I was alerted to a manipulative piece at Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) with a massively ironic headline and intro. The Institute of Christ the King took over a parish in Cleveland that has Hungarian roots. Of course they started to make changes that some people didn’t like. Enter a lib writer offering a piece to Fishwrap in order to harm the Institute.
Not an April Fool’s shot. At first I wasn’t sure. I checked the date.
A Latin Mass community moved in. Then wrecked a historic Vatican II altar. [“Historic”? That’s rich.]
Cleveland — April 2, 2024
Shaking his head, Bob Purgert tilted one of the pedestals that supported the top of what is now a dismantled altar, stored in an unheated hall on the property of his beloved St. Elizabeth of Hungary Church in Cleveland’s economically struggling Buckeye neighborhood.
He showed a visitor the casters under the pedestal that allowed for the altar to be rolled aside for special events. [Yeah, the casters also make it really special.] Chipped and splintered wood could be seen atop and along the sides of the pedestal, a second one next to it and the altar top resting on a table nearby.
“They didn’t have to do this,” a disappointed Purgert, 71, said of the damaged altar. Parishioners are deeply proud of the altar, which parish priest Fr. Julius Zahorszky built in 1966 to accommodate the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council. [Golly! 1966? Boy oh boy, that’s sure historic. I’m reminded of when in 2010 the late Bp. Trautman was defending the old, obsolete 1973 ICEL translations on the lead up to the new one. He claimed that, by now, they were traditional. Card. George wryly called him on that, suggesting that Trautman had embraced a “Lefebvrism of the Left”.]
Hungarian Cardinal József Mindszenty celebrated Mass at the altar during a 1974 visit to the parish. Pope Francis declared the cardinal, who resisted Hungary’s communist government after World War II, venerable in 2019, making the altar a second-class relic if he is canonized a saint. [Ummmm…. Not everything a saint has touched is a second class relic. think about it.]
“They didn’t have to do this,” Purgert repeated. “They could have moved the altar. They could have moved it to the vestibule if they didn’t want to see it, and then it could be moved back for weddings or funerals for our parishioners.” [Yeah… that’s the Institute’s style… let’s keep a versus populum altar on casters from 1966 around just in case we want to use it in the main church.]
Purgert’s ire is focused on the Chicago-based Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, which since July has been establishing its presence at St. Elizabeth for Latin Mass adherents. The group celebrated its first Latin Mass at the shrine on Sept. 24.
[…]
There are a few things that pop up in a fair reading of the piece. One thing is that this church has a connection with Hungarian heritage. Whoever has use of the place, diocesan or Institute, whatever, ought to play that up and foster it… if they are smart. To ignore it or whitewash it is not just insensitive, it’s stupid. So, if that’s the approach, forget about the Hungarian connection – and we have just this article (so far) to go on – not good.
At the same time, if the community hasn’t been able to keep the place going, then when a solution is found, they really don’t have a lot to complain about. That’s the cold reality part of this. If you don’t pay the bills, etc., then you are not going to keep your church they way you prefer.
In this hyper-sensitive, uber-tense time we are in, it behooves everyone to be careful.
Anyone, circling back to the destruction of the “historic Vatican II” altar, it is hard not to burst out laughing in a dark, ironic way. Think of all the truly historic altars that were quite simply trashed in the name, the “spirit” of Vatican II when Vatican II said NOTHING about altars. It stirs rage to think of what treasures in churches were squandered with zero sensitivity about the people and their parents and grandparents who paid for those things with their money, sweat and time. Think of the money that must be spent now to renovate the wreckovations.
And this is a “historic Vatican II” altar.
Perspective.
Loading ...
The NCR piece is an exercise in special pleading from start to finish. What is it about commies and logic that makes them diametrically opposed? And this bit — “ [Ummmm…. Not everything a saint has touched is a second class relic. think about it.]” — made me chortle audibly. Thanks, Father.
Since I was born in 1965 I guess I am an historical figure. Or is that actually PRE-historic since that “historic Vatican II” altar (sic) has been around since ’66?
Gotta say I have a lot of schadenfreude – and it really feels good. I know that’s bad but I didn’t start it.
“Not everything a saint touches is a second class relic”. I take your point! But it makes me wonder. I have rosary that was given to me personally by St. John-Paul II. It is worn and sadly missing one bead these days (well, it was intended to be used) so I only get it out on special days now. I would love to get it mended but I have privately regarded it as a relic since his canonisation. Am I’m right to do so? I guess there must be many similar ones he gave to others. In any case, I will always treasure it.
A small rural parish that I used to belong to over a decade ago had photos up of the pre-Vatican II sanctuary. There was a very ornate wooden high altar in the German gothic style– really something for the size and location of the parish which showcased the Germanic heratage of the people. I asked them what happened to it. They had burried it and paved over it for the new parking lot.
This is an outstanding example – which should be replicated widely and the generously – of Pope Francis’s oft-repeated calls for the Faithful and their shepherds to “accompany” the marginalized, and especially those pushed to the peripheries by Church “policies”! Reading this story gave me hope, and I felt ACCOMPANIED… like, for the first time since my mommy walked me to school ?on my first day of kindergarten – in 1968!
Finally THEY have walked a mile in MY shoes! They are feeling MY pain and experiencing MY suffering!
Perhaps tomorrow I can feel… affirmed!
Respectfully, just because pre-Vatican II treasures were disrespectfully and thoughtlessly removed doesn’t mean it justifies disrespect and thoughtlessness when removing post-Vatican II treasures. The altar that was trashed was used for Holy Mass for 50+ years. Whether it is 500 years old or 50 years old, it should be handled with respect, as we do with any Sacramental we must get rid of. We don’t simply toss it in the dumpster. Peace to all here.
[Could you point out in the article where a dumpster is mentioned?]
If I wrapped my fish in this Fishwrap it would rot from the head down.
I am sure that the Altar stone and the relics were removed before they sent wooden box away. I am older than that box, am I an historic relic..don’t answer that.
I was working at a closed Catholic school that the Diocese was renting out to a secular school. They had built a wall dividing the Chapel in half. the Altar was still there.(not Novus Ordo). I found the key and opened the Tabernacle. The Blessed Sacrament ws there. I called the Bishop’s office and a Priest came immediately and removed the Tabernacle, altar stone and relics
St. Elizabeth of Hungary is no longer a parish church, having been “de-parish-ified” a number of years ago and its people folded into another church nearby. Bp. Malesic (God bless him!) knew that the traditional folks in Cleveland had become used to worshiping in a real church and was not willing to banish that portion of his flock to a gymnasium somewhere or a parish hall. Instead, he offered the ICKSP the use of St. Elizabeth’s church, craftily avoiding the Pope’s nasty rule against celebrating the traditional liturgy in parishes. This is still a hardship for most, because the church is in a bad part of town and doesn’t have a beautiful pipe organ, as did the other churches where the Mass had been celebrated until the Pope’s cruel “diss” took effect. Of course, the Fishwrap has to try to stir up trouble.
I read this and thought about the Altar of the Chair. That was an historic altar.
I’m not entirely sure you are not pulling our collective leg, but being a naive groundling I’ll bite…
The assault on the the post-conciliar liturgy by radical traditionalists in Cleveland has a mirror image in the secular sphere when you hear that the economy and the border crisis are the work of MAGA people.
But I am laughing.
By “historic altar” is he referring to the Cranmer table?
They can replace it. Just a couple of cardboard boxes with a sheet of plywood over the top and drape an old curtain over it. There you go, the historic table.
My efforts searching for more information are failing me, but I seem to recall reading there were some rubrics for the desacralization of an altar. Is anyone able to clarify? Canons 1212 and 1238 offer minimal insight.
If so, then I would generally expect members of the Institute to be diligent about observing such matters. But perhaps there was a misstep there. After all, the sacrifice of the Mass was offered on this altar, as well.
As for the comment about it being a “historic Vatican II altar”…
…the current rubrics still call for the main altar of a church to be fixed (Canon 1235). Admittedly, this is only expressed as “desirable,” but without also considering historical precedence, this places it on at least equal footing with it being desirable to have an altar built apart from the wall. So it is peculiar that one of the first details they called attention to is the fact that this “historic Vatican II altar” neglected the post-Vatican II desire that the main altar of a church be fixed.
I find it highly ironic that those attached to the post-Vatican II Liturgy and things (altar) bemoan how change is being forced on them. I recall how they handled the liturgical changes back in 60’s & 70’s. One Sunday, the Mass was the TLM, the next Sunday, it wasn’t. I guess taking time and considering the sensibilities of the people depends on the change and who’s making it.
So… they make it sound as if they had destroyed that altar. And you have to give them credit that that would indeed have been wrong with an altar, even a versus-populum-altar representing a development we justifiedly disapprove of, if that altar can just be rolled away and stored somewhere.
However, they rolled it away and stored it somewhere. What exactly is wrong with that?
It would be good to know more details – I have not yet followed the links in the Wikipedia article, “St. Elizabeth of Hungary Shrine (Cleveland, Ohio)” – the article’s name was changed on 24 September 2023 from “St. Elizabeth of Hungary Catholic Church (Cleveland, Ohio)” (article as “last edited on 25 November 2023, at 17:45 (UTC)”). The website stelizabethcleveland[dot]org has a post by Fr. Richard Bona, “Pastor of St. Elizabeth of Hungary and St. Emeric parishes”, on 6 August 2023 which is well worth reading: “Bishop’s Decrees on the Merger of St. Elizabeth of Hungary Parish with St. Emeric Parish”. It includes “In the merger, St. Elizabeth remains a part of the newly merged Hungarian parish and is elevated to a shrine. St. Emeric Church will retain its parish title.” And “With the coincidental plan of a religious order seeking a place to minister in our diocese, it was possible to find the best solution to the current situation (not a perfect one which satisfies everyone, as that is impossible).” There are not as many detailed photographs on that site or connected with the Wikipedia article as one might wish, but it looks as if St. Elizabeth’s was spared a thorough ‘wreckovation’ back in the day. Curiously, Wikipedia does include a 2015 photograph of the front of the St. Elizabeth Hall, and the details that “Before his death [in 1923], [Fr. Julius] Szepessy saw the completion of the present structure, along with a parish hall that became a community center for the neighborhood’s Hungarians.” This is presumably Mr. Sadowski’s “unheated hall on the property” appearing in his interior photographs with the article. Mr. Sadowski’s 25 years of experience have not prevented his being contemporarily ‘journalistic’ in dishonestly failing to quote any parishioner’s who are satisfied with the current phase of what Fr. Richard Bona called “the best solution”.
This is sanctuary of the Church which I attend regularly for Mass:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10230988396629866&set=pcb.765444222209814
Thankfully, the “Spirit of Vatican II” never reached this small village in southern Leicestershire in the East Midlands of England. The Church has always been in private ownership and the trustees responsible for the building never let any “modernisation” be done. To the best of my knowledge, Mass has never been celebrated versus populum in this Church.
Somebody send them an IKEA catalogue; they’re sure to find another suitable “historic Vatican II altar” there!
Well stated, Brian J. Wilson. I, too, am a member of the Diocese of Cleveland, and Bishop Malesic is a blessing to us in so many ways. My sister parish now hosts a weekly TLM. Two neighboring parishes had their TLMs shut down in order to please the Vatican, but our good bishop arranged for them to be consolidated at my sister parish this past November. It is located about 2 miles from each of the other parishes, so it is not a hardship for the TLM attendees. It has been a happy consolidation, and they are most welcome. In fact, our pastor named one of the TLM men to their parish council. We are both Novus Ordo parishes, but we are happy to welcome any of our Catholic family, and they are likewise treating us as family, with warmth and courtesy as befits any Catholic.
In response to your response to my comment, Father, I mentioned the word “dumpster” not in reference to the altar, but in regard to the disposal of Sacramentals. My understanding is that *all* Sacramentals are to be treated and handled with respect, and that when they are disposed of for any reason, they must be either burned or buried. Including the altar that has been used for Holy Mass every day for the last 50+ years. No disrespect was meant to you or anyone else here. As a matter of fact, my Third Order Franciscan community has planned a pilgrimage to St. Elizabeth of Hungary Shrine (as you know, St. Elizabeth is a great Franciscan saint). We will be there in May. As a member of the Diocese and with my interest in attending our pilgrimage, I am well aware of what has/is going on at St. Elizabeth. God bless and protect you, Father, and all here.
@21stCentury Anglican:
The infamous demolition of the Altar of the Chair was also the first thing that popped up in my mind.
As I understand it, this was a movable altar, which if I recall correctly, isn’t consecrated, nor does it contain an altar stone and relics. Personally, I think the use of those things should be forbidden where a fixed and consecrated altar is available.
[The Altar of the Chair. I was THERE that morning and saw it with my own eyes. They had obviously worked during the night but they weren’t finished by the time we priests started coming into the Basilica to say Mass at the side altars… HA!… another thing they destroyed. It was shocking to see what “La Verginella” had done. He also had extra workers around to make sure no photos were taken. It was all very tawdry and underhanded. The theology of the whole monumental Bernini structure was undermined. From the Holy Spirit window, above, you had a line through the chair of Peter, upheld by Doctors of the Church, to the altar of Sacrifice. Now, there’s a big hole where the eucharistic dimension had been. Now, you see a chair for the “presider”, the likes of which Caesar never dreamed of. Talk about stripping the Christocentrism out and imposing anthropocentrism!]
@IaninEngland
It’d probably be more thrifty for them to get the Temu app.
What a clever piece! No, no it’s not about the TLM (or the Institute – followers of tradition that they are) (Wink,wink). It’s about Hungarian heritage! (Which is apparently tied to Vatican II furnishings.)A traditional group destroying a “historic” altar makes it even more shocking! A location sooo important to these parishioners that they couldn’t marshall the forces to elevate it to its former glory. The reality is it was closed/merged because they couldn’t keep it going. They couldn’t get enough people to come to their NO Mass.
The “new” church will be returned to its former glory as a church that originally used the Latin Mass for the glory of God. I suspect there will be references to its cultural heritage. I don’t know about other Institute parishes but St. Stanislaus in Milwaukee has a huge relief behind the altar of the saint dragging a 3-days dead man to witness for him. They honor their church’s namesake regularly.
Rather lamenting the banishment of VII furnishings of questionable beauty, these folks should be longing for the installation of pieces that recall the heritage of the Hungarian Catholics who established this church– which would be a whole lot more beautiful and uplifting as it was built back in the early 20th century.
Me thinks we’re going to se many more of these types of articles from the Fishwrap as traditional Catholicism makes a storming comeback.
My observation Holy WEEK 2024:
Friday Mass at local parish, huge church, no one under 25.
Easter Mass, SSPX Chapel: three times attendance, average age UNDER 25. Families averaged 4 children. Oh, and First Communion for little girl.
My only question would be was this altar consecrated (with relics, etc.). I assume it was not, as I would imagine the ICKSP would then simpley retire the altar to another part of the church.
Pingback: VVEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | BIG PULPIT
The comments above said most of what I would say. Let me add:
The author’s level of denial of reality is immense. Almost awesome, if that kind of unreality can be awesome. It’s not just the dense silliness of stacking their anger on the remains of the prior generation’s wreckovation of churches and furnishings. It’s that the author, to cite two sources of anger, picked out (a) a person who used to live in the parish “for years”, but now lives elsewhere, and (b) a person who came to the US as far back as 1995! Sorry, bud, if that’s the best you can do to find people “with roots extending to the 1892 establishment “, you have just demonstrated why this isn’t an article worth writing.
The article, in addition to being obtuse in its denial of reality, was just plain stupid. “They didn’t have to do this,” Purgert repeated. “They could have moved the altar. Yeah, well, maybe, but more likely, NOT. First, the “casters” didn’t mean it could be rolled down steps, across a parking lot, and up into some other building. Second, have you SEEN casters that are 58 years old that still work? And, by the way, if you put casters on a wooden table so it can be moved regularly, and then MOVE it regularly, (a) that implies it isn’t built for durability (which would have made it too heavy), and (b) it’s going to get splinters and damage along the way being moved about. And let’s not forget the fact that it may have been built in a shoddy way to begin with, in keeping with the post-VII mentality to wreck everything old fashioned: good quality was another old fashioned idea that was rejected. While it may well have been the case that some of the splinters and damage happened in this current move, it is just as likely that some of the damage was old.
I can imagine having to ‘take it apart’ to extract the relics, whereafter “it was just a table.” Andrew Shipman’s 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia “Antemensium” article notes “A Greek Catholic priest may say Mass in a Greek church upon an altar-stone, yet a Latin priest may not say Mass upon an antimensium in a Latin church, although either may use the antimensium in a Greek church (Benedict XIV, Impositu nobis).” But I am astonished by the thought that ” a movable altar […] isn’t consecrated, nor does it contain an altar stone and relics”! Where can one read more about this?
I feel bad for the people who are quoted in the article. They did lose their parish. But they lost their parish because they weren’t able to perpetuate a population which would support it. Because of that, the church building is surplus to requirements. Given that, there are several choices. One is to sell it to a Protestant congregation. There is then no telling what would happen to the interior. Another would be to strip out the interior and convert the shell into lofts or apartments. Yet, another would be to simply have the building torn down. In these last two choices, all of the interior would be lost. While I understand the loss suffered by the parishioners, they should be glad that their building will survive as Catholic worship site.
Father, thank you for your comment. It must have been very painful to watch it being destroyed. Let’s hope we’ll see this act of wanton vandalism reversed.
I was in Cleveland for six years. The neighborhood in which St Elizabeth’s and for that matter St Margaret’s are located was in trouble even in 1985 when I arrived.
It is my prayer that the Institute will flourish there. I have attended Mass at a local oratory here. The sermons have been great. I belong to another Parish and as a friend pointed out I belong at the other Parish but I go to the Institute to get fed.
BTW I was in another state for Holy Week. There were notices, get your confessions before 3/26, none offered thereafter. I checked on line. Every day at St Cyril and Methodius save Easter Sunday.
I suggest that the Institute give the altar to Fish wrap so they can keep it in their headquarters or better yet, get a bunch of traditional men to cut it up into small pieces which can be sent to Fish wrap so they can distribute it to all their subscribers as “authentic Vatican II relics.”
Geoffrey says: “My only question would be was this altar consecrated (with relics, etc.)”
That’s an interesting point. Given that it was installed in 1966, the modified Rite of 1965 was still very much in force and the proto-N.O. of the “Missa Normativa” wasn’t to be unveiled until late 1967, so one would asume that the traditional Rite of Consecration of an Altar was used. There was no other, at that stage?
One would assume. But… yes, interesting.
To add to the above: the “Missa Normativa” was only demonstrated at the Synod in late ’67 (to less than full acceptance, but you’re not supposed to say that) and the N.O. didn’t actually come in until late 1969-early 1970 (1st Sunday in Lent 1970 over here in Ireland as I recall).