed to account for helping the faithful. If the liturgy was also uniform as the other works of mercy, there would be no need for the church-shopping, as it would be equal everywhere. It only happens because of the “personality” of the people and of the priest (they have to match) and thus adjustments have to be done. And it is not by making available a specialized “personality” available to the preferences of the groups (in this case, the traditionalists) that you’ll fix it, in fact, you’ll be joining the exact same “modernist game” of relativist tendencies.
For a real world example: my parish priest here just got dispensation from the bishop and is moving from the diocese to the GSI (that is in another city) now in december. His reasons were that he did not want anymore to celebrate in the ordinary form, just in the extraordinary form, and he as a pastor was forced to celebrate the OF (even per the Motu Proprio). With this, he is going to another city (and diocese) to celebrate private mass (few public ones) for half a dozen of people that won’t give him much attention – they’ll want him as far as possible (it would be pretty depressive for me). While this, he leaves a parish crowded of people that liked the celebrations in both rites, cared for him, showed affect and support (some, and some also not, but that’s normal human behaviour and politics), where he had 5 crowded masses per Sunday with at least 200 people on each (ok, 50 on the extraordinary form and 200 on the other 4 ordinary form ones), and where works of mercy were plenty and all worked nicely and he was managing everything magistrally. I understand quite his desire for not celebrating the OF anymore, and his reasons for requesting such move, but the question stays: Where is he really mostly needed, and where he will be most missed? In the ghetto, or in the parish? Where the salus animarum of the abandoned parish flock stays? Where the Church as a whole needs him most?
All this huge paragraph was to resume that, agreeing with you, the so-called traditionalist groups should insert themselves in the standard, official and TRADITIONAL structure of the church, that is the parish-diocese divisions; instead of putting themselves in their ghettos. Else, they won’t be able to make a change on what they rant to be a cancerous part of the body…
Michael Roods: GSI and SSPX recognise the essential validity of the new missal. The Sacrament is confected (at least sometimes). However this does not in itself make the form of worship pleasing to Almighty God. Compare the Offertory of the Victim in the 1962 Missal with the Preperation of Gifts in the 1969.
The authority with which Pope Paul VI promulgated the New Rite is debateably. No Pope before him created (or endorsed, it was created by Bugnini) a new liturgy. Therefore if a priest refuses to celebrate this Novus Ordo he need not be sede-vacantist.
Rafael Cresci, are you brazilian?
“Sadly, the traditional thing tends to attract the sort of person who is happy only when he is unhappy. And they share. We have to be very understanding. Many of those folks have suffered great injustices and indignities over the years. Much, I daresay most of that suffering (at least via Holy Mass) has come at the hands of priests and bishops! It doesn’t surprise me that they lash out with such little regard for the lasting consequences for their future success and their souls.”
That is all true, but it is also true that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Frankly, if it weren’t for some of the dissenters, the status quo would rule the day, and there would be no Summorum Pontificum.
I think it’s good to call a spade a spade, but you are absolutely correct that for the good of our souls we shouldn’t be venomous or caustic in our attitude. In other words, firm diplomacy is in order in the modernistic web we live in. One of the three theological virtues is hope; going through life a sourpuss is no way to be, even in the most trying of circumstances.
Personally, though, I love a good debate and the exchange of ideas, which makes a well moderated and attended blog such as yours great fun.
“Rafael Cresci, are you brazilian?”
Answer: Yes. From Rio.
Eu conheço seu nome se algum lugar, mas não consigo lembrar de onde!
Rafael Cresci,
maybe if his caring sharing flock in his former parish had taken the time to understand this priest’s difficulties, things could have been very different. They could have asked that all his masses be in the extraordinary form and have kept the priest they claim they so dearly love. Was that option even considered? Evidently not or he would not have been compelled to leave. The sword of truth cuts and it cannot be avoided. You’re right that he is needed in the parish. Unfortunately the parish, or some other power, has decided that they only need him for what they want from him, not for what he thinks is the best he can give.
J. Victor: VS? HSJ? diocesan level?
—
Dob: “They could have asked that all his masses be in the extraordinary form and have kept the priest they claim they so dearly love”
Let’s be realistic: this is not an option. Not in a diocesan territorial parish. It would be, for a personal parish where a church building would be allocated (or where else the extraordinary form has always been celebrated, like St. Eloi). And the cardinal-archbishop here isn’t even fond of the extraordinary form itself, less yet granting permission for such a personal parish. Nor the Motu Proprio allows for that setting on a parish level without it being raised as a personal parish specific for that “rite”. If the church in question was a detached one, a chapel or for example, an ethnic church, not a parochial one, ok, then there would be the possibility of celebrating only the EF. But not on the parish church, where even inside the ordinary form there are already many lines to be opted (conservative, charismatic, liberal). Plus it is the ordinary form, and on a parish it cannot be set aside.
Even less converting a full territorial parish (including forcing the resident faithful to convert to the extraordinary form solely) to be a personal parish. It’s simply impossible unless the ordinary form was revoked and the extraordinary form took back place. You can see the example of St. John Cantius in Chicago, they HAVE TO have celebrations in both forms as they are a parish church. If it were for them to have only the extraordinary form there as a personal parish, that church building would have to be detached from the parish and then another parish would have to be raised and another parochial church would have to be estabilished.
And at least in this case, he gave his best and not only what the parish people wanted from him (don’t confuse with the bishop). From basic catechesis to “fraternal correction” on what was going wrong withing the parish structure, he always did his best (and proved to be an excellent manager with or without ordinary/extraordinary forms) as he himself thought it was the best of him that he could give and what was on his mind as being the right thing to do, having plenty of freedom and authority (also raising some anger from the opposition, but that is normal).
Malta: …but it is also true that the squeaky wheel gets the oil….
And it is often the case that the squeeky wheel gets thrown away and replaced by a new wheel.
–Guy
Rafael Cresci,
Why do you say it is unrealistic. The Bishop could look at the MP and see quite clearly that both forms are the same Rite. That the priest can choose whichever in good conscience. The Bishop should be indifferent as to which form is used. The only consideration would be the effect on the faithful. If they desired the priest to stay and were educated regarding the older form, I cannot see why they would choose their own preference of form over that of the priest who has served them so well. They would go with him as he has proven to be a good shepherd on so many other issues. Why do you say that a personal parish needs to be in place in this instance? No it does not. It simply requires the Bishop and the parishioners to agree to accept the older form exclusively in this parish..
Your comments illuminate a dilemma that your priest and many others have had to face. The more you taste of one fruit, the more bitter the other becomes. There comes a point when you simply can’t put the bitter fruit to your mouth anymore, for anything. Is it any wonder that the battle to prevent the tasting of one fruit is so intense. The sword of truth divides. This division cannot be avoided. The division could be prevented if Bishops would obey. It is their disobedience that causes the damage, not the free choice of the priest. A choice legally and rightfully given to the priest by the Pope.
“Abp Lefebvre spoke of the ‘essential validity’ of the new missal and he required all his seminarians to recognize this essential validity prior to their ordination by swearing an oath. I swore that oath 20 years ago, and I certainly intend to keep to it.”
Yes, Lefebvre believed the Eucharist was validly consecrated in the New Mass. That position also bodes well for the future of SSPX: They don’t deny that the Eucharist is validly consecrated since Vatican II, or that the modern Popes are invalid (although that position is sometimes tempting given the almost universal abuses going on in the Church since Vatican II.) No, SSPX believes the Modern Church has lost her way, but is still the Church of Christ. Much like your deranged Schizophrenic mother is still your mother, and you respect her, love her, and abide by her wishes where you can, since she is your mother; but, you must also disobey her wild commands at times, despite the first commandment admonition to honor your parents.
The crazy modernistic Church is still our refuge and source of sanctity in this crazy world, even if she herself has become infected by modernism…
Thank God first of all for Archbishop Lefebvre and his courage. For Bishop de Castro Mayer also. Thank God for the SSPX bishops and priests. Thank God for the Insitute of the Good Shepherd. Thank God for the FSSP, the ICR and St. Vincent Ferrer monks. Thank God for Fontgombault and thank God for St. John Cantius canons. Thank God for diocesan priests who are attempting to serve their parishioners, both in the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments.
Thank God for them all. Thank God for Traditionalist families and fathers and mothers who are doing everyting they can to provide a proper environment for their children in this decrepit society.
And thank God especially not only for “gracious” and “happy” traditionalists, but also for the “grumpy” “whiny” “unhappy” traditionalists, many of whom I can call my friends. Thank God that traditionalists sin and have faults, just like the vast majority of the population.
But thank God for those Moms and Dads who are building the culture of life. Never seen anything but extremely positive, warm, friendly, caring people at traditional Latin Mass communities–all of them that I have visited.
But thank God for those Moms and Dads who are building the culture of life. Never seen anything but extremely positive, warm, friendly, caring people at traditional Latin Mass communities—all of them that I have visited.
Would that that were true always and everywhere. We’ve been members of a traditional parish for six years and have had a couple of run-ins with the “old guard.” I will say this, however: we never experienced what real parish life was like until we started going to a trad. parish. The good has outweighed the bad, by far.