Three years after Summorum Pontificum
A couple of websites devoted to the revival and even restoration of the unreformed rite of Mass have recently offered statistical surveys of the number of places where the Tridentine rite is celebrated. The first of them, found here, claims to give figures for thirty countries, including the US and seventeen European countries, and finds a total of 1,444 such places, with this further breakdown:
- 340 offer the old rite during the week, and not on Sunday
- 313 offer it on Sundays, but irregularly, not every week;
- 324 offer it every Sunday, but not between 9:00 and 12:00;
- 467 offer it every Sunday between 9:00 and 12:00.
In addition to these, 690 places were found where the unreformed rite is celebrated by members of the Priestly Society of St. Piux X, the Lefebvrite group. Adding the figures, one comes to a grand total of 2,134 places, in thirty countries.
The other estimate, found here, draws upon Wikkimissa, a site that gives information on where the unreformed rite is celebrated, and claims to provide worldwide figures: The grand totals are these: 875 places where the unreformed rite is celebrated every Sunday, and 732 where it is celebrated less regularly, to which can be added the figures for the Lefebvrite and allied groups: 290 and 92 similarly divided. The total figures, worldwide, are 1,326 regular Sunday Masses, 988 less regular celebrations, 2,314 in all.
The figures for the US are: regular Sunday Masses, 306, less regularly, 183, Lefebvrites on Sunday, 72, Lefebvrites less regularly, 22. Grand total: regularly on Sunday, 378, less regularly, 205 .
The numbers given by the two surveys don’t match, but in either case, it would seem that it is in a very minute number of places that the unreformed rite is being used. I can think of no reason why either of these two efforts would have had any interest in undercounting.
By the way, the national episcopates were asked by Pope Benedict to submit a report on the matter three years after the motu proprio went into effect. Does anyone know if the US bishops submitted one, and, if so, whether it is available?
To my mind, these numbers confirm a hypothesis I have harbored for a number of years now: the Vatican II liturgical reforms are a resounding success, if we measure success by acceptance by the faithful (which would seem to be the very best measure), and proponents of the reform really have no reason to fear initiatives such as Summorum Pontificum or a possible reunion with the Lefebvrites.
Good question about the bishops report. I don’t know, but Catholic World News had this report the other day:
PS: Jim P., I agree that the liturgical reforms are a resounding success, but I think that the initiatives to reincorporate the Lefebvrists could be perilous in that they represent an unprecedented accommodation to a group that rejects Vatican II, and does so by allowing innovations (their own private rite, namely) that strike me as going against the communal notion of Catholic worship. It’s not about sheer numbers as much as the precedents that are being created on behalf of a particular group. Moreover, the reforms you say are great successes are being targeted by the pope for change to an older European style, which is part of the cultural shift that helps privilege the Lefebvrists.
PPS: I agree that the number of old rite celebrations seems small, and I don’t think that’s a surprise. I’m not sure anyone expected it to herald a sudden resurgence of mass attendance.
Part of it may be complicated by a lack of priests and lay people who know what to do at such a mass. I know of several dioceses where typically younger clerics were agitating for the old rite and when it was allowed they balked at having to learn the Latin and all that attends the rite.
On the other hand, I’ve read that in France more Catholics attend old rite masses on Sunday than the novus ordo masses (because so few attend at all), so the restoration could be said to be a success in that sense.
David, do you know where you read that? I’m not sure if I believe it.
I go to many accidental Masses in random places when I travel around, and only once so far in France have I found myself attending a Mass in Latin. It was a Novus Ordo, but done mostly in Latin. As I remember, there were something like 60 people.
Claire, I don’t recall where I read that — probably Sandro Magister or La Croix or The Tablet. I’ll look around later, but here’s one piece that has some stats:
http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue8258.html
The facts do show that the Latin Mass has very low attendance. Even if one allows that where they exist the attendance is full it still does not approximate in any way the attendance at the vernacular Novus Ordo. But to hear the Latin enthusiasts tell it there is an avalanche of people attending the Mass of Pius V. A major point which many have pointed out. Namely, that 5% of the church sometimes makes the most noise.
Forgive the positive spin, but as a ‘big tent’ Catholic I believe this belongs to what Marie-Dominique Chenu called “realm of legitimate disagreement.” As someone who appreciates latin, the latin Mass and the aesthetic beauty of more traditional Masses (Gregorian Chant, incense, icons etc.) while simultaneously believing that the centralization and codification of the Tridentine liturgy was unfortunate and unnecessary, I think that it is perhaps not the end of the world to allow, or even encourage the Tridentine Mass.
Perhaps this is because of my connection to the Eastern rites but it seems to me that the uniformity of worship is no better than the over-centralization in the current Vatican system of government.
What is worrisome is the movement towards ultramontanism, but I suppose that that is the price to be paid for ‘big tent Catholicism.’ Anything less than the toleration of intolerance is no virtue at all.
These stats from wikkimissa seem to be out of date, at least as regards my own diocese. The Latin Mass Society blog for the diocese, lists 10 churches where the EF is celebrated regularly, two of which offer a weekly Sunday Mass and a third four (3) Sundays out of five(4). These all offer daily weekday Latin Masses, apart from the priest’s “day off.” The remaining 7 churches at the end of 2010 were scheduling regular weekday celebrations.
That does not constitute a tidal wave for the “reform of the reform” but coupled with the apparent preferences of the Pope, does represent a thought-provoking trend.
Moreover, as already pointed out, the preference of some priests for older patterns of worship is symptomatic of a mindset that in practice rejects the Church of Vatican II. Yes, ultramontanism lives.
The statistics give the number of places where the unreformed rite is celebrated. It would be impossible to tell how many attend the Masses. The second of the two surveys mostly relies on Wikkimissa, but also on information gathered from other sources.
As David Gibson notes above, there is great fear among some advocates of the unreformed rite that the norms of application are going to restrict the scope of Summorum Pontificum”. That’s how I found these two surveys. I follow a French site that gathers various materials on the groups: http://tradinews.blogspot.com/
There are many problems with coexistence:
- Sharing the same building: who gets the 9-12 Sunday morning timeslots? Will the tabernacle be moved, altar railings reinstalled, etc., to accomodate that group’s desires?
- Priest formation: should the seminary curriculum be modified to take into account the growth of the EF? If Latin and EF liturgy courses are added, what do they take the place of?
- Beliefs: it’s not just a different form of the Mass. People who go to EF Mass also seem to hold different perspectives regarding, say, the Jews, ecumenism, papal authority, the relationship between God and people, the place of religion in society, etc (ultramontism, yes, but not just that). Even if it’s just a question of degree, it’s very uncomfortable. I like Latin and incense, but won’t have anything to do with the baggage that comes with it.
I like to think that if the differences were simply a matter of liturgical taste, resolving them would be a minor matter. It’s the general perspective that is the problem.
If the EF form is here to stay, then shouldn’t it be revised? Rita had an article about antisemitism in some prayers. That’s just one aspect. If they are to stay and form an alternative Mass, then shouldn’t they be scrutinized and overhauled to put them in conformity with modern understanding of ecumenism etc?
That’ll keep the Vatican busy: on the one hand, new translations of the OF; on the other hand, modify the EF – until, ultimately, both are identical in the beliefs they profess and only differ in the form of their rituals.
Why do we have to have one extreme or the other? I used to go to a mass in a lounge, wall-to-wall St. Louis Jesuits. Now it is in a really beautiful chapel (good), but has replaced the wall-to-wall SLJ with wall-to-wall chant. Can’t we have a happy medium? And some songs in English that people can sing? With a melody? Can’t we make friends with Charles Wesley?
Okay. Sorry that was off point. My own rant.
The only subject more controversial than sex in the Church, is liturgy. It is the clearest manifestation of what we believe and who we are as a community. I agree completely with Claire. This issue if far more complicated than a simple matter of aesthetics or worship sensibility.
On the subject at hand, there is no Latin or EF mass in this diocese although there is one SSPX chapel west of here. There is also some in Manitoba not far from here. I have not heard much clarmouring for it but I did hear a rumour that the FSSP who are a religious order who apparently specialize in the EF ended up having to leave the Toronto archdiocese.
“I think that the initiatives to reincorporate the Lefebvrists could be perilous in that they represent an unprecedented accommodation to a group that rejects Vatican II, and does so by allowing innovations (their own private rite, namely) that strike me as going against the communal notion of Catholic worship. ”
David G., yes, I agree that those are legitimate concerns, and how Rome addresses them in the eventuality of a reunion with Lefebvrists will be very important. Perhaps I am naive, but my expectation would be that the Lefebvrists will need to leave a good deal of baggage behind as a price of reunification. So, in worship, they would need to align themselves with the norms contained in Summorum Pontificum. More generally, they would need to embrace the teachings of Vatican II, such as what the Council taught about Jews.
“Moreover, the reforms you say are great successes are being targeted by the pope for change to an older European style, which is part of the cultural shift that helps privilege the Lefebvrists.”
Hi, David – you’re more plugged in than I am, but I’m not thinking of many concrete examples of targeting. Were you thinking of the new missal translation?
“Some traditionalist Catholics have voiced concerns that the new report will water down the terms of Summorum Pontificum.”
I believe many traditionalists would say that the dynamic they observed when Summorum Pontificum was issued was that it seemed a very positive development, but a number of diocesan bishops were not enthusiastic and in fact did their best to minimize or quash it. I’d think that what traditionalists would really like would be an order from the Holy See to bishops to be generous in granting the Latin Mass under the Summorum Pontificum guidelines.
I think Cathy was on the right track. The problem of everything coming top down in liturgy and other areas (spoken of as issues of drift) will continue to cause more to move on or not care, not deepen their liturgical faith, if all the answers are supplied from on top.
Bob N==
About the message coming from top down –
Do bishops ever make time to talk wiith small groups informally? Granted bishops are busy, but what is more important than groups who feel so alienated that some of them leave? I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of small groups of any sorts of dissidents meeting privately with bishops — not theologians, not gay people, not divorced people, etc., etc.f. Bishop seem to talk only *at* them, not with them. There is no personal communication.
Personally, I am more in synch with Adam Marischuk on liturgical styles and the notion of diversity in worship. I tend to like more traditional approaches, but I’m a Euro-phile at heart. Liturgy threads can go on and on, and it doesn’t interest me THAT much. Beyond being a special treatment of the favored pre-V2 right — with all those attendant implications and controversies — a problem I see with the restoration of the extraordinary form (or EF as someone helpfully wrote) is that it represents the narrowing of liturgical diversity and a return to a single form that the church found problematic on many levels. One has always been able to say a “Latin mass” in the Novus Ordo, no? With all the smells and bells you like. But under this papacy the EF style of ad orientam and communion on the tongue while kneeling and a restriction of lay and women’s role at the altar (no washing those vessels!) are being presented as the norm and as superior to the “new mass.” When John Paul went to Africa he celebrated mass in as African a style as they do, and it was wonderful. When Benedict travels, he takes a Roman style with him.
The two surveys I summarized carefully distinguish from the Lefebvrite celebrations those of other groups before uniting them in a grand total. I am certain that many of the groups that want the unreformed rite do not share all the baggage associated with the Lefebvrites. I’m inclined to think that Claire’s analysis holds truer in France than in the U.S. Few Americans, I suspect, share Lefebvre’s political ideology and have no interest in repealing the French Revolution, as he did!
In one respect, the easier access to the unreformed rite hardly narrows liturgical diversity, and the other practices that David Gibson mentions have not been made normative, however much certain high figures, including the Pope, may prefer them.
Jim Pauwels: If you look at the traditionalist sites, you’ll see that many of them do have great apprehensions about what the forthcoming norms will say. They worry about those in the Vatican who were opposed to Summorum pontificum will succeed in placing limits on its implementation. The Pope has already asked bishops to be generous in permitting the use of the unreformed rite.
I think it is important to read Summorum Pontificum along with the decree on Anglican ordinariates. The latin EF is one form of the Roman rite, the Anglican another, and the Ordinary Form that we celebrate in the vernacular is another, but is the norm. (I say the Anglican is another form of the Roman because the priests will be associated with the Pope as their bishop.)
IOW, this is not a return to the uniformity of the Tridentine rite, but a movement toward greater diversity within and alongside the Roman rite.
“About the message coming from top down –”
Hi, Ann,
Regarding liturgy and liturgical diversity, my observation of a bishop’s daily life is that it is an unending series of visits to local parishes in the diocese to celebrate liturgies for confirmations and special occasions. A bishop who has been in a diocese for a sufficient period of time probably have a more complete experience of liturgical diversity than anyone else (because, after all, even with liturgical laws and norms and rubrics, no two parishes celebrate mass the same way). Bishops are exposed to all of the quirks and imperfections, the very good readers and very bad readers, the excellent and appalling music, the venerable and loony parish traditions.
I’d think that it might make a man long for a little less diversity.
Jim P. But who does the Bishop talk to and LISTEN to?
Off topic, but too good not to share!
From our diocesan newspaper, two items dealing with popes. Note the force of logic between the two of them.
First: “Injured Polish race car driver Robert Kubica was to receive a reliquary containing a drop of blood from the late Pope John Paul II in an effort that church officials will hasten the 26-year-old Formula One star’s recovery from a serious crash, Kubica also will receive a strip of fabric from one of the late pope’s liturgical robes, Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz told Warsaw’s TVN24 news.”
Second: “As a cardinal Pope Benedict XVI was a card-carrying organ donor. But the card became invalid when he became pope, according to his personal secretary….The pope’s secretary, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, explained the reasons in a letter.
” ‘While it is true that the pope has an organ donor card, it is also true that, contrary to some public affirmations, the card issued in the 1970s became’ ipso facto’ invalid with Cardinal Ratzinger’s election to the papacy,’ the letter said. Archbishop Zygmut Zimowski, President of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, told reporters that the most evident reason a pope could not donate organs was that, in a sense, ‘his body belongs to the whole church.’ He said that the church’s tradition that a pope’s body be buried intact also reflected the possibility of future veneration.”
I’m awestruck!
So a pope cannot donate organs because “‘his body belongs to the whole church.’”
I guess ’cause he is the “Vicar of Christ”?
(sarcasm intended)
“I’m awestruck!”
Re: the Kubica story —
I’m appalled! Has magic penetrated the theology of this church THAT much? If it has there appears to be less hope than I had imagined.
Claire:
I have a similar apprehension about the ‘baggage’ which often accompanies those who attend the EF (I must say that I limit my remarks to those 20-and-30-something peers who attend). While I enjoy the EF and like to attend it when I can, I am not particularly a fan of the extra-theological beliefs that define many of those people whom I encounter. Oftentimes, or so I perceive it anyway, the mass is as much a cultural-political statement as it is a Catholic mass. I have often wondered why those of my generation who have a preference for the EF hold the views they hold. Given the diversity of views of Catholics before Vatican, the relative homogeneity of the views surprises me. It’s as if those in my generation view the EF as more than a Catholic mass. It is a nostalgia for an experience we were never a part of, an attempt to essentially reclaim that which is for all intents and purposes a foreign tradition; this nostalgia necessarily brings with it attendant views that sharpen the non-theological meaning of the mass so that this is one piece of a consciously cultivated identity as a Catholic trying to capture that existence which our forebears worked so hard to overcome – namely one of the outsider. The EF’s symbolism is far more expansive than it otherwise would be. And it’s unfortunate, at least to me.
I don’t know how you put all these statistics together. I really can’t quite fathom them. I’m reading the Autobiography of Mark Twain,and he says there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies, and statistics. I just wanted to throw that in on the light side.
Anthony: Each of the sets of statistics is consistent, but they cannot very easily be made consistent with one another.
The second link shows how distorted the view might be depending on one’s country:
US 583 churches (74 million Catholics in the US)
France 421 churches (40 million Catholics in France)
Germany 194 (28 million)
Italy 156 (53 million)
UK 153 (8 million)
Brazil 77 (137 million)
Canada 74 (14 million)
Switzerland 64 (3 million)
Poland 61 (35 million)
Australia 56 (5 million)
Rest of the world 475 (685 million)
If we imagine that each of those churches draws 300 people, that’s a tiny fraction of the country’s Catholic population, in every country except Switzerland:
Switzerland 6% of Catholics
UK .6% of Catholics
Any other country: less than .5% of Catholics. Tiny!
On the other hand they announced they had 14% of all ordinations to the priesthood in France in 2009.
What gives?
If the ‘Old Mass’ adherents (in the clergy) were so sure that their bent toward the old and arcane was up to snuff, they wouldn’t always refer to it as the “Extraordinary Form”.
And, lest we forget, the split between the Lefebvrists and Rome has been healed and they have been welcomed back into the fold.
Finally, let us also remember that the battle cry for the “Extraordinary Form” comes also from Opus Dei and from the Legion of Christ.
Ask the non-Extraordinary Form members of churches what they think about all of this and they will tell tales of divisiveness, of being looked down on by the Latinists, of being pushed out of their parishes.
I agree with Jim Pauwels that if nothing else, the numbers point to the success of Vatican II and with Claire that the two rites coexisting in one parish can bring about discord and senses of entitlement.
Finally, I have never seen B16 celebrating the ER at St. Peter’s in Rome, nor in any other country. Nor do I see him using the old ‘secret hand signs’ as we used to call them or pinching his thumbs and index fingers together after the consecration.
Good Liturgy is not a magic costume show to entertain the huddled masses, it is a co-operative work of the priest and the people. I haven’t seen much co-operation between the clergy and the laity at the ‘Extraordinary Forms’ that I have attended.
While there are those in Rome (our late Pope and our current Pope included) who seem bent on reversing Vatican II (our latest translation of the Roman Missal being further proof), America did just fine in the wake of the Council. We did not lose our congregations. We are still a growing church, growing fast enough to compensate for those who leave in droves over issues just like this.
Rome and Europe’s Catholic Cardinals should come here and study us and try to replicate what we did. Given their empty churches, they are more likely to fill them with a little post-Vatican II Charism then by their current path of turning back the clock.
Johnathan==
About hand-signals. For very deaf people like me, signals of various sorts are needed to know what is going on. The Mass isn’t magic, but it is theater in some sense, and it needs to be expressive in more ways than with words.
What is aesthetic about the Crucifixion? The Crucifixion is the central message of the liturgy. Someone said that the “poison was taken out of the Magnificat” by setting it to music. So one listens to the magnificent Magnificat of Bach while screwing the poor. Likewise the nobility exult in the transcendence of the Solemn latin Mass while oppressing their subjects, forgetting that Latin was the original vernacular, the Vulgate, the common vulgar language of the people. It is the whole thing about the culture of Christianity which diminishes the crucifixion and glorifies the church as empire.
Claire: Precisely. These groups are a minuscule minority in the Catholic Church.
Jonathan: Neither from Rome’s side nor from that of the Lefebvrites is it true that “the split between the Lefebvrists and Rome has been healed and they have been welcomed back into the fold.” All that happened is that the excommunications of the four bishops were lifted, and conversations on doctrinal matters were initiated. If you read the Lefebvrites material, it is very clear that no agreements have been reached.
Why are those groups so visible? Why do they have so many vocations for the priesthood?
I would tentatively suggest that the other numbers may be inflated. The other numbers conflate Catholics by name, who set foot in church once in a while, with Catholics who go to church almost every Sunday. I suggest that if we look at the fraction of ordinations coming from that group, it gives us a reasonable measure of its importance among “intentional” Catholics (Catholics who are Catholic because they want to be Catholic; who are serious about their faith; whose life is at least a little bit different from how it would be if they weren’t Catholic; who go to Mass most Sundays.) In France, “ More than 14 per cent of ordinations in France were for the Extraordinary Form in 2009, according to Paix Liturgique, with 15 French priests ordained for it. “. I don’t have statistics for other countries but would guess that in Europe they form a non-negligible minority — among intentional Catholics.
Joseph, thanks for straightening me out about the Lefebvrists, I truly thought that the removal of the excommunication put them right with Rome.
Ann, I appreciate your comment, I believe that the movements of the priests hands during the Eucharistic Prayer and vital and, when done expressively, they are point and counterpoint to the great prayer and help to draw us more into the Sacred Mysteries.
The kind of hand gestures that I refer to I have only seen on our local Opus Dei priests for whom the gestures are so stylized and practiced that they resemble secret hand shakes in obscure lodges and private organizations.
But, of course, to attend a mass of the old order, you will not see the signs and symbols done by the priest as his back would be to you. THe most you’d get from that stance is a little movement of elbow and robe, which is held back by the kneeling deacon… So regardless of poor hearing, you’d be missing just about any gestures during the consecration.
We ought to also remember that the Lefebvrists have not, in the years since Vatican II built a substantial or large membership, at least not large enough to offset the unchurched Catholics in France.
There’s much to comment on here – ah, another liturgy thread – but I was struck by one point made by Jim Pauwels: I believe many traditionalists would say that the dynamic they observed when Summorum Pontificum was issued was that it seemed a very positive development, but a number of diocesan bishops were not enthusiastic and in fact did their best to minimize or quash it.
I think it’s hard to deny the reality of this observation. The sense of many here – just looking at the raw numbers (whichever ones you accept) is that traditionalists represent a quite small minority in the Church, and that Summorum Pontificum has not dramatically altered this state of affairs. Indeed, in most countries, application of it has been negligible. No doubt there were not massive hordes of Catholics ready to beat down the door demanding the traditional mass, and that is one reason why. But it is also true that to say the mass, you need a priest who can celebrate it, and bishops who will at least not make life difficult for him, and in a great many dioceses, these conditions simply don’t exist. However conservative many appear (and perhaps genuinely are), the fact is that most bishops don’t like the traditional mass, or at best are indifferent to it. And that has greatly limited any impact this motu proprio would have had.
This has been changing slowly with new Benedictine appointments, and growing interest in the traditional mass among many young priests and seminarians, at least in the U.S. and much of Europe. That may well likely have a significant impact in years to come. But so far, what little growth the traditional mass has had has been mainly in spite of, not because of, episcopal leadership to date.
This thread reminds me of Dean Hoge & James Davidson’s “Mind the Gap: The Return of the Lay-Clerical Divide”, which appeared in COMMONWEAL in November 2007. See http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/mind-gap-0.
Rome is moving in one direction while most Catholics are moving in the opposite one.
We need an “Egypt Moment” in the Church of Rome!
A followup to my posting yesterday:
The apparent prohibition of papal organ donation gives new meaning to the phrase “Prisoner of the Vatican”!
Jonathan ==
When I mentioned signals in the Mass I wasn’t thinking only of hand signals. As you say, some can’t be seen at all. I meant mainly the grand gestures that everyone in the assembly can see — bowing, genuflecting, gestures with arms plus hands, what the priest and servers are doing together, what the priest does alone, where they are, plus the bells and incense at some Masses. For us deaf folks, many more signals are needed. I’ve been saying for years that the liturgists should get some professional advice from the best available playwrights. They know about the expressiveness of physical action. (And get the poets to help with the Latin translations!!!!!!)
Can someone answer this question for me? As I understand the LeFevbrists, they accuse the recent popes and bishops of heretically changing the teachings of the Church in some of the documents of Vat II. I might be wrong about this, but don’t they also think that at least the universal Councils of the Church are errorless in dogmatic matters?
If that is their belief, then how can they rationally say that Vatican II (a universal Council of the Church) was not an authoritative universal Council and, therefore, it *requires* their assent?
Ann: One of their arguments is that Vatican II was self-consciously not a dogmatic but a pastoral Council, this taken by them to mean that its teachings do not have the force of the dogmatic pronouncements of earlier councils. They overlook that pastoral teaching can be very rich in doctrine, and even in dogma. By a pastoral exercise of the teaching office the popes and bishops meant that they were going to take into account the audience to whom they were addressing themselves. Those who wanted to follow the former model of conciliar teaching argued that it was the function of an ecumenical council to teach for the ages; it would be up to bishops and priests to express it pastorally when they went home.
Ann said: “The Mass isn’t magic, but it is theater in some sense, and it needs to be expressive in more ways than with words.”
I agree. But beware: Rome is pontificating —
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1346789?eng=y
Good heavens, Jimmy Mac! That article is downright Puritaainical or, worse, Platonic.
Perhaps the new English translation of the Roman Missal will help resolve all this. Our local priest has begun to prepare us by using the Latin greeting “Dominus vobiscum”, to which we of course reply “Et cum spiritu tuo”. He then explained how the current wording “And also with you” will be changing toward end of this year.
Little by little is probably the best way to prepare for the changes I suppose -
Ah yes, the new translation wil makes us all happy and clarified.
Over at America”s “In All Things” blog, I see a number of Australian priests are saying they won’ t use it and defying Cardinal Pell.
Another part of the divide: I see Cardinal Rode is fulminating about obedience (in religious orders) again.
Do what I say from the top down and to blazes what you think, even if you’re better informed or in touch.
*Footnote: the centrality of the liturgy is the sacrifice of Christ-death,resurrection ascension. The big push on theology of the cross IMO is part of the move backwards along with a big emphasis on Eucharistic adoration – pushing “Catholic identity” -we’re not like those awful protestants.
Well, if we glorify the old Latin, that will really push our seperate brand of wonderfulness.
Ann: I will give Rome credit for something. They have finally learned the difference between thespians and gayth.
A small start but at least it is a start.
JImmy Mac ==
Thespians and what??