Another voice in defense of Summorum Pontificum. And some calming words.

While not a seismic surprise, I didn’t expect a strong defense of Summorum Pontificum (aka the “emancipation proclamation) from Joan Lewis, the cordial veteran Vatican correspondent who has since 1990 worked for VIS and EWTN.

Joan, after some introductory point, goes on to cite Phil Lawler’s piece (which I wrote about HERE).  But she adds two points that are so obvious, so common-sensical, so concise that they bear sharing.

First…

As I have been reading about the possible changes the Pope will make to Summorum Pontificum, I have been wondering about the number of vocations born within a TLM setting. Has anyone researched this?

Yes, in France there has been.  Including the numbers of men entering traditional groups, the percentage of TLM oriented priests in France being ordained each year is significant and growing.

Also, since the plural of anecdote is data, I get reports of ordination classes here in these USA.  For example, the other day a friend who watches these things and who is an insider wrote that a major archdiocese ordained half a dozen men and, of them, three are known as “trad”.

This is what I keep hearing.   Many men want to say their 1st Mass in the Traditional Form, although sometimes their bishops bully them into something else.

Second… quoting Eric Sammons:

Among other things, he asks the question on most lips: “No matter what we guess the impact might be, the question remains: Why would Pope Francis do this? If a CEO decided to shut down the fastest-growing division in his company, it would be a head-scratcher for sure. So why would Pope Francis look to limit the reach of what is, in terms of growth, the most successful movement in the Church today?”

Vocations and pews filling with families with young children.  And the TLM participants in general give more in the collection than the Novus Ordo participant.

None of it makes sense.  So, non-sense makes sense.

It’s ideological to the point of irrational.  Or rather it follows a rationale that is so foreign to anything … Catholic that it is hard to fathom.

Friends… I keep saying that these rumors are rumors.  They are to be considered unsubstantiated because the are substantially unsourced.   Someone says something happened or said something isn’t quite enough.  And we are talking about Italy, here.

Click

There is always the possibility that there is, at least partially, a campaign of disinformation, even a “false flag” operation.   It probably didn’t start that way, but once the situation was created, some people on both sides took advantage.  Think about a virus getting out of a Chinese lab.  It probably wasn’t intentional, but once it was out, the CCP took advantage of the situation, as the the Dems, everyone knowing that, during the US summer, some flash-point event would take place to exacerbate the situation (i.e., Minneapolis).

Let everyone keep calm.  Let’s get more and more birettas for seminarians (the nightmare of the libs = today’s seminarians).

Meanwhile, FATHERS, get to work.

Let not your hearts be overly troubled. A little anxiety, by the way, can produce clear thought and hard work. Too much can produce paralysis.

Get your Masses established NOW.

NOW.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Si vis pacem para bellum!, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Comments

  1. robtbrown says:

    Is it coincidence that he incident in Dijon and the rumor of Francis editing Summorum Pontificum happened around the same time?

    I doubt it.

  2. robtbrown says:

    It is ideology. It was no secret that the French bishops were against Summorum Pontificum and did not want the relation between Rome and the SSPX regularized. And their attitude was weak compared to that of the German bishops.

    It also seems the French bishops likely had fooled around with the statistics on the attendance at TLM masses. That can’t help but bring to mind the words of Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

  3. Andrew says:

    Imagine, just for a moment, how different everything would be, if a good number of Catholics knew enough Latin to read it, write it, use it, understand it, speak it. If you don’t know any Latin and you call yourself a “traditionalist” you look silly. It takes some work to know something, but it is important. “I like to hear things said in a language which I don’t understand”. Is that your defense? Seriously?

  4. Right now, I’m thinking that there is too much smoke not to have a fire behind it, or at least some smoldering flames. On the other hand, what is most likely to happen at this point is a document that will merely give both sides enough ammunition to keep firing at one another. In those dioceses where the extraordinary form is currently discouraged, it will continue to be discouraged. In those dioceses where it is tolerated, it will continue to be tolerated. In those dioceses where it is encouraged, the bishop will simply issue blanket permission for all priests to offer it, and it will continue to grow. We may see some small changes here and there, but mostly the document would be a slap in the face. My “tolerant” diocese is probably typical. After Summorum Pontificum we had three weekly extraordinary form Masses– exactly the number we had before if I am not mistaken. After this document, if it actually is issued, we will probably have the same number as before. The only thing that would be real news would be a rollback of Ecclesia Dei, which would be a real shocker and would cause a revolt among traditionalist cardinals, bishops, and priests– something no one, including me, seems to believe the Pope wants.

  5. ArthurH says:

    A comment re Andrew’s: I began as an altar boy at age 8 in 1949. At that point, before “community Masses” and some english response came in. Although I was allowed a “card” to be with me during Mass all of us kids– yes even at 8, as early as you could begin– memorized the Latin.

    Could I have told you the case of nouns, the tense of verbs, the use of verb moods. etc? Of course not–that came later with 4 years of HS and 2 years of college Latin.

    But I DID know what the prayers meant since most of us– surely I– had a missal and when we were not serving we read the words. I still know those responses… but that ability came from that early memorization, not the later Latin courses.

    It is not different from asking a young kid or anyone today sadly, just what the words, IN ENGLISH, mean of the pledge of allegiance of the star spangled banner.

  6. Athelstan says:

    It also seems the French bishops likely had fooled around with the statistics on the attendance at TLM masses. That can’t help but bring to mind the words of Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    Oh, the FSSP District Superior said it flat out last week, in an interview with La Salon Beige:

    LSBThis [French bishops conference report] indicates that the places dedicated to the extraordinary form have on average only between 20 and 70 faithful. Does it conform to the reality you know? Likewise, are baptisms really “one-off and exceptional”?

    Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph: “I cannot understand how such figures could have been given and many people were surprised. For our part, we have been keeping relatively precise statistics for almost ten years. We note that on our sixty places of mass, the average is about 200 faithful. Apart from some twenty places where the average is less than 100 faithful, in the other apostolates, we are very far beyond the 70 faithful announced. For ten years we have observed a regular increase in the number of our faithful of 8% per year; this increase is constant, in absolute value as in growth rate. In addition, between 2015 and 2021 we received a mission in ten new dioceses.

    “And it is enough to attend a Mass celebrated according to the extraordinary form to realize that it is especially the young generations who join us. This proves the missionary dimension of this liturgical form, which is not reserved for initiates but continues to attract souls to Jesus Christ. It is nevertheless the essential.

    “In addition, the youth of our assemblies and the many families mean that requests for baptisms are not only regular but important. To be convinced of this, it is interesting to consult the parish registers on which the baptisms are recorded: compared to the number of priests or faithful on the whole of the parish territory, the baptisms administered with the extraordinary form are far from being exceptional!

    “Finally, my many trips to the cities where we are located have shown me that the number of baptisms and confirmations of adults continues to grow. In 10 years there has been an impressive progression: I no longer see confirmation ceremonies without adults and rare are the places where there are no catechumens.”

  7. JGavin says:

    I have little doubt that the TLM is fostering vocations. I also have little faith that those who seek to repress the TLM will listen to reason or follow facts. They seem like Soviet officials proclaiming a new five plan which everyone knows will fail at the outset. Fact, since the promulgation of the NO and interpretations of its intent there as been a rapid catastrophic apostasy. Closed schools, Parishes with vanishing vocations. This is in spite of leaders such as JP II
    and Benedict XVI. The hoped for “Springtime of the Church” has been a cold, odious , lonely winter. Thousands have left. Those that remain often do not attend. Even people who are sympathetic to the NO wonder can this not be done better?
    So the advocates of the change to the NO, who sought to suppress the TLM until 2007 and continue to this day are oblivious to evidence , reason and fact. One wonders who side they are are on. It is easy to assign the ultimate blame to the enemy of our souls. It would seem obvious that being is playing a role. That being said, we have all seen human stupidity. They behave like confirmed Soviet Commissars of long ago. They cling to the ideology in spite of overwhelming evidence of its colossal failure. The re-suppression of the TLM would be worthy ,if they are successful, of Barbara Tuchman’s book “The March of Folly”. One only prays their efforts will not be successful.

  8. robtbrown says:

    Andrew,

    It’s a self feeding mechanism. The pre Vat II Latin classes in Catholic education were aimed at Mass. The liberals knew that the end of Latin liturgy would bring the end of Latin classes. Now they say Latin mass is ridiculous because no one knows Latin.

    When I was studying Latin in Rome, I don’t think I knew a Latin student who wasn’t interested in Latin liturgy

  9. robtbrown says:

    Athelstan,

    I read the interview before as well as French commentary on the entire event.

    My point was this: It’s possible to produce statistics that are not wrong–but not right either. Have you ever noticed that Presidential polls from different political parties produce different results?

  10. Kevin says:

    Andrew you say, – “If you don’t know any Latin and you call yourself a “traditionalist” you look silly.”
    I know very little latin I’ve been attending the TLM for 13 years now.

    I attend, because in justice our Father deserves it.
    The offering of my mind and heart in union with the daily Holy Sacrifice offered by our beloved Canons of the ICKSP, may look silly without a full comprehension of what’s being said. But once it satisfies and in some way comforts the One being sacrificed I’m humbly content.

  11. Kevin says:

    I suspect that any revision to Summorum Pontificum will be to curtail a trend of seperateist elitism from developing within the varius congrations.
    Also I figure that it’ll prevent any secular Fr. Muppet from thinking he can celebrate the TLM just ‘cos he studied latin at seminary in rome.

  12. JonPatrick says:

    To add to what Kevin said above, to me being able to understand, speak, and read Latin should not be necessary to attend the TLM. After all the use of Latin is part of the mystery we enter into . In addition, the key part of the Mass the Canon is said silently so knowing the language is no help there. If you are going to follow along in your missal you might as well follow in the vernacular. Ability to learn a language is something some people are gifted with; others (such as myself) not so much. This should not be seen as a barrier to attending the TLM. There are enough other barriers as it is.

  13. Rich Leonardi says:

    Also, since the plural of anecdote is data, I get reports of ordination classes here in these USA.

    My hometown Diocese of Rochester, still reeling from the malfeasance of long-time ordinary Matthew Clark but now in the good graces of Bishop Salvatore Matano, ordained two men to the priesthood last month, one of which was formed in the local TLM community at Saint Thomas the Apostle. He is the second new priest from that parish in the last half-dozen years or so.

  14. Knowledge of the texts of the Mass, or full knowledge of the language in which the Mass is celebrated, has never been required for the faithful in attendance.  The clergy must know at least adequately the language in which they will celebrate the liturgy, even if just the more or less correct pronunciation of the words, but even then are not required to have a scholar’s knowledge of Latin (or any other language in which the Mass would be celebrated).  But the lay faithful cannot be required by the Church to know any particular language to attend Mass and worship God.

    I am free to attend Mass in Spanish if that’s the only one I can get to on Sunday, even if I do not know Spanish. Slowly but surely, if I keep going, I might even learn a few words, especially if they are sung.  Likewise, a person who knows little or no English is free to attend Mass in English.

    Having the Mass in the vernacular has not necessarily made for more comprehension — people seem to know less than ever about what the Mass is, and even with having the readings in their own language seem to know no greater amount of Scripture than before. [Excellent point.]  And if the purpose of putting the Mass into the vernacular was to get people’s noses out of their hand missals, now their noses are in their disposable missalettes — even though the Scriptures are being proclaimed in their own language.  This seems to make little sense, since one of the principles of having the liturgy in the vernacular was “fides ex auditu” (Romans 10:17).  And yet people are still “reading.” 

    Higher literacy rates have only been a phenomenon of the last 150 years or so.  Many of our saints were illiterate, and yet were nourished by the liturgy in Latin.

    During my five years of study in Rome, some of my classmates and I would discuss where we went to Mass on Sundays, and I mentioned that I often went to a parish where Mass was in Latin and in the older form of the Roman Rite.  One of my classmates, a brilliant young priest from Nigeria, asked to attend.  He turned up for a typical Solemn Mass on a Sunday, and afterwards said, “it is beautiful, it is reverent, but it would never work in my country.”  So I asked him, “which Mass do you think brought the faith to your country?”  I told him I thought it had worked just fine.  However, I have to say that during the years of my Latin studies with Father Reginald Foster at the Gregorian, most of the students were not interested in (nor aware of) the usus antiquior, except for a handful of Anglophone eccentrics.

    Heaven spare us the Latin show-offs at a simple Missa lecta — I’m pretty sure I once heard someone near me ask for the prayers of Michelangelo.
    *
    (PS: learning another language simply takes work after a certain age — 14 or so — and while there seem to be those who do have some kind of modest advantage or “gift” in this regard, everyone else can learn another language if they exercise their brains with a bit of extra effort. If people really want to, or if people really have to, they learn enough of another language to understand and make themselves understood.)

    [Strong points throughout.]

  15. Andrew says:

    Who said anything about “requiring” the knowledge of Latin? The Church praises virginity and celibacy but does not require it. The Church encourages the faithful to cultivate its language but does not require it. It is not a question of requiring but of encouragement and of good will. But here come the apologists to explain why studying the Church’s language is a wasted effort. Let’s close the book with that thought behind us.
    Going back to the original argument: think how much easier it would be to defend Summorum Pontificum if a wider knowledge of Latin existed among the faithful.

  16. I think that the canard about Latin is a diversion from what is really going on: it’s about the praxis, not the language per se (IMHO) with which the Mass is celebrated. And the praxis tends to a congregation-centered communal meal performed for our benefit by the priest rather than a sacrifice offered, in our name, by a man configured as an alter Christus, leading us into battle at the front of our ranks.

    I’m probably in the last or next-to-last generation whose HS required Latin for at least the first two years…and considering that a sizeable amount of our English language has its root in Latin, learning it, if not at a level of a Fr. Foster (RIP) or our esteemed host, if you concentrate, and are open to it…you will find yourself looking less at the English side of the Missal and following along with the Latin and comprehending more and more each time you assist. At least that’s what I’m finding, and I’m no language scholar, in fact, it was a LONG time ago that I had to use it in an academic or otherwise setting.

    Or, as it is thought that said Fr. Foster opined: “A sacred language? In the first century every prostitute in Rome spoke it fluently – and better than most people in the Roman Curia.” That observation, in itself, says a lot.

    I maintain it is the praxis at stake here…not the language it’s spoken in. That, to me, is the smokescreen and stalking horse for what’s going on behind the scene.

  17. donato2 says:

    Where there’s a will there’s a way. It is not at all difficult to learn the ordinary in Latin, especially when one knows it already in the vernacular from the new Mass. You have to use a missal to follow the propers. It doesn’t bother me one whit. On the contrary, I love my missal. I remember reading somewhere that it is common for people to become attached to their missals. That is the case with me.

    The traditional Latin Mass, unlike the new Mass, is chock full of liturgical action. The new Mass may free people from having their nose in the missal but it is to no avail because the new Mass offers little to see.

    The tradition Latin Mass radicalizes some of the young because it reveals what their elders robbed them of — not just the Mass itself but also all the rest: the octaves, the ember days, the sequences, etc. To learn of this wanton destruction angers.
    Now they are preparing to haul the wrecking ball out again to try to finish their work. It will anger further. This time however it will anger even more deeply and more widely. The 1960s were different. Then the traditional Mass was taken for granted — it had been around forever and thus didn’t seem special — and many people might have presumed that “reform” meant “better.” This is no longer the case. People now have seen exactly what “reform” means and what it leads to, and many want none of it.

  18. Semper Gumby says:

    Athelstan et al: Thanks for your comments on these Dijon posts.

  19. GregB says:

    Are multi-lingual Masses any more accessible than the Latin Mass? Particularly when the Mass is said in several languages. Basically a Mass for linguists. Echoes of the Tower of Babel. Understandability was suppose to be a big selling point for the vernacular Mass. I attend a NO Mass, but the multi-lingual Masses greatly weaken the case against the Latin Mass. I have no problem with making the Latin Mass available to those who want it.

  20. WVC says:

    The best defense for Summorum Pontificum would have been if legions of faithful Catholics had started attending the Latin Mass. Yes, I know it’s the fastest growing part of the Church, and that the numbers of Latin Masses and overall attendance has been growing steadily, but if there had ben an Our Lady of Guadalupe type shift, where hundreds of millions had made the switch in what amounted to an absolute tidal wave, there’s no way the Vatican could even consider trying to re-suppress the Latin Mass.

    Alas, we still have many, many sincere Catholics who think they can live a faithful life without ever even trying to participate in the liturgical tradition of the Church. They have no curiosity or desire to know more about the Mass that inspired the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Joan of Arc, or St. Padre Pio. It’s too hard. It’s boring. They never sing “On Eagle’s Wings.” Blah blah blah blah, excuse, excuse, excuse, excuse.

    My own parish is a testament to how hard the priest and many devout Catholics of labored to promote the Latin Mass over the years, but even here, while the Latin Mass community is strong, the majority of the parish, including many who are sincere in intention, refuse to go to the Latin Mass.

    People love complaining about how bad things are in the Church and whining about them not being able to do anything about it. For those folks who could have but didn’t attend the Latin Mass over the past 14 years I can only say – you had your chance. Even that small thing proved to be too much. For all the religious orders and bishops, especially “celebrity” bishops, who did little to participate in, foster devotion to, and promote the liturgical tradition of the Church . . . well, best of luck to you. You’ve picked your side for the battle that is to come.

  21. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Would Bread-Headed Francis Undo Every Eucharist? – The Stumbling Block

  22. Michael says:

    From a Diocesan perspective, I can personally testify to the following regarding SEVEN new priests from California who were ordained within the past five years. The following are from three different Dioceses:

    *FOUR of them chose to offer the solemn (or high) TLM as their very first Mass.
    *TWO will offer a solemn TLM as their first public Mass.
    *ONE has offered a solemn TLM the week after his ordination.

    Lastly, I can also testify that more seminarians currently in formation have their plans set for the same.

    Keep the faith. Tradition is growing!

  23. michele421 says:

    Father, please, would you consider not tarring all liberals with the same brush every time something happens in the Church which you don’t like? As you know, I’m a liberal and I’ve known a number of other liberal Catholics. Granted, many of us don’t find the TLM conducive to spirituality. But I don’t know of a single one who would deny the TLM to those who find it helpful. [LOL. That made me chuckle. You perhaps aren’t liberal in the sense that I intend.] It’s the bishops who are driving this train, and I strongly suspect they’re motivated much more by a desire for power and control than by a wish to promote Vatican II reforms. We may prefer the NO, but their addiction to power and control for thier own sake is quite as odious to liberals as it is to conservatives. In this, at least, we’re not the enemy. [I suspect I’m right: You are not “liberal” in the sense that I mean. Power and control is EVERYTHING to them.]

  24. michele421 says:

    Human nature being what it is, I’m sure there are plenty of people who love power and also identify as liberal. Personally I’ve known more traditionalists who fit that description. I guess it just depends on one’s perspective.

  25. michele421 says:

    Human nature being what it is, I’m sure there are plenty of people who love power and also identify as liberal. Personally I’ve known more traditionalists who fit that description. I guess it just depends on one’s perspective.

  26. Hugh says:

    While I think that we Romans will always benefit immensely from gaining some familiarity with the languages on Our Lord’s cross (Hebrew, Latin, Greek), which are the languages of our traditional Roman liturgy, it’s not necessary for participation in the liturgy. There are missals, and, these days, iphones. And even without either, one can watch and pray contemplatively, as peasants did in, say, 1100. And, even again today in my experience, newcomers who stumble through the door past the leaflet-pushing porters (hail to them, btw), and a year later are baptized.

    Liturgy has never been something everyone understands. That’s an anthropological constant. Down here in Oz, the aborigines’ “corroborees” were held by the men (only) and sung (for days) in an hieratic language, the words of which no-one singing them understood. All they knew was that “the Gods” understood them, and that was what mattered.

    Plus, BTW, if you made a substantial mistake, you got a spear through the thigh. A rather persuasive incentive to say the black and do the red!

    Still and all, it’s encouraging to hear of home-schoolers teaching their kids Latin and Greek, and sometimes even Hebrew. Why not?

  27. TonyO says:

    I very much agree with JGavin’s points above, about why Rome is (or may be) doing something to discourage TLM. They really, really don’t care about statistics and numbers of people attending or baptisms – except to the extent the statistics prove that TLM is growing, THAT they care about, in a negative way, i.e. “how can we change this.”

    They have convinced themselves that in regard to the difference between NO and TLM, any desire for the TLM instead of NO, per se represents a bad theology and a distorted spirituality. They no longer seem to think they need to argue for this conclusion, it’s just immediately valid from the mere FACT of preferring TLM. Hence growing numbers desiring TLM means, to them, not only a threat to NO, but a threat to the Church. (This POV is definitely not diversity-friendly regarding TLM, and those who hold it don’t view TLM as just another rite, they view it as a pernicious, harmful rite.)

    While I don’t think I know what Pope Francis thinks about TLM qua liturgy, it is clear that he detests “rigid mentality” and “formulaic” theology. Since a lot of the people who do prefer the TLM are, also the kind of people that Francis (or some others) would put in the box of “rigid mentality”, it is only a small step to thinking this would provide all the “reason” needed to make an effort to restrain or undermine Summorum – whether the main driving force is Francis himself or one of his leading helpers.

    Outside of the (probably) tiny group of bishops who actively hate TLM for its own sake, and the larger but still modest number of prelates who don’t hate it for itself but dislike it for attracting many of what would otherwise constitute part of the solid core of NO mass-goers, the numbers of bishops who simply don’t like it because it forces them to be confronted by choices to be made that they would prefer not to have to make is probably quite significant. They would prefer that the issue of “which liturgy” would just go away already and stop being such a pain. These bishops include the ones who always talk about “divisiveness” in the Church (in connection with the TLM), as if choosing A over B is divisive. They don’t seem to mind that Catholic men can choose to be diocesan priests or religious order priests, or that Catholic men and women can choose among many religious orders, or that Catholic families can choose to go to the early mass or the later mass, or… No, those choices are not divisive, but wanting the TLM is divisive. Why? Don’t ask, it’s “obvious”, and so nobody has ever questioned that.

  28. oledocfarmer says:

    I’m morally certain that there are free Latin courses on YouTube that run the gamut from Beginner to Scholar. Why not commit to 15 or 30 minutes a day taking these courses?

  29. oledocfarmer says:

    Ref to TonyO:

    Did you ever wonder who or what else thinks of the TLM as a “pernicious, hateful Rite?” I think I could hazard a couple of guesses!

  30. oledocfarmer says:

    Ref to Hugh:

    Beautifully said, sir! I love me some Aussies!

    I’ve HEARD several times that St Padre Pio thought the push for vernacular worship was foolhardy….he referenced St Teresa as not understanding some sections of the Divine Office but still managed to pray them very well.

    Whereas everybody can hear and understand everything…unless of course you don’t speak the vernacular being used. But assuming you can, you understand everything. And goody, you can even now take on liturgical roles once reserved to the priest (a rather delicious form of clericalism I think). UNFORTUNATELY, if you’re the average American “Joe Cat-lic” you ironically probably do not understand what is really going on on the Altar or what the Holy Mass really IS. The folks before Vatican II were very much better informed of these crucial matters.

  31. Semper Gumby says:

    Helpful post and comments.

    michele421 wrote: “Granted, many of us don’t find the TLM conducive to spirituality.”

    Spirituality tills the soil, Faith produces deep roots. For centuries the TLM inspired and fortified saints, military chaplains and Faithful laity and clergy in gulags and camps.

    The Good News of Jesus Christ, in Matthew 7, directs our attention to houses and foundations:

    “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”

    [Spirituality tills the soil,…]

  32. Pingback: VVEEKEND EDITION – Big Pulpit

  33. robtbrown says:

    In the Benedictine Monastic Life half of spirituality is tilling the soil. The other half is the Opus Dei, Divine Office, which is public (Nihil operi Dei praeponatur).

    Ora et Labora.

  34. Semper Gumby says:

    An excellent point by robtbrown.

    “Nihil operi Dei praeponatur”: put nothing before the work of God.

    “Ora et Labora”, Prayer and Work, are words lived daily by the Blessed Monks of Norcia as they chant their daily office and work in their garden.

    The Good Book says: “as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way…by truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left.”

    Thus, your prayer book in one hand and with the other steering this ship of the prairie:

    https://www.deere.com/en/harvesting/t670-combine/

    Harvesting souls and harvesting chow for every village, hamlet and monastery in a fifteen-mile radius. God bless ‘Merica.

  35. robtbrown says:

    Perhaps it would be good to keep some things in mind:

    1. In the 1980s JPII appointed a commission of Cardinals to consider the desire/need for the TLM. They opted for a limited return of at least one Sunday Latin mass in parishes. A document was produced which had much in common with the later Summorum Pontificum. When word leaked out, there was reaction mostly from certain French bishops, who came to Rome to protest Then the man who stood up to the Communists backed down to bishops, saying it was not the the time for such a document. It was no secret, btw, that JPII had little interest in liturgy, esp. in the TLM.

    2. I agree with the French observer who thinks the events in Dijon are a trial balloon, prefaced by ENRON accounting tactics that produced French TLM attendance “statistics”. The diocese of a conservative bishop near retirement was chosen–if the strategy failed, he would retire in a few months anyway.

  36. robtbrown says:

    Semper Gumby says,

    “Ora et Labora”, Prayer and Work, are words lived daily by the Blessed Monks of Norcia as they chant their daily office and work in their garden.

    Also Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma. And the mother house Fontgombault, as well as the foundations in France–Randol, Triors, Gaussan, and Wisques

  37. Semper Gumby says:

    robtbrown: You bet, God bless ’em all.

Think, proof read, preview BEFORE posting!