New meaning to the liturgical wars
January 7, 2010, 3:23 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Damian Thompson’s religion blog for The Telegraph has the story and videos of the disruption of a Mass in the diocese of Evreux, France, when the local bishop announced that as part of a reorganization of the diocese, he was removing the traditionalist pastor of some 23 years. The responses to Thompson’s blog are also interesting, indicating the passions involved, both in France and in England. And here, in French, is a lengthy analysis that indicates the various elements that enter into the dispute.
Methinks Bro. Thompson’s bias is immediately obvious in his opening salvo:
“In Normandy, a modernist Catholic bishop’s attempts to remove an orthodox parish priest have provoked an extraordinary outburst of fury from parishioners.”
What does that mean, “orthodox parish priest”?
In Normandy, a modernist Catholic bishop’s attempts to remove an orthodox parish priest have provoked an extraordinary outburst of fury from parishioners.
Does he use the term modernist in the Pius X, Oath Against Modernism sense?
The bishop is within his rights. But he ought to fire his tailor.
Yes, I suspect he does mean it in the early 20th-century sense of Modernism, which many conservative Catholics think has returned with a vengeance since Vatican II; some even find it in the texts of Vatican II.
Vive la France!
Fr. K – isn’t this the diocese in which the previous bishop was kicked out by Rome and is in exile? Has some type of blog?
I actually think this sentence is more of a tell:
The bishop favours instead one of those team ministries where, as in England and America, the role of the priest is largely replaced by that of self-obsessed lay “ministers”.
It’s true, self-obsessed team ministers are just the worst.
Yes, Mollie. Thank God there is no such thing as a self-obsessed priest!
Bill DeH:
Yes, it was Jacques Gaillot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Gaillot
That diocese has a population of about 600,000, and has about 50 active priests (ie less than 75 years old), so each priest should be in charge of about 12000 souls (or more, given the chancery staff and the chaplains). The priest in question was in charge of an area with population 5000. Hence an obvious need for some kind of readjustment.
In my dad’s region of France, the diocese re-organizes things around every couple of years – at this level of scarcity of priests, each retirement makes a significant difference – but they try to do it incrementally. For example, in the past 30 years: my dad’s village used to have one larger and one smaller church buildings, with two priests. Then, only one priest. Then, they closed the smaller building. Then, they stopped having Mass in the summer. Then, they stopped having a Saturday vigil Mass. Then, their pastor no longer resided in the rectory. So now there is exactly one Mass per week, at 11am so that the priest can come right after saying another Mass at 9:30am ten miles away; and the people can no longer reliably count on their official pastor as being the one who presides: it might be someone else, depending on the constraints on his schedule.
Given these enormous difficulties, I have little sympathy for the priest in that story, who may be refusing to do “his share”.
On the other hand, my dad’s bishop handles closures by always giving priority to the parishes that have the most people attending Mass regularly, and seems to only assign an ever-larger geographical sector to the priests, not do a reassignment to a completely new sector. That seems more effective than shuffling people around – and in particular, in this story, it seems that the bishop is assigning a new progressive priest to a traditional parish and trying to reassign the traditional priest to a very progressive parish. Where’s the bishop’s pastoral sense? Or are there some underlying politics that cannot be understood from afar?
Previous bishop was Monseigneur Gaillot, now self-proclaimed bishop of the internet.
What exactly is the difference between a “modernist” Catholic Bishop and an “orthodox”Parish Priest?
Just back from Rome. Vatican II brought an influx of French, German and Low Countries thinking that was a deep trauma for traditional Rome. Now the tissue of the old culture is fully restored and the Curia ritually denounces French Cathollicism as a form of apostasy. Continuity with the past is now the ONLY criterion of authentic development: http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/papal-liturgist-endorses-reform-reform
I think in this case (from my read of it anyway) “modernist” would be a progressive type of Bishop, and “orthodox” would translete to mean a more traditional tyep of Priest.
What is the difference between a “progressive” type of Bishop and a more “traditional” type of Priest?
Well, well. Welcome to the fourth century save emperor rule. Rome has to wary of encouraging pastors like this as it could undermine its authority in other venues. The Thompson blog is a cultural war contributor as others here are pointing out. People always seem to object to the ouster of their pastor of whatever ideology. The better than thou mentality of this parish can be destructive but there is something to be said for people having a say in their church. Perhaps some good can come from a parish where people have to be persuaded than be threatened excommunication for lack of internal assent.
It would be helpful to have a full and accurate account of the situation. Must we turn to Le Monde?
Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if bishops were appointed by acclamation.
Talk about your fourth century…
This incident is reminiscent of some of the scenes in Brian Moore’s 1972 novel, Catholics:
“Catholics takes place in an imagined near future. Vatican Council IV has completed the Catholic Church’s capitulation to the spirit of secularism. Talks leading to a merger between Catholicism and Buddhism are proceeding nicely. Church authorities understand the Mass to be a purely symbolic ritual. Religion is seen as primarily an engine of social change.
“The monks at Muck Abbey, on a windswept island off the west coast of Ireland, maintain one of the last remaining centers of the traditional Catholic faith. They remain deeply attached to the rosary, private confession, the real presence, and other practices that the church considers outmoded. Pilgrims from around the world flock to the abbey to attend the Latin Mass and receive the old sacraments. This worries and embarrasses church authorities…”
http://loyolaclassics.loyolapress.com/LoyolaClassics_Catholics.html
A “progressive” bishop is one loyal to the Council and the Pope, while the more “traditional” type of priest is one who does not accept episcopal/papal authority when it conflicts with his own sentiments on liturgy.
At least, that seems to be the case in this situation if France.
The church hierarchy has lost its aura for good. Even those Catholics, who like traditional style liturgy, show a complete absence of respect. Making people kneel for communion won’t help recapture the lost aura, as these parishioners’ actions show.
Another of the bounteous fruits of Summorum Pontificum.
From a French woman to whom I sent the links to this story:
” I am not surprised. The only segment of the Catholic Church that is growing in France is the Traditionalist branch with an ultramontane clergy. The bishops are very gallican. And of course, the fault lines in the social and political fabric- which have never ceased to exist since the Revolution- make the parishes vulnerable.
“It is interesting this is happening in Evreux – it is not random – a place with a huge immigrant population where the Front National clashes with the more mainstream political parties.”
In partial explanation of the description of the removed priest as a royalist.
Re: terminology like “modernist” and “orthodox” – there are a hundred shades and distinctions between various conservative movements, especially liturgical movements, and so depending on who is using the terms, they might mean slightly different things.
“Orthodox” usually denotes a by-the-book defender of all things Catholic. An “orthodox” Catholic supports what the church teaches, even when it means taking an unpopular and minority position. E.g. orthodox Catholics think everyone should use NFP to manage the size of their families; orthodox Catholics believe everyone should go to church on holy days of obligation; and so on.
If it went only that far, I would have no issues with “orthodox” Catholics. But my observation is that “orthodox” Catholics tend to believe that large sections of the church are on the wrong path, and so they embrace “orthodox” Catholicism as a sort of political statement. There is something self-conscious about describing oneself as an “orthodox” Catholic. It all falls too neatly into the whole culture-war paradigm that I deplore.
“Modernist” usually means someone who has capitulated to the zeitgeist and has thereby compromised the purity of Catholicism in some way.
In the interminable liturgical arguments, “modernists” are often contrasted with “traditionalists” – those who prefer the pre-rerenewal liturgical practices.
Claire can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that French Catholicism is somewhat different from the American kind(s). As I remember from Carlyle’s “The French Revolution”, the Revolution ended up with blood baths instituted by both the royalist and the revolutionist sides. The horrors perpetrated systematically by commoners on the aristocracy soured some commoners on the revolution, and they remained loyalists. Even into the 19th century there were many non-aristocrats who were pro-royalty.
Because the French Church had aligned itself with the ancien regime (the rule by aristocrats), the commoners who supported the kings also supported the associated highly conservative French Church, and there is still a notable segment of the French Church which is made up of very, very conservative non-aristocrats. And, as Claire said on another thread, the Revolution against the ancient regime damaged the French Church terribly there.
Ann, I think that you know more than I do. But in the section of French society that I hang out with, royalists are considered museum curiosities, too odd to be threatening. It’s hard to imagine that those royalist affinities would be a factor in the drama being played out in Evreux!
A side note on that story: the priest draws people from beyond his geographical sector, and I read in a blog that in the diocese, almost a quarter of last year’s confirmation candidates came from his parish even though it has less than 1% of the population of the diocese! Given that vitality and the general bleak context of Catholicism in France, I wish the priest and his bishop had found a way to work together.
First, let me say, Jim McK hits it on the head.
Second, I am cautious about accepting the observations of Fr. Komonchak’s friend without some statistics and so forth to substantiate the claim that traditionalism is the only area of growth in contemporary France. Maybe these statistics exist and she’s totally right, but on the other hand it may be a partial story. I don’t have hard data myself either, but I do hear other stories. A colleague of mine with family in France says her neices and nephews are all going to church (not traditionalist, but regular parishes), unlike their parents! A friend of mine belongs to the Jerusalem community, and I’ve followed their expansion with some interest. I’ve been to beautiful Masses in France, with quite some evidence of engaged communities and renewal. I also recently had reason to search the web for information about how the catechumenate is doing in France, and found some lively examples of this fruit of the reform as well. (Of course the French pioneered the modern form of this ancient practice.) If all of this is a reflection of the leadership of supposedly-disloyal “Gallican” bishops I’d be most surprised. I think the “Gallican” label is usually a way to tar with suggestions of heresy or at least disloyalty those whom the observer feels are not sufficiently Roman, is it not?
We all know how easy it is for traditionalists in this country to point to a few spots and say, “Look how well attended these Masses are” “we have captured the youth” and so forth, never mind the fact that there are easily 100x as many Catholics attending Mass according to the ordinary form, campus Masses and teen groups filled with young people, millions of confirmands who have never set foot in a traditionalist parish and so forth. I received a phone call from a journalist some time ago wanting me to comment on the fantastic growth of the Extraordinary Form in New York. He had found three parishes that are offering it! I kindly told him how many parishes are in the geographical region he was surveying (the entire city–two dioceses with 2 million Catholics apiece). He then agreed with me that three parishes with a single celebration each was not a landslide.
Third, Claire’s comment at 10:37 is also very much to the point. I find it all regrettable, but not all that surprising.
Rita, based on this information, perhaps the dispute is not about the Liturgy.
Thank you, Nancy. I suspect you are right.
In case it needs saying: my friend, whose initial observaton I cited, is by no means sympathetic to traditionalism, religious or secular. She is pursuing a doctorate in Church history, however, and is very familiar with the struggle between “the two Frances,” la France catholique et la France laique.
Don’t you think the Bishop could have been more pastoral? First, he tosses out the pastor who was there for a long time, then he marches in with girl altar boys and wearing the rainbow chasuble. All this seems likely calculated to rub it in their traditionalist faces.
The response of the congregation seems unfortunate but we cannot really know since we do not know what the bishop was saying or the congregation.
I agree with Eggloff that the bishop could have been more pastoral. Too many times liberals are just as dominating as conservatives. It is still one faith, one baptism and leaders should work to bring people together rather than to polarize. Having Latin masses for people who prefer is okay as people are not always ready to do something they were not brought up to do. The problem is when leaders say one side is right over the other. Protesters from either side can appeal to the cranky and discontent. (The section on the Jews tho in the Latin Mass must be an exception)
Paul the Apostle, set the example by working patiently with communities and using persuasion rather than excommunication. This takes work and measures a leader’s capacity to lead. It is easy to issue edicts and summarily dismiss people. Leadership includes and demands patience, work and showing people how to work and live together.
As a progressive Catholic, I think the bishop’s actions appear to be not very pastoral. There’s enough division in the Church of Rome already. It doesn’t need to be exacerbated.
Bill Mazzella and Joseph Jaglowicz:
I salute your fair-mindedness on this issue. And Bill, I have gained even more respect for you as my favorite contemporary Jeremiah.
Claire ,
Thanks for clarifying the French situation. I’m certainly n expert on French history and have no friends there currently.
The little I know concerns mainly French intellectuals in the late nineteenth century. It was extremely complex at that time. Though royalists are very scarce today, in the nneteenth century they succeeded in re-establishing the monarchy for a while. Later there were amng the Catholics such people as Leon Bloy (who was instrumental in converting the Maritains and other intellectuals) who was both a passionate defender of the poor and a severe critic of the rich, yet politically he remained a royalist and theologically conservative Catholic. In the early 20th century the great poet Paul Claudel was politically reactionry and theologically extremely cnservative. In other words, the French Catholic conservatives don’t seem to be nearly so homogeneous ideologically as the American conservative Catholics are. (I wonder if the same thing can be said of French Catholc liberals – if there are many.)
[By the way, I just read on the America site that Schillebeekxs (sp?) died Dec. 23. May he rest in peace.]
There are connections between royalists and traditional Catholics, particularly among the Society of Pius X, although Bishop Williamson recently distanced himself from some of their claims.
The article in wikipedia includes Catholic traditionalists under the heading of “legitimists”:
Legitimists are Royalists in France who believe that the King of France and Navarre must be chosen according to the simple application of the Salic Law. Called “Ultra-royalists” under the Bourbon Restoration, they are adherents of the elder branch of the Bourbon dynasty, overthrown in the 1830 July Revolution. Distinguished historian René Rémond analyses the legitimists as one of the three main right-wing factions in France, which was principally characterized by their counterrevolutionary opinions (they rejected the 1789 French Revolution, the Republic and everything that went with it; thus, they progressively became a far-right movement, close to traditionalist Catholics).
Note also this:
However, they returned to prominence during Vichy France, according to historian René Rémond’s studies of the right-wing factions in France. Some would also support the OAS during the Algerian War (1954–62). Marcel Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X, founded in 1970, especially in France, shares aspects with the legitimist movement, according to Rémond.
As of 2006, some remain strongly attached to the traditionalist wing of the Catholic Church and are particularly encouraged by the theological conservatism of Pope Benedict XVI. Such Legitimists are strongly opposed to the proposed European Constitution and anything else perceived as threatening the independence of France.
One of the odd features of the traditionalist movement in New York City is their annual Mass for Louis XVI. The US trads are very close to the French trads. There is an annual pilgrimage in the summer from Paris to Chartres that draws many thousands of Americans along with their French brothers.
Besides the traditionalist movement, It should be noted that there are many new and very exciting Catholic movements in France right now including the Community of the Beatitudes. If you have not read any of the small books by their own Jacques Phillipe, I commend them to you.
Just a footnote. The legitimists currently regard the Count of Paris as the heir to the throne of France. He is not descended from Louis XVI or any of the brothers of Louis XVI, but from a cousin, Philip duke of Orleans. Philip, popularly known as Philippe Egalite (Philip Equality) because of his progressive politics, voted for the execution of his cousin Louis XVI. He later was himself executed during the Terror. I should add that there are some extremists who believe that that Louis XVI’s son escaped from his captors and produced a line of descendants. This seems unlikely.
Thanks for the update, Rita. Complexity, complexity!
Do you know whether there are many French Catholics who are what we might called political liberals? Is there an effective Christian Democrat party for them to join with?
It seems to me that if all the lberaks are non-relious, it will be very hsrd for the Church to regain the French youth, and Frsnce will indeed be lost to the Church Young people need not only a Church that reflects their values but a political party also. And so do the ol ld folks??
Maybe the young people are being lost to the Church because they lack these dual institutions.. Perhaps one institution reinforcescthe other.
In the last French presidential elections, in the second round, when there are only two candidates left, the right-wing candidate (Sarkozy) got 72% of the votes of “regularly practicing Catholics” which, in France, means those who say that they go to Mass at least once a month.
http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2296815&rubId=788
Some French Catholic publications:
-La Croix (collaborationist during the war, mainstream right-wing), 95000 daily.
-Temoignage Chretien (created in the resistance during the war, left-wing), 8000 weekly
I would say that Temoignage Chretien may has similarities with NCR. For example I just looked at the front page of the current issue: it covers the arrest by the police of a deacon who was helping immigrants; global warming and Copenhagen; an article on non-violence; and a couple of articles about Camus. Unfortunately it is on the edge of bankruptcy.
Ann: I don’t think there has ever been an effective Catholic political party in France, and I’d like to know why you think young people need one. The experience of the Christian Democrats in Italy does not invite confidence; and we’ve never had one here in the USA.
As for whether “young people need a Church that reflects their values,” I’d say it depends on what values you’re talking about. At times what they surely need is a Church that does not reflect their values, but challenges them.
Here, translated, are two paragraphs from “La Croix’s” take on the issue; full story at: http://www.la-croix.com/article/index.jsp?docId=2408659&rubId=4078
‘On this classical case of a village which is losing “its” curé has been grafted an ideological conflict. Fr. Francis Michel, supported by traditionalist faithful, has for a long time now celebrated Mass in Latin and turned toward the altar (but not in the Tridentine rite). According to him, the bishop wishes to punish him and, with his eviction, is refusing to apply Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, which authoriizes the extraordinary form of the rite (the Tridentine).
‘The priest has become a symbol for a certain fringe of the Church: for weeks traditionalist sites and journals were calling their readers to be present in Thiberville. “I fell into an ambush,” explains the bishop, who recalls that he is already applying the motu proprio, with a Sunday celebration, in Evreux itself, according to St. Pius V”s missal. “This diocese is complicated,” he continues, alluding to the troubled past of the former bishop Msgr. Gaillot. “I’m trying to establish communion between the two extremes.”’
Which brings us back to the Pew study which showed that people have no problem with God and Jesus. Their problem is the clergy. So who is there to challenge the youth?
Bill: Is the problem with all the clergy? Maybe there might be one or two of them with whom the perple don’t have a problem? And in any case, to challenge the youth, there are the 99% of the Church who are lay people. If they don’t challenge them, they don’t get challenged, even if there were no problem with (some of) the clergy.
D’accordo!
Do you think this issue of how the Mass is said will resolve itself over the next 20 or 30 years? Once all of the folks who actually remember the Mass being said in Latin are gone, won’t it just be an interesting novelty rather than the subject of such controversy? Though if, as others point out, this is really just a straw man, I imagine at that time we’ll all find something else to divide us.
The old way is doomed. and trying to maintain the old network of Catholic presence in the face of ever fewer, aging priests, is a recipe for failure. French bishops are overwhelmed and fearful, and I hear that many priests refuse the promotion, when the nunce suggests they become bishop. As a priest friend recently said jokingly: “Soon the church will need to place an ad in the classifieds to be able to recruit its bishops!” The big picture is that French Catholicism, as my parents and grand-parents knew it, will soon be extinct. Should bishops merely try to manage the inexorable decline, spreading resources ever more thinly over their diocese, or… ?
France is now a land of mission. Once we accept that, we can forget about numbers and statistics and look instead at the many diverse pockets of vitality. Rita named some – it’s not just the trads. But it’s not clear to me what role bishops have to play in that.
There was a left-wing more or less Catholic political party in France during the 50s before de Gaulle. It was, if memory serves, called Mouvement Populaire Republicain (MRP) and it was one of the parties that participated in the coalition governments during the Fourth Republic. I suspect that I heard about it in Commonweal, but certainly in the NYT as governmental coalitions came and went.
JAK said to Ann: “Ann: I don’t think there has ever been an effective Catholic political party in France, and I’d like to know why you think young people need one. The experience of the Christian Democrats in Italy does not invite confidence; and we’ve never had one here in the USA.
As for whether “young people need a Church that reflects their values,” I’d say it depends on what values you’re talking about. At times what they surely need is a Church that does not reflect their values, but challenges them.”
JAK –
I think that most people take action about moral issues in groups, and especially the young. There are few prophets among the young. There are no official Church groups for the young to make themselves known (nor for adults eithet). This leaves political groups as the outlet for their idealism. Compare the young Muslims who join Al Queda.
As for needing a Church which reflects their values, I meant the real values that are specifically beloved of young people, viz. truth=telling and avoidance of hypocrisy. They are what the young especially need to find in their religious teachers. It was no accident that Catcher in the Rye was an enormously popular novel among the young.
But what have they found in the American Church? Bishops who are God-awful liars and hypocrites who preach compassion while ignoring or smothering the cries of the little children.
It’s the bishops who have need challenging. Or millstones around their necks.
http://normandie.france3.fr/info/haute-normandie/Thiberville-:-l-évêque-tente-d-apaiser-le-climat-60112171.html
L’évêque a affirmé sa volonté de temporiser dans cette affaire, mais sans que cela ne remette en cause sa décision concernant le déplacement de l’abbé Michel. C’est maintenant Rome qui doit trancher, a expliqué Monseigneur Nourrichard.
http://www.paris-normandie.fr/index.php/cms/13/article/286061/Que_la_paix_regne_a_Thiberville
Au terme d’une réflexion avec le conseil épiscopal, Mgr Nourrichard surseoit à la prise de fonction du curé qui devait lui succéder à Thiberville et « autorise l’abbé Michel à y célébrer messes, baptêmes et funérailles ». Pas de mariages en revanche qui, le cas échéant, seraient « nuls aux yeux de l’église ». Car le décret qui dissout le groupement inter-paroissial de Thiberville et révoque l’abbé Michel est bel et bien maintenu.L’évêque accorde seulement « une pause pour permettre à tous d’envisager les véritables enjeux ». Et à l’abbé Michel d’exercer son droit de recours auprès du Vatican. « L’évêque d’Evreux ne se situe pas au-dessus du pape et de l’église. Je m’en tiendrai à ce que Rome dira », ajoute-t-il.
So the priest is appealing to the Vatican, and until he gets an answer, the bishop tolerates that he does baptisms, Masses and funerals in his parish while still keeping him revoked.
Bets are open regarding the Vatican’s response!
I’ve read just a little about Catholicism in France recently for past blog posts ….
In one I posted some bits from John O’Malley’s book “The First Jesuits” in which he mentions how not welcome the Jsuits were in France in the time of Ignatius (1555) … Placards against them appeared on churches, and other buildings all over Paris, and Jesuits were denounced from the pulpit …. about 200 years later, the Society of Jesus was suppressed in France (1784).
In a post about Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris, I read about the Paris Commune uprising of 1870-71. Another Paris church, which belongs to the SSPX is Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet – it has an interesting history.
And I had a post about Paul Touvier and the SSPX …. he was French Vichy era war criminal who was long protected by government officials and the Catholic Church. He was found guilty of treason and collusion with the Nazis, and was also later charged with crimes against humanity for the deportation of Jews and the murder of seven Jewish hostages at Rillieux-la-Pape, near Lyon, on 29 June 1944. He was sentenced to death in absentia because he was on the run and never caught until 1989 when he was found hiding with the SSPX. In reading about that, I came across a wikipedia page about the Cité catholique … a Traditionalist Catholic organisation created in 1946 by Jean Ousset, originally a follower of Charles Maurras (founder of the monarchist Action française in 1899) and Jean Masson (1910-1965), not to be confused (as F. Venner did) with Jacques Desoubrie, who also used the pseudonym Jean Masson. Despite the presence of Roman Catholic clergy in some of its meetings, the Cité catholique is not officially recognised by the Roman Catholic Church …
And there’s also a [ast story at NCR on the history of the French church and anti-Semitism …. Lefebvre movement: long, troubled history with Judaism
I am pretty familiar with Catholicism in contemporary France and francophone Africa, and I think Claire’s right. France is mission territory now. I think the objections that many French people have to Christianity go well beyond poor policies made by bishops!
In any event, there are indeed non-trad Catholics still in France. Churches in the poor suburbs of Paris are full of African, Southeast Asian, and Indian immigrants. Catholic families are often labelled “catho et facho” (catholic and fascist), even though most hardly resemble the royalist and Vichy nostalgia crowd that tends to be very vocal but rather small. However, practicing Catholics are considered to be in the French press (except La Croix naturally and the center-right Le Figaro) to be an odd minority of fanatics unworthy of serious attention. Sarkozy relies on Catholic votes to some extent, but efforts by Catholics leaning towards the far right Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen to try to attack Sarkozy a la Guliani in the republican primaries have failed. Even Catholic have grown disillusioned with Le Pen because Le Pen has softened his hard line against Muslims immigrants at times. See lesalonbeige.com for details – this blog is about the same as the conservative Catholic blogs in the US.
Catholic bishops are particularly worried about trads because France is the heartland of the SSPX. But this particular incident seems to be much more about a personal dispute between a priest and a bishop regarding policy than a real showdown between the trads and the rest of the church.
Oh – the bishop backed down after meeting the papal nuncio – http://www.perepiscopus.over-blog.com/article-thiberville-mgr-nourrichard-a-recule-apres-avoir-vu-le-nonce-42606401.html This blog is dedicated to covering news involving French bishops
Read Summorum Pontificum.
It is most interesting that the “motu prroprio” Summorum Pontificum cannot be found in English among the Pope’s official documents on the Vatican web page.
That translation has been totally erased, both from the 7 July 2007 Holy See Press Office “bollettino” and the Pope’s own page of documents.
Instead, here’s the Latin:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/month_num_5.php?lang=it&anno=2007&month=7
And this is the Pope’s explanation:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/20559.php?index=20559&po_date=07.07.2007&lang=it#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE
Robert — I just noticed that yesterday! I was looking for the official translation (to link to it from an article of ours that referenced it) but could only find it on pro-TLM blogs.
“Legitimists are Royalists in France who believe that the King of France and Navarre must be chosen according to the simple application of the Salic Law. Called “Ultra-royalists” under the Bourbon Restoration, they are adherents of the elder branch of the Bourbon dynasty, overthrown in the 1830 July Revolution.”
It would be as if there were still Tories in the US who supported the British monarchy and Parliament.
The older branch of the Bourbons died out with the grandson of Charles X. The next in line would be the Count of Paris who is descended from Philippe duc d’Orleans, the brother of Louis XIV.
Correction: Some French monarchists, properly called Legitimists, support the claims of the Spanish branch of the Bourbons, which are descended from the French Prince who became King of Spain (the War of the Spanish Succession) early in the 18th century. He was Louis XIV’s grandson and they would thus have a better claim than the Counts of Paris, who are descended from Louis XIV’s brother.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5137
A survey for the French daily La Croix has found a stunning secularizing trend in France in the past generation.
Go to the La Croix powerpoint presentation (where just a minimal knowledge of French might suffice to understand) to see statistics.
“messalisant”=say they go to Mass weekly
“pratiquant regulier”=say they go to Mass at least once a month
“pratiquant occasionnel”=say they go to Mass occasionally — presumably on Christmas and when they visit the grandparents.
“non-pratiquant”=raised as a Catholic but never go to church but still see themselves as Catholic
Is this where the Irish Church is headed also?
And, see today’s NCR column by Fr. McBrien on dissidents here and the “Week of Christian Unity.”
Bob –
France is the canary in the mine. The hierarchy, including the Pope, doesn’t seem to realize that the Church really can simply disappear in the West. When the grandparents and old priests are gone, the Church will be gone, except for maybe a few scraglers, something like the miniscule number of contemporary Cathars in France.
Some say that the young conservative Catholics can cause a resurrection eventually. But I’ve read that the children of the young conservatives (both Catholic and Protestant), some of whom are now in college, are also starting to drift away. True? I would be surprised if it weren’t true.
Where will the new Rome be? Goa? Beijing? Tokyo?
Someone said above that France is mission territory. In reality, that is true for everywhere on planet earth. We as a church need to grasp the implications of that statement. The whole parish model – define geographic boundaries, build a church building in the midst of it, and people within those boundaries will come – may be obsolete in certain places.
What we’ve seen in the US is what apparently has happened in Evreaux – “traditional” liturgical communities become a sort of “boutique community” that draws in adherents from a relatively wide geographic area – cutting across many parish geographic boundaries. (And the same happens with “progressive” communities around here). Perhaps the wave of the future? In an intensely interconnected age, geographic proximity counts for less and less.
It points to new ways of evangelizing. Entire clans and towns don’t convert anymore, but people group themselves in other ways: their stage of life (e.g. young and single, or widowed) or their personal characteristics (gay) or their interests (Harley Davidson bikers) bind them together, and they invite friends. If we are all mission lands, then perhaps this is what the new evangelization looks like.
Jim: I rather agree with you, but then where would bishops fit into that picture?
Well, here’s your “smaller, purer” church?
I found it interesting that the numbers begin to fall off once John Paul II is elected, and continue to fall steadily, then more sharply still with Benedict as pope. But they actually rose during the pontificate of Paul VI.
Another interesting datum: the evaluation of Benedict changed dramatically between 2008 and 2009, in a negative direction. What triggered this? The Williamson affair? Something else? Any ideas, anybody?
Claire – I dunno. Maybe the Archbishop of Chicago will be considered a suffregan appointment in my new world order :-)
Rita
There are people who are most liked when they are least known.
Jim – I understand what you say about people driving long distances to attend mass, but that whole exercise seems very, very shallow to me.
Whether one prefers Latin mass or a guitar mass, in my opinion (I think we Americans are still entitled to those), I think it is ridiculous to – just on account of personal preference – drive outside one’s parish to attend mass. Driving all over the county or state to find something I like for mass is selfish, it wastes time, gas and money, and only contributes to pollution and wear and tear on the car and the roads.
Mass is not a show or a performance; it is a sacrament. I happen to prefer a more traditional rendering of the mass, but what I like is not that important. Some “progressive” priest who uses a manner I find tedious and tiresome (maybe with guitars, hand-holding, and cymbals for example) is in fact a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, and the mass he offers – regardless of my opinion of his stylistic preferences – is a valid mass, and it is a sin to miss mass on Sunday, unless one has some real reason.
Moreover my wife does not long for a traditional mass; she more or less goes with the flow. About half the time we attend the local Spanish mass, which is of course very much in the Mexican folkloric style. She (my wife is Chilean, and Neo-Catechumenado) and Mexican folk music is far from her preference. Still, everyone likes ice cream or sweet corn after mass and after our local Spanish mass, the vendors wait just outside the church doors and we like seeing friends there too.
In any case, generally I either enjoy or simply tolerate the general ambiance, listen to the priest and, aside from the general callisthenics, try to adore the Lord and beg pardon for my sins, blessing for my family and if properly disposed, take Holy Communion. Regardless of style, the mass is transcendent of time and space, and the enactment of Calvary, all of which (not to mention transubstantiation) I find to be simply amazing. In that light (actually that of the Incarnation), I found a nice poem (below) and hope you enjoy.
But for me to impose on my wife and our son to drive an hour somewhere just to find a mass with Gregorian chant or Latin, i.e. one that suits my styliscic fancy, in addition to being ridiculous, would be very selfish indeed.
——————————————–
Christ is Born
John McCormack (famoud Irish tenor; sang this circa 1934)
“See amid the winter snow, born for us on Earth below. See the tender Lamb appears, promised from eternal years.
Hail the ever-blessed morn, hail redemption’s happy dawn. Sing to all Jerusalem, Christ is born in Bethlehem!
Sacred Infant born divine, what a tender love was Thine; thus to come from highest Bliss, down to such a world as this.
Hail the ever-blessed morn, hail redemption’s happy dawn. Sing to all Jerusalem, Christ is born in Bethlehem!”
————————————-
Oh and those folks in France yelling at the Bishop are very wrong. They ought to be glad he is their Bishop. He is pobably smarter than most in the diocese. They ought to listen to him; they might learn something.
In short, those hollering around about his decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Yes those folks yelling at their Bishop, at Mass and in church of all times and places, are of course very wrong.
Yes to not driving around for superficial reasons. But if your local parish does not nourish you (and liturgy plays a role in that, as well as people’s more or less welcoming attitude, and other factors), and if you can find a place elsewhere that helps you grow in faith, then isn’t that better?
I look at it like this Claire; in fact your local parish Can nourish you, if you remember why you are at mass, and if you at least try to keep an open mind. I also take the tack that I will not allow anyone to “drive” me out of my parish.
As I mentioned, I could stand around moaning and listing out all the things I do not like about my parish, but that would do little good, and is mainly a boring and tedious exercise. The fact is we live in this area and this is our parish. Now, if I want something changed badly enough, I should be willing to try to work in my parish to affect the change. If my efforts yield little, if I am not able to convince people to adopt whatever change I prefer, then I must accept the will of the majority of my co-parishioners and settle into some sort of routine. Ultimately our priest is in charge of the parish anyway, and (in line with the bishop of the diocese of course) the local priest has the right to run it how he sees fit.
And so instead of complaining about my parish, I try to adapt to it. I try to listen to our priest and try to learn and grow.
I am not so special that I need to drive all over the place (this one is too guitary, that one is too touchy-feely, etc.) to find a mass that is “just right” for me. No; none of us are that special.
That having been said, I do enjoy visiting other parishes when we happen to be traveling over a weekend. That is part of the fun of travel.
Finally, I like the phrase about the Sabbath being made for Man, not the other way ’round. With that in mind then, I like to relax on Sundays and that does not include hopping on the freeway, roaming to a distance parish, and driving home again. I prefer going to mass, then stopping for a treat, having lunch, and then – with any luck – taking a nap!
:-)
Ken, I struggled with that no so long ago. I was in a perfectly homogeneous parish where I stood out as a little bit different. I tried to get involved. I volunteered to help teach CCD (answer: “sure, we’re always welcoming help: why don’t you xerox material and fill out paperwork for confirmation candidates.”); I went to the book club, discussed the book currently selected and suggested some future selection (answer: “we need to follow Father’s suggestions”); I went to a general parish meeting, complained about the lack of social outreach, and mentioned a soup kitchen I was involved with (answer: no follow-up); at that meeting I also pointed out that the location of the central cross made it not visible from the sides, and suggested moving it a little bit to fix that small concrete problem (answer: no follow-up). I put a call in the bulletin asking for a host family for an international student (no return, in a parish of almost 2000 families! Then I tried another denomination in the same town, with only 200 families, and three volunteered!).
Meanwhile my son complained that he never learned anything at CCD and my daughter complained bitterly about the (admittedly sometimes off-tune) music and refused to go to Mass anymore.
Finally, tired of being politely ignored and worried about my children’s religious upbringing, I found another parish where we fit in and are welcomed. What you say resonates with me: I really thought that I was meant to go to the parish of the area I lived in, and tried to belong, but it was a struggle and I faced an invisible wall. Now things are not perfect (they never are of course!) but at least I feel that I exist as a member of my current parish.
You’re talking about the theory: I am sympathetic to it, but it hasn’t been my experience. I still feel guilty about not sticking with my area’s parish, and follow what they’re doing, albeit from a distance. But I am much happier in my new environment, and it is pretty clear that it is better for me – more nourishing.