REVIEW: 2011 Angelus Press Calendar

The kind folks at Angelus Press sent me again this year their wall calendar.

ordination

This year the calendar features beautiful photos of the illicit but valid ordinations to the priesthood of some of their members, and, it appears, a benedictine monk (at least a religious with hair shaved in the “corona”).

The photos take you through the main points of the older form of ordination, showing some things that are now, sadly, missing.  They should be restored, in my opinion.  I digress.

The days show indications for fasting.

I look forward to the day that when men who are ordained to the SSPX they will be able to exercise their priestly functions licitly, side by side with the Church’s priests, and they will contribute as well to the restoration of so much that we have lost, particularly in our Catholic worship.

In the meantime, nice calendar.

Technorati Tags: , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

23 Responses to REVIEW: 2011 Angelus Press Calendar

  1. Capt. Morgan says:

    Considering +Bishop Fellay’s comments concerning Assisi I am afraid the regularizing of the SSPX Fathers may take a while. So sad. The Church Militant really need them.

  2. HyacinthClare says:

    The 2010 calendar from the FSSP has fishes on Fridays, too, but they don’t look like sharks!

  3. Magpie says:

    how come some fish are grey and the others coloured?

  4. Sword40 says:

    I buy an SSPX and an FSSP calender every year. They day WILL come when we are ALL at last re-united.

  5. kat says:

    If you look closely at the above days, the gray fish are on days that say “traditional day of fast and abstinence” and the colored fish is on Good Friday, which is still as law a day of fast and abstinence.

  6. kat says:

    (Sorry: last post was to Magpie’s question)

  7. Joseph says:

    Re: HyacinthClare
    Sorry to correct you. Those fish look like thuna fish. Shark have an asymetric tail fin.

  8. AnAmericanMother says:

    If not a tuna, some other member of the mackerel family. Definitely not a shark!

    Hence the term, “Mackerel-snappers”. But definitely not a snapper, either. ;-)

  9. Daniel Latinus says:

    @ AnAmericanMother: The mackerel-snappers are the people who eat the tuna!

  10. Thomas S says:

    Considering +Bishop Fellay’s comments concerning Assisi I am afraid the regularizing of the SSPX Fathers may take a while. So sad. The Church Militant really need them.

    I’m all for reconciling with the SSPX. I’m all for the widespread use of the extraordinary form. I’m highly unimpressed with many things done in the name of Vatican II.

    That being said, I’m also damn sick and tired of the sentiment I quoted above. Capt. Morgan, I assure you, the SSPX is in MUCH greater need of the Church than the Church is in need of a small, disobedient, prideful group like the SSPX.

    We’ve come along quite nicely under Pope Benedict’s shepherding. We’ve made progress in the quality of the episcopate. We’ve seen a liturgical revival begin. We’ve seen the liberalizing of the old rite. And we’ve done it WITHOUT the SSPX.

    If they want to come back to Rome (and for the good of their souls they had better) then I will be the first to welcome them with open arms. But I’ve heard just about enough of this “the Church needs the SSPX” line.

    Christ is my Savior. Not Marcel Lefebvre.

  11. Rich says:

    I am struck particularly by the “Touching of the Chalice” part of the rite of ordination, especially since touching the chalice, out second class relic par excellence, seems like no big deal today, what with lay people gathering around the altar and self-communicating these days…

  12. Legisperitus says:

    If they are the March 2009 ordinations, then they may have been licit as well as valid, since the SSPX allegedly was legally recognized by the Pope for two weeks in return for holding the ordinations outside Germany.
    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm

  13. Centristian says:

    I’d like to see SSPX priests function licitly, as well, not because the SSPX have been incorporated into the structure of the official Church, however, but because they have, individually, reprented and have returned to the Church.

    The SSPX organization, alas, is not a “traditional Catholic” organization (as many wrongly describe it), but rather a “Catholic Traditionalist” organization, an there’s a great big difference. The SSPX adhere to what was for its own sake, not for Christ’s sake, and are neck deep in fear, prejudice, and paranoia. They are one of so many similarly-minded conspiracy-theory oriented rightist movements, and they are no loyal subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

    I’m strongly of the mind that it would be to the Catholic Church’s detriment if Rome were to continue to court the SSPX to the point of regularizing their status. I am relieved, however, to know that will never happen, because I rest assured that no idea is less attractive to the SSPX than the idea of reunion and cooperation with “Modernist Rome”. You might just as soon invite Williamson to a Bar Mitzvah.

    And, yes, despite all that, nice calendar.

  14. Another awesome calendar can be seen here. The website has sold out but there is a link to order them from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

    USA-made, large 12″ X 11″ calendar is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It follows the liturgical year for both the Latin Tridentine (Extraordinary) and the Novus Ordo (Ordinary) forms of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. This calendar features traditional images, seen nowhere else, to honor each dedication of the month. It features the saint of the day, denotes the liturgical color of the day, gives reminders for novenas, includes quotes from the saints, and contains many beautiful and traditional prayers.
    http://www.saintsgalore.com/assorted.htm

  15. adamFERG says:

    To reply to Thomas S,

    To say, “We’ve seen the liberalizing of the old rite. And we’ve done it WITHOUT the SSPX,” I think, is a little unfounded. It is because of their work, and a great pope, that the traditional rite is being liberalized. Even the FSSP is an offshoot of the SSPX, so no Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre no SSPX no FSSP. Nobody to be there ready to help the church reclaim its traditional identity when the pope released the Summorum Pontificum. Also to say, “Christ is my Saviour. Not Marcel Lefebvre,” I think is a very ridiculous thing to say. Marcel Lefebvre was a Bishop, and a fine one at that, his job was to point the way to Christ. To imply that the faithful of the society somehow think more highly of him that the Saviour is like an evangelical protestant saying we love the Holy Father more than Christ. What I believe Capt. Morgan was implying was that the SSPX Priest Formation is of the highest quality and the Church that is so lacking in vocations needs as much help as it can get.

  16. LouiseA says:

    The Benedictine monk is Br. (now Fr.) Thomas Aquinas from this monastery:
    www (dot) ourladyofguadalupemonastery (dot) com

  17. Centristian says:

    “The Benedictine monk is Br. (now Fr.) Thomas Aquinas from this monastery:
    www (dot) ourladyofguadalupemonastery (dot) com”

    It should be pointed out that the SSPX-sponsored OL Guadelupe Monstery was just last year “canonically erected” as a priory of the Order of St. Benedict…by SSPX bishop Alfonso deGallarreta…presuming for himself the authority of an ordinary bishop in doing so, as if a suspended bishop with no faculties has any ability to authentically carry out such a thing.

    Once again, a pretense to jurisdiction by the SSPX and her bishops showing their usual hubris.

  18. adamFERG says:

    To reply to Centristian
    Well they must be doing something right if the, “canonically erected” monasteries are having a hard time keeping their doors just open and the SSPX is opening whole new monasteries, In the USA no less. I say we support all these men who decide to truly live the Christian life and work hard to make sure that they are in full communion with Rome. Our Holy Father is a bridge builder; we should follow his example and not try belittling monks striving to live a holy life of good works and prayer.

  19. Centristian says:

    “To reply to Centristian
    Well they must be doing something right if the, “canonically erected” monasteries are having a hard time keeping their doors just open and the SSPX is opening whole new monasteries, In the USA no less. I say we support all these men who decide to truly live the Christian life and work hard to make sure that they are in full communion with Rome. Our Holy Father is a bridge builder; we should follow his example and not try belittling monks striving to live a holy life of good works and prayer.”

    If you feel compelled to admonish me for my words, then admonish me for my words, not for words that you’ve put in my mouth (so to speak), if you please. In reviewing my own remarks, I find no evidence that I have belittled monks “striving to live a holy life of good work and prayer”, as you put it.

    My post concerns the hubris of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X insofar as they make a pretense to ordinary episcopal jurisdiction by pretending to “canonically erect” a Benedictine monastery. The bishops of the SSPX have no authority to “canonically erect” anything; indeed they have no authority at all.

    If you want to refute that point, by all means; I’d be fascinated, in fact, to read a sober refutation of that point.

  20. adamFERG says:

    To reply to Centristian
    I did not wish to put words in your mouth I do apologize. I am not an expert on the SSPX but I have looked in to their history/situation. I agree they have no traditional jurisdiction but I think also they have no other choice. Pope JPII tried to starve them out by the excommunications and they, to use their own words, went into “operation survival.” The monks have nowhere to live their traditional life but under the SSPX bishops. Other traditional societies would force them to accept Vatican II and the new mass and so on. Thus it becomes simply what else can they do. The SSPX will be accepted back into full communion with Rome, the Holy Father wishes it so. I do not know logistics of it will be but surly the more monks they bring the better.

  21. Centristian says:

    In reply to AdamFERG:

    “I am not an expert on the SSPX…”

    Good. Thank your lucky stars that you aren’t. In order to be an “expert” you would need to have been a member. I don’t advise becoming one.

    Your assertion that Pope John Paul II tried to “starve them out by excommunications” is entirely fictitious. Pope John Paul II bent over backwards to accomodate Lefebvre and his followers and each of the Pope’s olive branches were tossed right back at him, spitefully, ungraciously, and with much mean-spiritedness.

    “I think also they have no other choice.”

    They have no other choice other than to invite a renegade bishop with no jurisdiction, no episcopal authority, and not even any priestly faculties, with no connection to the Order of St. Benedict, whatsoever, to pretend to canonically erect a Benedictine monastery as a priory? Why couldn’t they simply go on as before, living their monastic life without the title of “priory” attached to their community? Was that title so essential to their monastic life that they had to cooperate with an SSPX bishop in yet another schismatic act in order to get it?

    A bishop of the SSPX has no more authority to canonically erect a priory than I have to declare my living room a congressional district.

    Mark my words: the SSPX will never return to full communion with the Holy Father. That’s the last thing in the world they want.

  22. adamFERG says:

    To reply to Centristian
    “Pope John Paul II bent over backwards to accommodate Lefebvre and his followers,” he did not try to accommodate them but to assimilate them. He wanted them to drop the Tridentine Mass for the new. This is why Pope Benedict had to clarify that the old mass was never forbidden because Pope John Paul II implied that it was. Pope John Paul also set up the FSSP to try making the SSPX outmoded. I do agree that some of the SSPX leadership, *cough** cough* Bishop Williamson, would dig his heals in to prevent a reunification of sorts, but I think Bishop Fellay is a reasonable man and is working had for this. The society, if they want to influence the broad church of a whole, must be able to start filling regular positions within the church and not always remain a fringe element. The only logical thing to do is unify. On the other hand for Rome they liberated the mass for them, they lifted the excommunications, they are holding the doctrinal talks, and they clearly want a solution. The SSPX will unify with Rome, maybe not soon but within the decade I’m sure, yes probably with Rome appointed Bishops probably something like the Anglican ordinate.

  23. Centristian says:

    AdamFERG:

    This usurpation of ordinary jurisdiction for no justifiable reason at all (I’m speaking, again, about Bishop DeGalarreta’s pretended “canonical erection” of the monastery as a conventual priory) is typical of the counter-Church mentality of the SSPX. It also demonstrates that this mentality is not by any means limited to one Richard Williamson.

    Whatever their current status, as a unit, the SSPX behave without reference to Rome or to any of the legitimate authorities of the Church. When the SSPX assume that Rome (or a local bishop) will not give them a treat from the candy jar–such as the title “conventual priory” for one of their own pretended “Benedictine” monasteries–they just take it. They just take whatever they want, whenever they want to, in fact, no matter if they have a right to it or not. Such behaviour does not, to me, reflect the spirit of obedience. It is, in fact, a mentality that is in every way schismatic.

    Because of this mentality, I cannot see a day when the SSPX will happily submit to Rome (which they regard as a Freemason-inflitrated den of modernists and heretics). And for the reasons they will not submit to Rome, Rome should expend no further energy toward trying to lure them back. Who needs them?