Revolting Parishioners Abandon Parish …editor
Parishioners at a church in Portsmouth Diocese say they have been driven out by an order of traditionalist Franciscans who have been put in charge.
The Bishop of Portsmouth Philip Egan handed over St Mary’s, Gosport, to the Franciscans of the Immaculate in June. Since then, parishioners say people are required to kneel to receive communion and women asked to cover their heads at Mass.
The order attracted controversy in 2013 when Pope Francis dissolved its General Council and forbade the friars to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form [sic] without permission. However the friars celebrate Mass in the old rite six days a week at St Mary’s.
Dr Amanda Field, a convert to Catholicism, says she has stopped attending the church after six years. “We used to have something really special here. The church was packed; people had to stand in the porch. But since the friars came we’ve been plunged back into the days before Vatican II,” said Dr Field.
Jean Watson, who has been serving the parish as a catechist and music-leader for 30 years, also described a “reversion” since the friars’ arrival. “I was a child in the parish before Vatican II and it wasn’t even like this then,” said Mrs Watson.
Bishop Egan announced this week that another traditionalist order, the Sisters of Maria Stella Matutina from Spain will reside at St Joseph’s church in Grayshott and assist with evangelisation.
The friars and the diocese declined to comment. Source
While Cardinal Nichols is planning to spread “gay Masses” across the Church in England and Wales, and in other ways making known his tolerance/acceptance of same-sex unions with barely a peep of opposition from any pews, let alone pew rage, parishioners elsewhere in England are up in arms and walking out in high dudgeon because they have been asked to kneel to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.
Think of that! What are they actually saying? Kneel before the God who made me? You kidding? Wear something on my head out of respect for the Blessed Sacrament? What, you serious? Still, they’re sure to be the kind of Catholics who will obey the Pope on changing their lifestyle to save the eco-system, so what’s the problem?
I’ve said it before and no doubt I’ll say it again – gimme strength.
What kind of Catholics think they had “something” so “special” in their parish, that kneeling in adoration before Our Lord could possibly destroy it?
Listen: whatever was going on in that church before the friars came, it was not Catholicism. End of. Disagree if you think you can defend this scandal. But, I warn you. It won’t be pretty…
Shame on those people for their contempt for Catholic customs. Kneeling to receive Holy Communion was once the norm, everyone did it. I wouldn’t call these people Catholics. They’ve no love of the faith, that’s obvious.
What this demonstrates is just how great is the loss of the Catholic Faith amongst Catholics. These people are just Protestants by any other name. Terrible state of affairs.
I think this post by Pat McKay on another thread sums up what The Bishop is doing ( July 27, 2015 at 11:55 am):
‘Divide and rule’ is a policy that’s been implemented time and again. It surely is old nick’s game plan here.
Exactly. I agree. That is exactly what Old Nick is up to. Archbishop Lefebvre said as much when he said after the Council that “it was Satan’s masterstroke to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience.”
By introducing a new Mass, the devil has divided Catholics.
The Bishop of Portsmouth is doing his best to restore some Catholic Tradition and the Friars are not doing any more than following the rubric of the ancient Mass where, for able-bodied people, kneeling to receive is the norm. People who are in wheelchairs of in other ways unable to kneel are not made to kneel, but those of us who are able-bodied are expected to kneel and receive on the tongue. I can’t see the issue.
Judging (oops!) by your comment, you’re more comfortably ‘semper fidelis’ to the sweet sound of strumming guitars, people attending Mass in long shorts, a ‘Sign of Peace’ that goes on for five minutes and a priest who offers the Mass with about as much recollection as someone reading a TV guide. If many parishioners in Portsmouth are now ‘unhappy’, it says an awful lot more about them and their ‘take’ on Catholicism than it does about the FFI. I’d lay down a fair few shekels that daily recitation of the Rosary for the vast majority of them is about as close to their hearts as booking a flight on the next space shuttle. As for naming (or even practising) one of the say, theological virtues, they could all have watched two box sets of ‘The Sermons of Cardinal Vincent Nichols’ and still be no nearer the mark. If only human cloning could be speeded up a bit and ‘Bishop Egans’ could then be appointed to every diocese in Britain, THEN the lives lead by Catholics up and down the country could accurately be described as semper fidelis, Semper Fidelis.
Nothing I have written could lead to your strange assumptions about liturgical practices I favour, except that I am faithful to the mind of The Church, and The Council, and I think it is foolish to seek to undo positive reforms of The Council, and drive away parishioners in favour of liturgical junkies.
Therein lies your problem. Your loyalty should lie primary with the Faith, not the current “mind of the Church, or “The Council”? By the way, to which Council do you mean? There is no “The Council”. There have been many ecumenical Councils.
What a fascinating reply! I’ve hung around Catholics a lot, and one of their cardinal beliefs is that ONLY “Mother Church” (by which they mean the Magisterium) is where you’ll find the truth. “Your loyalty should lie primary [sic] with the Faith” sounds positively…PROTESTANT! 😉
Do they actually allow you to say that w/o penalty? Too bad you’re unreachable, bec. I would enjoy chatting with you some more to hear more about your brand of Catholicism (not for conversion, mind you, but just because it’s so intriguing an exception to the “standard fare”).
Firstly, this thread should have been closed long ago, so I’m not sure what happened in this case. Anyway, now that you’re here, we’ll answer you. Petrus would have answered for himself in due course, but I’m about to, belatedly, close this thread down. For now, though, in his absence, allow me to correct your misunderstanding of his exhortation to be loyal to the Faith.
Normally, there wouldn’t be any “current mind of the Church” or Council which undermined Catholic (i.e. authentic Christian) teaching, but at the present time we are suffering a succession of bad popes and other senior hierarchy, who are causing mayhem with the Modernism that the saint-Pope Pius X did his best to stamp out.
From the beginning of Christianity, the “rule” has been that, where heresies arise, we look back to see what has always been believed by all, or the vast majority, of Christians, everywhere and at all times. That takes us full circle to what the Catholic Church teaches to this day.
So there is no contradiction at all. Down through history, there have always been bad popes – although this one, Francis, takes the prize for all-time Best Worst Pope ever! But we are not concerned for informed and educated Catholics who know what I have just told you – it’s those who are poorly educated who think that popes are virtually divine and cannot teach error privately (they are protected by the Holy Spirit from ever making their errors binding on the Church) who are the worry.
So, what Petrus said is not “his brand of Catholicism” – and it’s certainly not Protestantism, because Protestants look to no authority beyond their own personal interpretation of the Bible, and if Jesus had meant us to do that, He’d hardly have waited several centuries (15 to be precise) before giving us printing presses! In the Bible itself, we are told that it is the Church (not the bible) that is the “pillar and ground of all truth.”
That’s what has always, everywhere and at all times been understood by everyone!
Note: This thread is really finished now, so I’m going to close it down, better late than never, while thanking you for your input.
Are you not being somewhat pejorative in describing upholders of Tradition as “liturgical junkies”?
You may have opinions that differ from those of other bloggers, but there is no need to be so rude.
If you were truly faithful to the mind of the Church and the Council then you would reject Communion in the hand, women altar servers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, etc., which novelties have no authority from the Council (mind of the Church) and are contrary to the expressed wishes of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Neither will you find any basis in the Council documents for a New Mass in the vernacular. The true “mind of the Church” is clearly expressed in almost 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, not in the post-Council do-it-yourself reforms that you apparently uphold.
I forgot to ask you to provide examples of those “positive reforms of the Council” you refer to. I am not personally aware of any such positive reforms, quite the contrary, and I certainly would not term objection by Catholics to kneeling for Holy Communion a “positive reform”. A heart-rending sign of lost faith is much closer to the truth, if we’re honest.
Are the “liturgical practices” that I mentioned consistent with the “mind of the Church” that you consider yourself faithful to or are they, and innumerable other similar signs of progress, rather indicative of an attitude which St.Paul identified in Corinthians 3 as being ‘still of the flesh’ and ‘the behaviour of ordinary men’? (You only get one guess). Going on the assumption that you’ve got it right, why is this far from sacred mindset causing such dissension in Portsmouth? As I alluded to in my first reply, I believe it’s deep roots lie in a superficial (bordering on non-existent) prayer life resulting in a shallow, worldly attitude to the Faith which sees Catholicism as more akin to a glorified social club rather than a way of life that makes its followers ‘a holy nation, a people set apart’. If the Franciscan Friars, by their praiseworthy adherence to the Faith and their preaching can turn the hearts of even a small number of their ‘new’ parishioners to truly see what hope His call holds for us, then the present discord, rivalry and jealousy will have been a small price to pay.
Still on the subject of prayer, as today is the feast of that passé fuddy-duddy St.Alphonsus Liguori who was always banging on about the salvation of souls (as if nothing else mattered!) it’s apt to quote from his treatise ‘ON PRAYER’:
I do not think I have written a more useful work than this one, in which I speak of prayer as a necessary and certain means of obtaining salvation and all the graces we require for that end. If it were in my power, I would distribute a copy of it to every Catholic in the world to show the absolute necessity of prayer for salvation.
I say this because on the one hand I see the absolute necessity of prayer is taught throughout Scripture and by all the holy Fathers, while on the other hand I see that Christians are very careless in their practice of this great means of salvation. And, sadder still, I see that preachers take very little care to speak of it to their flocks and confessors to their penitents. I see moreover, that even the spiritual books now popular do not speak sufficiently of it, for there is NOTHING which preachers, confessors and spiritual books should insist upon with more warmth and energy than prayer.
And that was 300 years ago. Is the present “mind of the Church” helping to achieve St.Alphonsus’s aims or emulating his zeal for souls?
Two words in the above editorial comment sum up the whole “controversy”: “catechist” and “music-leader”. The lady is furious (#raging) that she will lose influence over children and converting Catholics. Moreover, she won’t be allowed to strum her guitar and bang her drum, because you can bet your bottom euro that this “music-leader” will not be anything as fuddy-duddy as an “organist”.
All too late, of course, l’église se meurt, but more power to Mr Egan, I hope he sticks to his guns!
I think you could be right. A very common symptom of this crisis is lay people pretending to be priests and priests pretending to ve lay people.
I think these catechists and musicians who are kicking up a stink may have been brought down a peg or two by the Friars and reminded of their proper station. This bad tempered complaining is no doubt the result of pride.
The sad thing is, there are actually plenty of things lay people can do to contribute to the liturgy. For example, laymen can learn to serve Mass, it is not a little boys activity, no, all able-bodied men of normal intelligence of any age can learn to serve Mass. Also, lay men and women can learn to sight-sing from the Liber and pronounce Latin correctly. If enough people did this a parish can reasonably hope to offer Missa Cantata every Sunday.
I can’t understand this idea that we have to be doing things at Mass. When I go to a TLM I hope it’s a low Mass, as I’m not very keen on sung Masses.
Athanasius has said several times, and I’ve never forgotten it, that the only people who were active and busy on Mount Calvary, were those who were crucifying Our Lord.
I think that is exactly what we are witnessing today. I want to concentrate on reflecting that I am present as at the first Calvary. I don’t want a lot of distractions around me, goodness knows there’s enough at the novus ordo if activism is what people want. I want to think and to pray and to follow the missal as best I can. The peace of the low Mass is very attractive to me.
I think we must have been separated at birth! My feelings exactly.
That’s fine. It’s a preference…
Although, and I imagine I shall irk a few people here in saying this, Solemn High Mass is actually the default norm in Roman right, low Mass is a kind of ‘indult’, a more (relatively) recent development for practical reasons. Of course, this doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed a preference for low Mass, it just means what I said: Solemn High Mass is the norm. The reason most traditional Catholics don’t realise this is because they are so used to low Mass, but this is due to necessity, and is not per se the mind of the Church.
Low Mass is an abbreviation of the preferred rite of Mass, allowed only for practical reasons, whereas some traditional Catholics believe the opposite, that Missa Cantata/Solemn High Mass is just normal Mass with added trimmings for special occasions. If this were the case, I could well understand why people might have a distaste for sung Masses.
We shouldn’t really think of it as a sung Mass, but rather a chanted Mass. Likewise, the default norm for the Roman Breviary is chanted as well, even though 99% of the time it is recited. What is a psalm afterall?
Modal plainsong (Gregorian chant) is the soul of the Roman Missal. Plainsong predates Saint Gregory. It has evolved with the Roman Missal. The two are inseparable.
Seminarians in traditional seminaries are drilled in plainsong for the first two years, and almost all seminary Masses are sung.
When I read your introduction to this thread I had to check my calendar to ensure we were not on April 1st!
Well done Bishop Egan. Would that more bishops would find the courage to emulate the example you have set. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the news to spread, and for Traditional Catholics to flock to St. Mary’s in Gosport to the extent that they, too, find it necessary to arrive early in order to get a seat in a pew.
Parishioners Rule! Certainly under most bishops and many parish priests – the latter ceding their power thereto – for peace and quiet.
Bishops and priests who demand charitable respect to their status are undermined by a Modernist Bishops’ Conference and Modernist Clergy Associations.
[See current Daily Mail Online relative to an Order challenging “Lesbian Witches”, Bishop expels the monks.]
A bi-ritual church where I occasionally attend the TLM, the PP was subject to similar reaction when posted to the parish. One person, who apparently had ruled-the-roost for a number of years, took umbrage and created dissension. He left, the parish grew. The TLM is not well attended, but that may be due to the manner of Celebration of the parish NOM, which I assume to be orthodox.
In a case where the PP carried the parishioners with him, as to a bi-ritual with Traditional basis throughout, was attacked by a wide range opponents at diocesan curia and priestly masonic organisation. The parish was closed, the priest rendered itinerant.
The E&W Bishops’ Conference has gerrymandered us into a fragmented CofE format: high, medium, low and very low churches. Where we attend, if we continue so to do, attend a church which we deem acceptable to us and clergy whom we have trust. Of course, what has happened is that the flocks have been decimated to a shadow of that experienced in my youth and early working days.
Theoretical arguments concerning the status of SSPX, et al, are ridiculous – schism is de facto rife, but not only ignored, by the episcopacy, but encouraged.
“The TLM is not well attended, but that may be due to the manner of Celebration of the parish NOM, which I assume to be orthodox.”
It doesn’t matter how orthodox a priest who says the new Mass is, it’s still facing the people and with all the abuses that are now everywhere. The TLM is not attended because, I suspect, people prefer the new ways, standing for Communion and receiving in the hand in particular.
Yet, as a priest once pointed out to me, in the Gospels, every time the disciples realised that Jesus was divine, they fell to their knees.
I’ve never forgotten that, and if kneeling to receive Communion was good enough for great saints then it should be good enough for us, IMHO.
I wish I was a clever clogs? Always highlighting someone else’s alleged mote.
In fact you are wrong, the NOM is certainly Celebrated ad orientem and kneeling will be the norm, as also receiving on the tongue. The latter cannot, obviously be enforced, only brought into line by example. There exists no ‘table’ in the church, it was thrown-out, hence the publicised furore.
So you are only prepared to support clergy preaching orthodox Catholicism from within SSPX?
I’m sorry you think I’m a “clever clogs” – I was not meaning to “highlight someone else’s alleged mote”. I didn’t say anything about any individuals at all, I just spoke from my own experience, as I’ve never attended a novus ordo where the priest wasn’t facing me and where everybody stood and took Communion in the hand. I’ve never ever seen anything different. So, even if the sermons are orthodox, that doesn’t make up for the new Mass itself. That’s all I meant, and to be honest, reading my post again, I can’t see how anyone could think I meant anything else, if they read it in charity.
Also, I think I’ve expressed my sympathy for those of us who can’t get to SSPX Masses, just because I know that they are a haven of peace in this crisis and the sermons are very Catholic. I have never said they were the only priests preaching orthodox Catholicism, never once.
I’m sorry, but I notice that my brothers and sisters in novus ordo land just can’t seem to bear any criticism of the modern Mass even those who pay lip service to liking the traditional Mass. It’s a phenomenon I’ve never understood but notice it a lot, especially on this blog.
I forgot to ask if you could name some parishes where the priest is not facing the people. I’ve never seen that in a novus ordo parish so I am very interested to find out where that happens.
You made a judgement against a priest based only upon the experience of the narrow world in which you appear to inhabit. Re-read your contribution.
There are at least four churches Celebrating the NOM ad orientem in NW England. How do I know, because the churches have not been re-ordered, or the priets have dispensed with ‘The Table Altar’.
The Holy Name, Manchester Celebrated twelve NOMs a week ad orientem, in an ‘hybrid’ form. Circa 50 at each early morning and evening weekday Mass. Their Sunday TLM was attended by circa 100. The clergy were eased out and transferred elsewhere and the Jesuits returned, and back came ‘The Table’. But worse, the student body were deprived of sound Catholicism. Even the university chaplain was moved, because he was of the same ilk. The Holy Name, under Canon Law was not a parish church, or so I understand, which afforded the clergy flexibility.
I’ve just read through Margaret Mary’s comments and can’t see any “judgment” being made against any priest. She merely expressed a view that, even at its best, the novus ordo is really not acceptable. The Vatican said as much when they were asked to confirm that the new Mass is licit because it is “wholly orthodox and pleasing to God” but they would not say that, only that it is “licit” in the sense that it is permitted by Church law (at this time – watch this space!)
It’s interesting that you are able to name parishes where the NO is “celebrated” ad orientem, but I think you will agree that this is not the norm. We have one (that I know of) in Glasgow, although I am not sure whether or not that fact is known or approved by the archbishop. I somehow doubt it. Which is why I will not name the parish or priest.
As for your remark that MM made her “judgment” based on “the narrow world in which you appear to inhabit.” – well, most of us inhabit a “narrow world.” Don’t you?
It’s really a non-issue, in my view. We have the right to priests who can offer the traditional Latin Mass. That right is being flouted today, right across the UK. Given the choice between a novus ordo ad orientem, even with kneeling and Communion on the tongue and the ancient Mass that the martyrs gave their life’s blood to defend – which would you choose? I know where I’d be fulfilling my Sunday obligation – and it would NOT be at the novus ordo. No matter how orthodox the sermon.
Sixupman, MM can’t help not living in England. England has four oratories, and the liturgical culture is different here. Things are entirely different in Scotland. There almost are no places in Scotland that offer the Novus Ordo ad orientem, not even Pluscarden. The rest of the world largely resembles Scotland, not those few places in England.
That chaplain baptised me. He is a good man. I can’t get in contact with him. Is he still incardinated in the diocese of Salford?
Holy Name is my baptismal church. Its a real stunner. Fortunately it’s a grade 1 listed building so they can’t smash the reredos and high altar up. But I still don’t trust them.
Since the oratorians left, every so often I pop in to look for unauthorised modifications. Last time they were building a shop in the back of the church, so I reported them to English Heritage. It sound like I am a busybody, I don’t care, because someone MUST stop people like this, because if they get the chance these people WILL smash the place up, just like they smashed up the stations of the cross in Saint Mary’s hidden gem down the road and replaced them with atrocities. Think of all the hundreds upon hundreds of historic churches which have been vandalised since Vatican II, including many in this country, for example several of Pugin’s original designs, which were masterpieces.
Sixupman, the problem with the Sunday TLM there, which is one bloggers have drawn attention to in the past in indult Masses, is that in order not to ‘upset the bishop’ Holy Communion was distributed in the hand to those who preferred it. Maybe I should have been able to ignore what others were doing, but I’m afraid I could not. I should imagine that the same happens at St. Chad’s?
It does not and equally so at the odd weekday NOM I have attended.
However, I will admit that their weekday NOM has a nuanced difference, in format, to that which the clergy Celebrated whilst at The Holy Name – then, they were, strictly speaking, not Diocesan clergy and had a freer hand.
I have not been to an NOM at Leyland, but it is likely the same applies -kneeling and on the tongue.
I can tell you how petty bishops can be. The PP of a church in Preston sought to Celebrate the TLM in his church and the bishop attended. The bishop insisted that the NOM Lectionary be used!
Last feast of St. Philip the Salford Bishop, Arnold, honoured the clergy by his presence at St. Chad’s. Frs. Matus & Hilton, when at The Holy Name, had attracted vocations with I think three ordinations, one at St. Chads being the first anniversary. Instead of preaching on and recognising the vocations, he preached on the part of the laity! +Arnold, an ex lawyer, was certainly a snazzy dresser with his immaculately cut clerical suit.
The Jesuit Church in Preston, close to the beautiful ex convent SSPX Church, had a monthly TLM. I occasionally would attend the their noon weekday NOM. A retired priest Celebrated and one and all knelt at the altar rail for Communion. Come a new PP, the retired priest was banned from distributing along-the-rail and insisted on ‘the queue’. Nasty. The main attraction was the daily Confessions, with queues and even clergy from other parishes openly using the facility, in such esteem was the retired priest held. [n.b. Before the criticisms arise, the SSPX Mass weekday Mass times were very early morning and I did not actually reside in Preston – so such was not an alterniatve.]
There’s nowt so queer as folks and bishops.
In Brompton Oratory All Masses are celebrated ” Ad Orientem”
And in Latin, I believe?
A very good post – and I loved your flourishing finish:
“Theoretical arguments concerning the status of SSPX, et al, are ridiculous – schism is de facto rife, but not only ignored, by the episcopacy, but encouraged.”
Absolutely, spot on. Well said.
Sarto, oui, l’Eglise se meurt but why call the Bishop “Mr. Egan”? Perhaps it was a slip of the pen, but he is a prelate of the Church and merits his title.
I have a cousin who lives up north and, apparently, his PP refuses to allow a monthly old Mass on a Sunday even though there are priests willing to offer it. Now, THAT’s what I call rebellion against the will of the Holy Father! The last few popes at least, as I don’t know the mind of the present pope on the matter.
I know of a parish where there is a stable group of parishioners who desire the Traditional Mass, and there are priests in that diocese who are able to offer it. The Mass is blocked by the parish priest because he doesn’t want it to attract the ‘wrong sort of people’.
The official line in the Archdiocese of Glasgow is that any priest is permitted to offer the traditional Mass and any parish is permitted to have one. However, it is not permissible if the Mass would attract weird people (weird people are defined as anyone who desires to attend a traditional Mass). It’s a real catch 22 situation. You have to give it to them, they’re clever.
That’s a classic. By saying the TLM is not permitted if it would attract “weird people” the archdiocese puts ME in something of a dilemma? Where DO I go to Mass?
Hilarious stuff – if only I had a cast iron source for that, WHAT a cartoon it would make in the October edition!
In fact, it’s truly no exaggeration to say that, in every conversation, after reading just about every email or letter that comes my way, a cartoon pops into my mind! It’s that bad. The state of the Church, I mean, not my mind… I heard that! Watch it!
Our Lady & St. Joseph’s, Carlisle: a past PP would not let his then curate Celebrate the TLM in the church. The curate Celebrate in an adjacent parish, that PP, now at Our Lady’s, has brought in a wider use of the TLM in that and other churches in the city, once bereft of a TLM, except from an itinerant priest, once a month.
The previous Bishop of Lancaster, refused to have FSSP take over an iconic church, in Preston, because it would have a deleterious effect on other parishes. [I kid you not.] New bishop and expediency dictates: ICKSP have taken over the church.
Are Ordinaries going to be prepared to live with empty and crumbling churches falling around their ears? Some of course, come hell or high water, would not sell to SSPX, but would to Muslims!
It appears that the Franciscans of the Immaculate are trying to have it both ways. I can understand this, but it is simply not possible. Really, there are only two options, give fealty to modernism or accept the SSPX’s position. Being a traditional Catholic in the long term is not possible in the mainstream Church, which the SSPX has always said, and which of course is why they exist. For example, the FSSP cannot operate in a diocese without the ordinary’s permission (a ludicrous state of affairs, which is why I eventually came to support the SSPX).
As for the parishioners, they have ceased being Catholic, they are like Protestants.
When the Immaculate Heart of Mary eventually triumphs, most of the existing Catholics, the ‘old church’, I am sure, will abandon the Catholic Church in disgust. The masses of heathens will convert to the ‘new Church’, and they will embrace traditional Catholicism. The old church will say, “but we were Catholic first”, but God will not hear them: just as when the Nation of Israel was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, so it will be when Our Lady restores the Church.
There are two “SSPX” options: +Fellay, or, +Williamson, are there not?
No, there’s not two options. Bishop Williamson was expelled from the SSPX a few years ago.
That is your opinion [with which I agree, as it happens] but it is still only your opinion. There are clergy who who have followed +Williamson by Conscience, there are other +Williamson sympathetic who have seen fit to remain within the protection of the +Fellay fold, are they quislings?
A previous UK Superior, and indeed Msgr. Lefebvre himself, fostered a rapprochement with like thinking diocesan clergy. I am well aware of the paradox for such diocesan clergy, particularly the Traditional Orders, but their view is as to a particular status – I could elucidate with use of the ‘tent metaphor’, but that would prove offensive on this blog.
We are fast approaching the point where bishops and clergy are going to have to decide exactly what they are going to in the face of clear schism within the international diocesan structure and Roman Curia.
Start criticising, when all the cards are on the table and in the meantime charity towards the Traditional Orders and like-thinking diocesan clergy.
There is nothing the Modernists would like more than rancour between Traditionalists! Do not fall for it.
The +Williamson group are very vitriolic about the SSPX, they call themselves ‘the Resistance’. I don’t agree with their position, so in conscience I couldn’t recommend them as a viable option. For a start, I always liked the Sound of Music.
“For a start I always liked the Sound of Music”
Me, too !
I couldn’t believe it when I read what Bp Williamson said about the Sound of Music, that it was dangerous or whatever. LOL !
How do you solve a problem like “Resistance”?
You open wide your arms and run headlong into the wind on the crest of a mountain singing about it. How’s that?
A reader has just emailed the following…
From the official WDTPRS parodohymnodist – now Father Tim Ferguson – to the Sound of Music tune “My Favorite Things”:
Dalmatics on deacons and cassocks on priests,
habits on nuns and immovable feasts,
bishops in soutanes with big, gaudy rings –
these are a few of my favorite things.
Devotions to Mary, novenas and stations,
fasting and penance on Days of Rogation,
High Mass and Low Mass and papal blessings –
these are a few of my favorite things.
Rosaries and incense and fiddleback vestments,
BINGO on Mondays with homemade refreshments,
statues of angels with halos and wings –
these are a few of my favorite things.
When RENEW strikes!
When the rail’s gone!
When I’m feeling sad,
I simply pop into a Solemn High Mass
and then I don’t feel so baaaaaad!
Ed: you just HAVE to laugh 😀
I’ve always been curious, coming from the East where we have an iconostasis, why the Latin Church got rid of Rood Screens in favor of rails. Note I say curious and not critical. From my own perspective, a Rood Screen or Iconostasis are a means to foster the–in my opinion–necessary separation between the congregation and the sanctuary. Again, speaking personally, I think a rail is too open. Then again, our side of the Church find pews weird so it might just be my Eastern sensibilities not understanding.
The clowns are in town,
With the shouts of “resistance”.
With lies they have told
For about five years!
The clowns fill my heart
With a dread of “resistance”.
My legs want to run everytime they come near.
You’ve found your vocation – as a poet!
However, our policy is to give the so-called “resistance” no publicity at all, so let’s leave it there.
Back to your day job. Contributing jewels to the Catholic Truth blog !
That’s a hint….my vocation is definitely NOT a poet!
Nonsense! I’ve been singing that “The clowns are in town” ever since you first posted it. You’ve got a knack for poetry. Don’t waste such talent… 😀
You solve it over the course of time.
Did you not know that Time wounds all heels? [Groucho Marx]
Ah yes, Groucho Marx, the man who said he would never become a member of any club that would have him as a member. Priceless!
If the parishioners interviewed are indicative of the parishioners on the whole, then they certainly sound “revolting”!
Too true – revolting indeed ! LOL !
I’ve been waiting for a complaint about my choice of headline. That’s why I smiled as I pressed the “publish” button !
Why don’t they just become Anglican? Alas, the Church of England is probably too high church for them. But there are plenty of other ecclesial communities in Portsmouth, Methodism for example.
I lived/worked in Portsmouth Diocese for a while, during the Bishop Hollis years, so I can well imagine the shock waves in the diocese under Bishop Egan.
With that in mind, I decided to email our support to Bishop Egan and sent the same email, slightly amended, to the Gosport office, asking that it reach the friars at St Mary’s…
EMAIL FROM CATHOLIC TRUTH
After reading in The Tablet* about the disgraceful un-Catholic behaviour of the group who stopped attending their parish due to their manifest hatred of authentic Catholicism, we launched a blog discussion on the subject at Catholic Truth.
We wish to assure Bishop Egan of our support; he is to be commended for his efforts to restore something, at least, of Catholic Tradition.
*Please note, The Tablet being a dissenting journal committed to Modernism, we do not subscribe to it. Only when readers send links to articles, such as the one on St Mary’s Gosport, do we check it out online.
Oh to be endowed with such certainty of self-worth!
What does that mean? Are you a supporter of the group who object to the Friars’ efforts to restore Catholic Tradition? I really do not know what you mean and whether it is my unworthy self who is being accused of “such certainty of self-worth” or one of the other bloggers.
Would you spell out, clearly, to whom your comment refers, and what exactly it is that you mean. Thank you.
Your own post intervened: it related to Muffin Man. He appears confident that FFI are some form of charlatans and he is the epitome of truth.
You must know, by now, I would never be anti-FFI. Have ago at him!
Your reading of Margaret Mary, in relation to my own contribution, is at variance with my own.
So many members, in my experience, like to dish it out, but take umbrage and claim being misunderstood when they are on the receiving end.
Of course, I have the temerity to attend NOMs when appropriate Celebrated by clergy in whom I have implicit trust. Therefore, my own judgement is deemed inferior to the superior contributors to this blog.
That’s it. That’s the explanation, right there in your concluding paragraph… you are still attending the new Mass, and you justify that by virtue of the fact that you implicitly trust the priest(s) who are celebrating the new Masses which you attend. Somewhere in your soul you know that you really shouldn’t be there, but instead of examining that Catholic sensitivity and taking whatever steps you can to avoid the new Mass, no matter how well meaning and orthodox in his beliefs, the priest, you are taking offence at our comments, in the hope that somehow you can continue to justify your attendance at this new, and getting newer by the fortnight, novus ordo Mass.
And note, please, that it is YOU who is using terms such as “inferior” and “superior” and frankly that is because, it seems to me, you know perfectly well that the new Mass is not where you should be, NOR should those priests whom you implicitly trust be “celebrating” it.
Now, I understand that circumstances have overtaken us and we’re over 50 years into this scandalous crisis, caused, at root, by this same new Mass, so I know that it’s not easy for priests, especially those who were ordained to “celebrate” the new Mass, to refuse to do so – I appreciate that, but, looking at the issue as best we can with the mind of Christ, really and truly no priest should be subscribing to the errors of Vatican II and its aftermath. In fact, click here to read about one priest in recent years who publicly refused to play along any more…
But, let’s be clear, Sixupman, and this is not what you want to hear. None of us, not Margaret Mary, not Muffin Man, not Petrus, not Athanasius, none of us considers ourselves to be “superior” to you or to anyone else. The ancient Mass, however…that’s a very different matter. That is definitely superior to the Bugnini Mass, which was expressly created to please Protestants, not God.
So, don’t get angry with us because you know in your heart of hearts the truth of the matter. None of us is superior to you. Not one (and I can say that, never having met most of the bloggers here – I mean, if I’d met Muffin Man do you think I wouldn’t have talked him into choosing a more sensible username and picking an avatar that wouldn’t have me heading for the bakery every five minutes? Gerragrip!)
No, Sixupman, don’t get mad at Muffin Man or Margaret Mary or even my unworthy self. Get mad at the popes who have brought us to this state of affairs where good priests, like the ones in whom you have implicit trust, are “celebrating” a new Mass which the saints wouldn’t recognise, would, in fact, abhor, and which the Vatican refuses to confirm is pleasing to God, while at the same time they have to risk the disapproval (to put it mildly) of their bishops if they wish to offer the Mass that has served the Church for centuries and which the martyrs died to defend.
Don’t shoot us – we’re just the messengers. 😀
PS I think Muffin Man was referring to the revolting parishioners not to the Friars. He wouldn’t call the Friars “charlatans” – even if he did choose a Muffin for his username instead of a fresh cream meringue. Men!
Of course, yours is the only opinion of any value. Just as I said.
It is just as well I do not not take umbrage, is it not.
All NOM Celebrating clergy are anathema? Is that your view, it is my conclusion from that which you opine.
Lastly you have no knowledge how often I hear an NOM Mass and how often I hear a TLM Mass – again assumptions without one shred of evidence to back-up your criticisms.
Thank you for your humble statement about my opinion, but it is a view I do not share. Mine is certainly not the only opinion of any value. In fact, my opinion is of so little importance that I tend to stick to the facts in hand, and focus on the issues. It’s the best way to debate, if, that is, one’s intention is to teach and to learn; for those out to be rude and make trouble, it’s always a good idea to make nasty personal remarks. Works a treat.
However, troublemakers are not welcome on this blog. Be aware that personal remarks will be deleted, and again I’ve been careless, thinking that, with a little humour, I can restore good order not to mention good manners. Not working with you, sadly, so be warned that any more nastiness will be removed from your posts from now on.
You are twisting what others write, myself included – e.g. I have never “anathematized” any novus ordo priests and I was very clear in what I did say about them in my previous post, which was sympathetic in nature. Nor does it matter one jot how often or how seldom you attend a novus ordo. the fact that you have clearly missed my entire point, speaks for itself. You attend all the novus ordo Masses you like – makes no difference to me. Your fury, however, at the simple statements of fact posted on this blog, is revealing of something wrong in your soul. Maybe I’m mistaken and it’s nothing to do with the Mass. Maybe you’ve been robbing banks or something and that is what is playing on your conscience. Whatever, your behaviour on this thread has been disgraceful, and a lot of that has to do with your misquoting and misrepresenting others. And if that’s not you taking umbrage, I sure wouldn’t like to see you when you do take umbrage. Jings!
It’s sad to see you showing yourself to be dishonest in this way. I can’t say that you lie, of course, because I can’t see the operation of your mind, but the facts speak for themselves; you’ve misquoted Muffin Man and you have now misrepresented my previous comment. It seems that you are determined to turn everything into a personal battle, and this has caused the discussion to take a very unpleasant direction. I would ask you to stop posting here now, unless you recognise the truth of the above and wish to engage with us in a spirit of Christian charity. This would involve offering an apology to Muffin Man for misquoting him, please and thank you.
Finally, if you object to criticism of the novus ordo Mass, you will not be happy here. Indeed, it may be an occasion of sin for you. So, either observe our “no personal remarks” rule and tune in to the traditional ethos of this blog, or don’t visit us. The decision is entirely yours.
I have absolutely no objection to criticism of the NOM, my record proves otherwise. I do object to criticisms of diocesan clergy which are based upon erroneous assumptions as to fact.
I do not lie and I support ‘the cause’. If you consider me a “troublemaker” have the courage of your convictions and act accordingly.
You, unlike FFI (apparently – see Muffin Man), are seeking to have it both ways. The desision is entirely yours,
“He appears confident that FFI are some form of charlatans and he is the epitome of truth.”
I absolutely said no such thing and I have acted in no such way.
Withdraw the comment.
On the basis of Madam Editor’s explanation, I was wrong and apologise. But, you did state that the FFI trying to have it both ways and it was to which I was referring. The implication being that FFI are acting with some element of bad faith in the matter. Just as Madam Editor accuses me of acting in bad faith and being a trouble-maker, if not an actual liar.
The movement to St. Chad’s, whilst saving that (mother) church
has deprived the MU student body and local workers of access to orthodox Catholicism. Now Fr. Matus, et al, are operating within the formal diocesan framework, it has had a nuanced effect on the precise format of their, certainly, weekday NOMs.
It is way too simplistic to speak of attendance at the NOM as merely dependent upon a priest one implicitly trusts. The dangers inherent in that rite are much deeper and far-reaching than the priest who celebrates it. I thought you would have understood this.
And don’t forget, most, if not all, of us on this blog were once attendees at the NOM in our parish churches until, by the unmerited grace of God, we saw just how destructive it was to the Catholic Faith. Even when celebrated with reverence this “banal, on-the-spot fabrication” is alien to almost 2000 years of Catholic Tradition; mirroring, as it does, the reformed liturgy of Reformation Protestantism. Let us all be clear about this tragic fact.
I live in the Portsmouth Diocese and went through all the changes of the Spirit of Vatican II. Note I said the Spirit of Vatican II for the document The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church encouraged Catholic practices like devotion to Mary and the Saints to continue. It never at anytime took away the right to kneel at communion , it never stopped Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and it never decried the practice of Confession. But those with the Spirit took all these things away from my family and teaching on these things was stopped in Catholic schools which led to the lapsing of my sons and thousands of other children. I protested butI I was sneered at and told I was living in the past or was stuck. Now is these people who are making a noise because things are not going their way. They mention being forced to kneel to receive the Blessed Sacrament, the kneelers were taken away and I was forced to stand. Indeed in the Cathedral where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a side altar there were no chairs, no kneelers, and if you wanted to kneel you had to do so in a cold stone floor. Bishop Egan changed this. But then that was the Church they wanted and to hell with Roman Catholics. Even when Bishop Egan was elected we had nonsense game going on and an ‘expert’ was invited talk about modern day prophets – those who were against the Church. It is only three or four months ago when I was silenced at a meeting where people were sneering at Devotion to Mary, and when it came to the teachings of the Church they professed they had ‘moved on’. God bless Bishop Egan and be assured he has more friends in the Diocese than enemies.
How typical of these ladies. Probably used to bossing the modernist Priests around, and taking control of the Altar. Of course they are everywhere and its not really their fault. They have been encouraged by Church authorities for Decades. Good to see it changing somewhere at least.
I agree with John Kearney and Liberanos, these people (especially bossy women) have got away for far too long with their leadership roles in churches. They look and sound out of place, but now that the tables are turning in a few parishes, they don’t like it one bit.
I second John’s “God bless Bishop Egan” – I wish there were a few more like him.
“…but now that the tables are turning in a few parishes”
Indeed! And they’re turning back into high altars.
“And they’re turning back into high altars”!
LOL ! Wonderful !
A priest running a blog and Celebrating a regular weekly TLM has commented upon the Portsmouth FFI situation and pointing-out that attendance at the NOM in the parish had increased – arising from the fervour of the Celebrant. Which relates to the comment i have previously made, in relation to great attendance at the bi-ritual parish TLM.
My interest is in making the bridge, as a first step, between the two rites – an hybrid NOM/TLM has proven to have some success, certainly better than your usual NOM.
Post-Vatican II congregations became decimated, leaving a body of parishioners, in the main apparently, who were/are of a mind NOM “participation” oriented. Within that element, existed/exists an element who, de facto, seized control of the parish. [See also recent contributions regarding your own hierarchy and “House Church”/like thinking.] Overlaying that, the lack of vocations, dispirited clergy and the emergence of Permanent Deacons [listed with wives in the Liverpool Diocesan Directory] and you are faced with one hell of a problem. BXVI is probably correct in his assessment: collapse and start again. Looking at your average NOM parish, within as little as five years the congregations could be down to single figures, due to the age spread of those attending Mass.
I am mindful of the Rabbi who used to broadcast, he was also Catholic leaning, with a proliferation of Jewish jokes. One related to a Jewish trader who had hit hard times and looked to a lottery win to clear his debts. The rabbi told him to pray, which he did incessantly, without any result. The rabbi asked had he not even won a mere £10, no was the answer, how many tickets did you buy. The answer: did I have to buy a ticket? [It may not be funny in print, but hilarious in the telling.]
We have to buy a ticket! Pre-Vatican II, converts to Catholicism were plentiful: marriage one source, but also by example, Charity and other routes. We appear to be incapable of ‘converting’ even our own brethren. Perhaps the problem lays in our own approach to the problem?
The above priest also confessed to being deterred from Celebrating ad orientem, in his NOMs, because of the hassle he would be subjected to. I will not identify him, to avoid increasing his difficulties and avoiding the opprobrium which would be heaped on his head – from various quarters.
At Mass yesterday, half the congregation were of the younger generation, which was pleasing – although most might be considered not to be appropriately attired. The Gospel raised a wry smile from myself, in view of the drubbing handed-out to me recently.
I think it’s very clear that the majority of Catholics prefer the new Mass. That’s very clear. It’s got nothing to do with whether the priest is regarded (by some) as “fervent” or not – it’s just less demanding in many ways that the ancient Mass and the Devil knew what he was about when helping create it.
Even if I were not Catholic, nor even Christian, nor even religious, were I to compare the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass and assess them on their musical, aesthetic and linguistic qualities, I would conclude that the Traditional Mass is of vastly higher cultural value. It’s like comparing Beethoven to Bananarama. All I can think is the majority of Novus Ordo Catholics are stupid, have poor taste or are outright philistine.
It always makes my blood boil to hear of so-called Catholics who object to proper Catholic practice and standards of dress at Church.
The same ‘Catholics’ who moan about a requirement for smart dress, or the use of a head covering in Church, would – without question – accept a dress code being imposed at (for example) a wedding or a dance, or pub or restaurant. They will happily dress smartly (and in a way reflective of their gender) to gain entry to an entertainment venue or dance hall, but they will not do so to meet Our Lord at mass.
The same ‘Catholics’ who, when at the cinema, carefully put their mobile phones off to avoid disrupting the film and annoying others will not afford the same courtesy to the House of God; they will not take the same care in Church and so (novus ordo) services are routinely disrupted by phones ringing. Attending mass at some of these places feels like working on a telephone switchboard.
The same ‘Catholics’ who will bend over backwards to respect the sensitivies and customs of other religions / social groups will sneer and object to Catholic practices (such as kneeling for communion) as they existed for centuries.
It is quite remarkable and very indicative of how disorientated most ‘Catholics’ are.
Recently I read a short pamphlet explaining how freemasons desired to corrupt the Catholic Church. It said their aim was not to otherthrow the Church per se, but instead to succesfully taint Catholic thinking, such that both clergy and lay people would begin to champion non-Catholic ideas and practices – but in an unwitting fashion. And so that the effect was that these clergy / lay people would essentially work to damage the Church, but all the while sincerely believing themselves to be strong, faithful Catholics.
Freemasons or not, I think we do see such a phenomenom widespread in todays Church – from these parishioners grumbling and moaning at the content of authentic Catholic worship, to the squabbling and gerrymandering of Bishops over settled Catholic Doctrine at the family synod.
What a brilliant and insightful post.
This made me laugh out loud:
“Attending mass at some of these places feels like working on a telephone switchboard.” Priceless!
And your comments about Catholics who will bend over backwards to respect the sensitivies and demands of other religions yet will sneer at Catholic practices such as kneeling for Communion, is absolutely spot on and reminds me of my days in teacher training.
I remember having to learn the smallest details about Hindu gods and the word “respect” being thrown around constantly when learning about the customs of non-Christian religions. It was just incredible. Then, in one lecture, after hearing all about one of the many Hindu gods and their manifold relationships, I asked if we were going to be doing anything with that year group on Original Sin (remember, we were students for secondary school age pupils) being told that “oh that’s much too difficult for them to understand”. Incredible stuff.
So, thank you for that very clear post, Gabriel Syme, which mirrors, exactly, the situation of craziness (not to say “faithlessness”) in which we find ourselves today.
Spot, as I say, on
Would you rather the ‘inappropriately dressed’ missed Mass?
An SSPX priest preached vehemently regarding slacks, as if there were nothing better to illuminate the congregation. A man attended with his daughter, for the first time – he never returned, She wore slacks. Another similarly preached, I know a very fervent family, the wife wore slacks – for medical reasons! That family regular attenders persisted regardless.
Would you rather, the one-third on Sunday, stayed away. Particularly, another fervent pair, possibly sisters, who bring their off-spring.
Are you a “Wee Free” by any chance?
If Gabriel Syme thinks someone is “inappropriately dressed” then I think it would be a tad more than a girl wearing slacks. He’s a newish recruit from one of the most “liberal” parishes in Glasgow, so be assured, he’s no prude.
I agree with you about the misguided SSPX focus on women in trousers, but be assured, not all SSPX priests preach about it and not all of them agree with the policy. That is a fact.
It shouldn’t, however, be a case of attending inappropriately dressed (by which I mean immodestly dressed – low cut tops, ridiculously short skirts or ugly tight jeans) or missing Mass. In my own experience, most (not all) young people gradually come to see that they are not dressed appropriately for Mass. A general conversation or careful non-pointed sermon about purity, which would touch on dress, might alert some youngsters to the issue. Remember, they have grown up in a highly sexualised society, with no leadership from the clergy on the issue (quite the contrary – very bad example from the clergy) so we have to be patient and sensitive in dealing with the matter. It has to be dealt with, however, as and when.
After all, if they couldn’t turn up at Buckingham Palace as an invited guest without adhering to the dress code, there has to be some way of intimating a certain level of acceptable dress for the House of God – I can’t see how anyone would disagree with that.
I would add that it is no lay person’s business to approach anyone about their dress in an SSPX chapel and I have, myself, spoken in no uncertain terms to one elderly lady who stopped minding her own business when she reprimanded an 18 year old for (in her view) being unsuitably dressed. I know of at least one SSPX priest who tells the story of a relative of HIS who was similarly reprimanded and he, like you, was appalled that this person might never return to a TLM because of the sheer stupidity of such lay busy bodies.
Just glanced at the clock – I should be elsewhere! But, be assured, folks. I will be back!
Would you rather the ‘inappropriately dressed’ missed Mass?
Of course not; I would simply prefer they dressed appropriately, to demonstrate respect for the House of God and for their fellow parishioners. It doesn’t take any additional effort.
I have seen people wearing football tops and tracksuits at mass. Do you deny this is an indicator that they are not taking the mass / their faith very seriously?
(I have also seen heels of such height, and skirts of such modest length, that one would have thought the wearer had come straight from a nightclub. I am not some stuffy prude, but our dress at Mass should not be chosen to make us stand out or draw attention to ourselves.
The click of heels and a flash of thigh can be very distracting to a man; and such “glam” clothes can in fact preclude the wearer from kneeling / wholly participating in the mass).
Would you think it appropriate to wear a football top or tracksuit to a job interview?
And if not, then why cannot the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be afforded the same respect?
Would a bikini and flip-flops be acceptable to wear to mass? Where do you draw the line?
Why does the idea of standards of dress only become a problem for people in a religious context, yet it is blithely accepted in all manner of secular scenarios (I have given multiple examples)???
I am not advocating turning the mass into some kind of “fashion parade” and I am very aware that at times it can be expensive for families / individuals to buy clothes – but even still, I would be very surprised if a football top was the most formal / dignified item of clothing a person had in their wardrobe.
Are you a “Wee Free” by any chance?
No, I am Wee-Wee-Free (post 1900), United, Reformed, Born Again Church of Scotland (Continuing) Mk VII.
“The click of heels and a flash of thigh can be very distracting to a man;”
Why not practice “custody of the eyes” then young man!!!
Yes, just to say I agree with Editor that I was not complaining about women wearing trousers.
I was more talking about clothes which really ought to be obvious that it is not appropriate – like football jerserys, or very glamorous clothes which would be more suited to a nightclub or such like.
No-one would wear a football top to a job interview, why do they not have the same common sense when it comes to Church attendance?
“such that both clergy and lay people would begin to champion non-Catholic ideas and practices – but in an unwitting fashion. And so that the effect was that these clergy / lay people would essentially work to damage the Church, but all the while sincerely believing themselves to be strong, faithful Catholics.” Change agents, Trojan Horse updated: it’s called infiltrate and subvert. And the duped, Lenin called “Useful Idiots.” (His particular method of subversion was [paraphrased a bit here]: “We’ll run for parliament and pretend we’re for that system, all the while using it to undermine the very system. The bourgeoisie will provide us the noose to hang them with.”
I can’t (on a quick scroll) find any post with the quote you highlight, so I am unable to answer you. This thread is really finished now, so I’m going to close it down, better late than never, while thanking you for your input.
I suppose we can take comfort from the fact that it is a positive thing to have fewer superficial Catholics in the Church.
Perhaps its an unkind analogy, but with these people fleeing the parish in indignation, when confronted with genuine Catholicism, I am reminded of bugs / rodents scuttling off whenever someone puts down chemical repellent to destroy a nest or infestation.
The persons quoted in the article would be better off if they had the integrity to go instead to their true spiritual home – the Church of England.
As Athanasius has already said, these persons are protestants in all but name. To them, the Church is not a teacher and guide, but a social club, a platform for their own ideas and an easy-osy “feel good” mechanism; nothing more. This is, of course, why they take umbrage when Church teaching places limits on their behaviour or activities, or asks anything of them.
Of course, this is naturally the fault of the majority of the English Bishops who, rather than building up Christs Kingdom, have worked for decades to blur the lines between themselves and the Church of England, essentially portraying the Catholic Church in England as an arm of the CofE.
It is interesting that one of the women quoted, a convert, talks about going back to “the days before Vatican II” – I wonder when she converted exactly, and what does she really know about “the days before Vatican II”? One might not expect a convert to say such a thing; it almost sounds like a specially crafted line she had been given to parrot, like a dog-whistle to modernist clergy and Bishops.
Good. I believe unequivocally that the decision to invite the FFIs to St. Mary’s, Gosport is probably of the best, or the best, decision he will make during his episcopacy. This is what is known as separating the wheat from the chaff. I was talking to a ‘catholic’ woman a couple of weeks ago, and I had to sit on my hands to stop myself throttling her. Our PP was a Anglican vicar, and on the High Church end of the spectrum, and she was whinging that he had brought incense, bells (for the Sanctus) and Gregorian chant back, and was saying that this wasn’t proper, or traditional Catholic worship, so I naturally corrected her, and graciously informed her what the Church was like prior to the deluge. She then made a classic Novus Ordo statement, ‘oh, I couldn’t cope with Latin…anyway I like a good guitar’. There is, my friends, no such thing as a good guitar. They are the instruments of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. If you want guitars, go to Glastonbury.
One of the ends of the Sacrifice of the Mass is ‘to honour and glorify God’. In the Eucharist, we have the Precious Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and as Cardinal Arinze said, ‘if we truly love Jesus, why don’t we kneel? Why don’t we crawl?’ We have the Lord God of Hosts on that altar, show some reverence!!!!
I would tell them to join the CofE, but they still have altar rails.
The tone of that article in the Tablet is very offensive and subjective. Insulting really. Is it really a Catholic publication?
Our (late) parish had similar busybodies prancing around the sanctuary. They even “purified” the sacred vessels after Holy Communion. It’s nothing short of scandalous. Literally.
Yes, these people, and many Novus Ordo attendees are simply not Catholic. They are Protestants of the Anglican Low Church hue. When we returned to the one true Church i.e. the traditional one, the children, especially the older ones, found it hard to adapt to the fasting, fish on Fridays scenario. One day I found one of my sons eating a sausage on a Friday and when I pulled him up on it he replied: “I’m a Novus Ordo Catholic; it’s far easier”. He was only joking (I hope!) but it speaks volumes really.
Yes, I lay the blame squarely on the hierarchy for dereliction of duty. Of what are they afraid? Why do priests act like laity and the laity act like priests? Why would any man give up the chance of having a family to become a spiritual eunuch?
….I don’t kneel to receive Communion…unless it is Great Lent…maybe.
I don’t kneel to receive Communion….
That won’t be a surprise to anyone here MSW, but I am duty bound, as a Catholic, to inform you that you are very wrong not to do so. If you cannot humble yourself in kneeling before God Himself in adoration, I take leave to doubt your understanding of Holy Communion. Are we to take it that if Christ visited you tonight you would attempt to stand to greet Him?
…….Eastern Catholic…….sorry, I thought my tongue in cheek reference to Great Lent was a dead give away. I am truly sorry you thought I was somehow profaning the Sacred Mysteries. I was making a light jest but it appears to have fallen flat.
Therese is simply unaware of the differences between Eastern and Latin rites. You ought to be sensitive to that, otherwise you come across as pompous and rude. In our Rite, the Roman Rite, knelling is the immemorial custom. Nobody is willfully attacking your rite, so please respect ours.
I seriously did not mean to offend anyone. I am so sorry.
What a faux pas – it seems I was supposed to know that you are at Eastern Catholic. Are you famous, then? I’m afraid that, in my ignorance, I assumed that your comment was relevant to the discussion.
I didn’t know Latins called Great Lent…Great Lent. I thought you guys just called it Lent.
I think he is trying to provoke you, to make a point about the supposed superiority of his liturgical rite. It’s rather facile really.
That’s fine. You won’t genuflect either, because that’s a Latin rubric. Different rites do different things. It is the mind of the Catholic Church that all Rites are of equal rank and dignity, so we Latins are not inferior for kneeling for Holy Communion and vice versa. Live and let live MSW.
The Parish in Portsmouth is a Latin Rite parish and the default norm for receiving Holy Communion, even in the Novus Ordo, was always meant to be kneeling and on the tongue, so they have no grounds for complaint.
Nobody here is questioning the particular customs of any of the non-Latin rites of the Church, but please, allow us to defend the particular customs which pertain to our own rite, the Roman Rite, because we know much more about it than you and it is very precious to us. Thank you.
….I was making a jest…I am sorry if I offended you. Truly I am.
Again, please forgive me.
MMR thank you for that truly beautiful, eirenic and insightful post. It makes me ashamed of the feelings of anger that many of the recent entries on the blog have aroused in me. ‘Blessed are the peacemakers…’
I expect you wouldn’t want to receive Communion on the hand in your Rite either!
I’ve been to a few Masses in the Byzantine Rite, but I have never received Holy Communion on those occasions- not for any theological reason, but for my own reasons on those occasions. I was wondering about something interesting I heard of but wasn’t sure if it was true, that they use hot wine in the Blessed Sacrament. Is this the case in your liturgy? I was wondering if that was true and how it works in practice. I couldn’t see because obviously the Anaphora was behind the iconostasis.
The water is warm, not the wine. There is a little burner and, in the case of may church, an earthen ware pot much like a Latin cruet.
This is a decent source of info.
Thanks for that.
I have received a short “thank you” from Bishop Egan, via his secretary. It reads:
Bishop Egan thanks you for this message of support.
With best wishes
If you recall, I emailed him (copied above) and sent the link to this thread. It’s good that he appreciates our support. I wonder if I applied to be a Pastoral Assistant with Special Responsibility for the Revolting Parishioners in St Mary’s Gosport, would I stand a chance of being appointed?
Rhetorical question 😀
A man of few words… unlike a wordsmith like you.
Not quite as few words as his modernist brothers in the episcopate. They don’t reply at all.
“Of courtesy it is much less
than courage of heart or holiness,
yet in my walks it seems to me,
that the grace of God lies in courtesy.”
The problem is, they are in awe of you. I am, on the other hand, equally in ewe of you typing speed.
Not sure if “ewe” is a typo or a Freudian slip!
I think Constantine may be having a slight dig but as for his implication that you’re a bit sheepish, that really is a step too far. Before we know it, he’ll be encouraging you to gambol.
“gambol” – love it!
Oddly enough, I’ve recently started buying a lottery ticket when it comes into my mind. I hadn’t bought one for ages, not since I chose all major feast days for my numbers and not one of them came up trumps. I thought, “superstition? who needs it?”!
Call me a killjoy but I remember reading in one of the catholic newspapers that the Lottery body which oversees the distribution of that percentage of the proceeds set aside for ‘good causes’ had awarded a certain amount to a ‘charity’ that promoted abortion ‘services’. I think it was some sort of youth organisation but I can’t recall any other details unfortunately as it was about 10 years ago. I haven’t bought a lottery ticket since. Just to add weight to my argument (though that may be unnecessary), can I also point out that statistically, your chances of winning the lottery are only slightly reduced if you haven’t bought a ticket.
Spudeater – gambol on what?
gambol = an act of running or jumping about playfully.
note jokey reference to sheep starting with “ewe”…(hence gambol…) which I then applied to “gamble” as in gambling on the lottery… Wakey…. WAKEY!
They say “never explain a joke” – I can see why!
Yes, I got it! I was playing with homophones as well. My post just got sent before I’d seen yours. Just because I’m slow, do you think I’m daft as well? And DON’T answer that …
In Basingstoke when I attended another parish I used to pass an Evangelical Church at the time the people were arriving for the service there. They were all coloured people but the men wore suits and ties and the women wore very pretty dresses and hats. They were dressed for something special and that is what the Catholic church used to be – something special. The way we dress does in a way sum up our attitude to going to Mass on Sunday. Do we just put on any old thing in order to pass an hour in Church, or do we have special clothes for ourselves and our children so that Jesus in seeing us will know we love Him. AS the song used to say ‘Little things mean a Lot” in fact they can shape our whole attitiude or even real our attitude to God.
Its bad enough that the Tablet has attacked Bishop Egan over this, but it appears it does so on a pretext of lies.
According to Fr Michael Brown:
1. The Mass count in Gosport had fallen by fifty percent in the last twenty years. It has risen significantly in the last two months
(so it seems that the FFI presence is having a very positive effect on the parish health)
2. It is not true that parishioners have been required to kneel or receive on the tongue, nor have women been told to cover their heads;
(presumably this means people are free to choose to attend either the true mass, or the novus ordo – the form of worship is not imposed, like the novus ordo was first imposed)
3. Mass is celebrated each weekday in the EF very early in the morning and the daily OF Mass takes place exactly as before;
(so, no actual change for those people who prefer protestant worship)
4. The Sunday Masses in the OF remain.
(again, no actual change for those who prefer protestant worship)
5. The diocesan post bag is currently running ten to one in favour of the, to quote one of them, “beautiful, more reverent Masses”.
(so it seems that the traditional masses are proving popular and desirable among most parishioners and ergo it is Catholic tradition which is reviving the parish)
6. The Stella Matutina Sisters whom the article mentions are not “traditionalist” but very much novus ordo
(seems the Tablet over-stepped the mark here, and made a boob while trying to dress up a ‘wrap sheet’. And Fr Ray Blake says these Sisters are actually assigned to Grayshott, not Gosport – and not particular nearby either)
So, it appears the persons in the parish who complain do not do so because their own sensibilites or choices are affected, but because they cannot stand to “let Catholics be Catholics”. They are against choice and want to impose their view on all.
This is typical of persons of a certain age in novus ordo parishes; especially (in my experience) certain women who feel that they are entitled to be running all aspects/ministries of the parish, and be the principal decision makers, as compensation for the fact they cannot be priests.
Likely they resent the “showing up” the Catholic faith is giving the parish as it was in the preceeding years, when they had the run of the place.
“They cannot stand to let Catholics be Catholics” ………. They are against choice … .”.
Is Madam Editor for or against choice?
I only mentioned “choice” in this specific instance, because the parishioners are being given a choice; I dont think anyone here would suggest anything other than the true mass being re-introduced universally was desirable.
I thought it eye-opening that – in this specific situation – fans of the “anything goes” novus ordo, are against allowing others to follow their own consciences.
On Standing for Communion and receiving in the hand in the Portsmouth Diocese we had a ‘theology’ built around that. The New Teaching (not found in the Catechism or any Catholic document) abut invented by the ‘prophets’ is that we all go to Communion as a Body. Holy Communion is not for individual piety and nothing happens when we receive the host but as a Body, the Body of Christ, we are all united. So what does it matter how we receive the host when it does not really matter. I can assure anyone who is shocked and thinks I am making it up, that this is taught from the pulpit. The trouble is that the prophets have done so much to divide the Community in matters of Faith that ‘unity’ is laughable. There is a communist/socialist ring to the way the word community is thrown around. I have come to the conclusion that it is a way of not joining us to Christ but rather taking us from Him to focus on ourselves. I certainly kneel but since it is on a stone floor many others especially the women cannot do so. I receive only from the priest and I had to go through a thought process on this. It was obvious that many of those giving out the Chalice or the Host did not believe in the Real Presence in the Catholic sense. They were doing ‘a job’ for which the priest could claim browny points for involving so many in ‘parish work’. Many were also divorced and remarried following their ‘conscience’ It is Christ who fed the disciples at the Last Supper, going around the room to the different couches, and it is Christ who feeds me at the altar – not the community. If you think you know all about the evils of modernism then think again, there are more horrors around the corner.
Re parishioners, Eucharistic service once a week small clique??? Liturgical abuse! !!!Parish priest away for two weeks, two weeks of Eucharistic services instead of Mass more abuse how can this be happening? Good people! Priest allows! What is to be done? God help us
That sounds like a parish priest/diocese more than deserving of a mention in our newsletter, so feel free to email me the details and we’ll contact your priest to ask him what the blankety blank he thinks he’s playing at.
What these people who push Eucharistic services forget, is that there is absolutely NO obligation for anyone to attend them, whether on a weekday or Sunday – indeed, I would argue that it is imperative that Catholics do NOT attend these services.
Pat, are you talking about the parish in Gosport or samewhere else?
Editor: sorry, this thread is now closed. Pat has not responded but I am guessing that he is not speaking about the Gosport parish but about another parish, which is why I suggested that he might want to give me more details for a report in our newsletter. If I’m wrong, he should correct me on the General Discussion thread. You might keep an eye on that, for any response he chooses to make when he pops in again. He’s not a regular here, unfortunately, just happens by from time to time. So, check out the GD thread when you can, to see if he has replied.
I thought it worth re-opening this thread to publish the following two letters from The Tablet, emailed to me by a reader. They really must be filed under “you truly couldn’t make this stuff up…”
Other options for Portsmouth
13 August 2015
It seems rather sad that the Bishop of Portsmouth feels he has to invite various “pre-Vatican II” outsiders to run his parishes, (“Friars take parish back in time”, 1 August).
He has some very dedicated, experienced and much loved priests available who were forced to leave their priestly ministry, many because of the “sin” of wishing to marry. He also has the choice of numerous Deacons, some of whom wish to remain in the role of Deacon but others who would take the next step into ordination.
Then there are married family men who feel they have a vocation to the priesthood – and would bring credibility to the job. Last, but not least, he has a choice from no less than one half of the Catholic population who are illegally discriminated against because they just happen to be born women. It is incomprehensible to many young modern Catholic adults, as well as those not so young, that so much discrimination and inequality still exist in the Church, when in the secular society in which they live and work equality and anti-discrimination laws have been around for a very long time.
To those of you who do not wish to remain under the thumb of authoritarian, traditionalist orders who in this case appear to be dictating how people are to receive Communion, and what they are to wear, can I suggest that you vote with your feet and search for a more welcoming spiritual home elsewhere. Sue Oakley, Chandler’s Ford, Hampshire
I’m sure I’m not alone in being appalled by the report of what is being proposed by the friars who have taken over a parish in my own diocese of Portsmouth. I suppose at a pinch communicants might just be prepared to kneel to receive communion (a practice which, happily, seems to have disappeared in most of our churches).
But the idea of women being recommended “to cover their heads at Mass” is simply preposterous.One can only hope that the good people of St Mary’s Gosport will boycott this strange collection of antediluvian friars. They could either worship in nearby Fareham or take the ferry across to Portsmouth, where they can make their views known to the bishop who sent in the friars! Bernard Tucker, Old Alresford, Hampshire
These two are about as Catholic as Dumb & Dumber… You heard it here first…
In my parish you kneel and recieve the body of christ , and while attending mass you have to cover your hairs , that is how it should be and must be mandatory .
You cannot stand to recieve the body of christ
You cannot stand and recieve the body of christ , in my parish we kneel down to recieve the body of christ to show a sign of reverence
Comments are closed.