This is a study in contrasts. There is a story about the age of priests in the Diocese of Buffalo, New York. The average age of their priests is 76 years old! Let me repeat that, the average age of their priests is 76 years old. Buffalo, Albany and Rochester, in the 1970’s, were on the cutting edge of the “new springtime” for the Church as a result of the glorious and to be worshipped, Second Vatican Council.
All three of those New York Dioceses are either in bankruptsy or in the on-going “wintertime” of the Church. Read into that what you may.
In contrast to those dioceses, we have the FSSP, which is in full-union with the pope and thus the Holy Roman Catholic Church, they just had the ordination of 11 new priests, whose age, by the look of them, is an average of 18 years old!
While I don’t have statistics, I would venture to say that all the FSSP Catholics throughout the USA are far fewer in number of Catholics in the Diocese of Buffalo. Yet the far fewer Catholics associated with FSSP parishes provides far more young 18 year old priests than all the Catholics in Buffalo.
What does that tell you? The new springtime for the Church is not what the spirit of Vatican II or much of Vatican II has brought about or will bring about. What the majority of the Church has been doing has been a colossal failure not only in vocations but in many other areas.
Keep in mind, prior to Vatican II, most Catholic parishes/Catholic families, were producing record numbers of vocations to both the priesthood and religious life at about the same percentage as the FSSP is doing today.
32 comments:
People, to include priestly vocations, are looking for something to believe in that is greater than always flawed people.
The dying areas are cynical with belief in nothing but the very flawed human institution, where it so obviously broke that what it needs is a good revolutionary change to fix everything. They blame the local churches dying on that lack of revolution, rather than on their own cynical disbelief in anything but patently flawed people, which draws nobody.
When the priest is just going through the motions, and obviously not awed by and in love with God whom he worships, who is going to stick around for that, much less attempt to worship that God? If the priest doesn't seem to believe it, why should anyone else?
So, they are left with trying only to build and maintain a failing social club, and when membership and dues drop, why, the answer is to lower admission standards and try to draw in whoever will join, no matter their inclinations...
as, after all, somebody must support the shrinking priest population and diocese, there are retirements and medical care to think about, at least for diocese employees.
The evidence is clear and the verdict is in; "It didn't work". The ill fated application of the outcomes of VII have been soundly rejected and there really is no debating this. The new generation that is working it's way in, despite Francis and his ilk trying to stop it, will eventually carry the day. This is God's church and no man can succeed in undermining it.
I watched this ordination in Omaha. It was breathtaking in it's solemnity, power and majesty.
Tom,
MAJESTY!
Let's put aside the obvious, social change and population shift has had an impact on all institutions, the RC inclusive.
That said, it could be argued that of those who are left, many have abandoned their faith. Recently, the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Peoria both announced restructurings that will reduce parishes by, or close to half. Is all well? It would seem not.
The late Pope Benedict predicted a smaller, stronger church. Is the FSSP emblematic of that church where their ordinations are in excess of many diocese combined? Perhaps. Without statistics, it's impossible to prove scientifically, however, a reasonable person would conclude that to be a distinct possibility.
I've often thought that the VII Church and associated ideology was an idea that appeals to an increasingly shrinking "market". Tradition grounds, provides structure and order - it challenges the believer. Where the converse exists, that which should be elevated becomes mundane and pedestrian.
We can't undo the past, what happened, happened. Despite my own personal opinions on the matter, a full return to some version of the '62 Missal is unlikely. I've wondered if during VII, a simple switch to the right hand side of the missal, the vernacular, would have been sufficient to enhance engagement and leave the people at peace. There, rebuilding at cost would not have been necessary and some of these church closures (which also has an associated cost) might have been avoided. Instead, something novel was introduced - something that has appeal to many, but that appeal appears to be increasingly limited. Perhaps one could conclude that common sense was put aside in favor of trend, what was trendy, or ideology. Very sad and very sad to see people abandon their relationship with Christ.
Like Father Fox says “no one likes the Novus Ordo.”
I was around when the “reforms” began. It was a top down, dictatorial approach. No consultation of the laity happened. It was a vanity project for bored little men.
The biggest mistake was not retaining the Latin High Mass as the principal Mass on Sunday while providing for other Sunday Masses to introduce the vernacular and modern hymns. I suspect once the novelty of having Kumbaya and guitars faded, most would have stuck with the tried and true.
The idea that a bunch of old guys in Rome knew what youth wanted is laughable but for the tragic results. Rome is stubbornly ignoring the Chartres Pilgrimage with 16,000 youths marching 62 miles for the Traditional Latin Mass. Make no mistake, these old codgers in Rome are cruel and evil.
The liturgical changes wrought by the council are certainly a part of the problem - the evidence is overwhelming. But I larger part of it is that the vast majority of Catholics are contracepting like crazy. Until the laity embrace the teaching of the Church on this (and a host of other issues) nothing will change. Faithful Catholics/large families are likely the ones giving sons to the Church.
One step towards getting the laity on board is to get the clergy to actually belief and teach what the Church teaches. That is certainly not happening among the older clergy - and I have heard precious little from the younger as well ( a handful of exceptions). I wonder how many associates are warned not to preach on contraception by their pastors or bishops?
As for the FSSP drawing vocations, the priests are worshipping God as if they mean it and believe it, and more importantly, are convincing possible vocations that they mean it, and it worthy of belief. And doing so in a manner which brings that out.
But, no matter how fancily worship conducted, when/if it gets to the point the priestly attitude is, "showtime's over, let's all go grab a beer," their vocation spring will skip right into winter...
So will their attendance, as folk need to see priests who truly believe it, since no matter Vatican assurance of, "yo, dog, it's all good," when people see intersession conducted essentially disbelievingly, then that is their reaction as well.
For people to be holy, having holy priests helps a bunch. When priests are just like everyone else, how so not the majority of laity?
Monkmcg,
Fat chance!
By the way, Paul VI destroyed the Liturgy while issuing Humanae Vitae, a disaster for the life of the Church. Paul VI shelved the recommendation of his own hand picked commission which recommended a relaxation of the rule. Every Christian marriage should be open to children but it is unrealistic (unless you are the Rockefellers) to have an indefinite number of children you cannot afford to raise and nor be a good parent to. A healthy woman in the US could easily have 20 children but for birth control. The likely consequence of Humanae Vitae was the proliferations of abortion. It is said abortion is the primary form of birth control in “Catholic” Poland. If someone equates using birth control to abortion they are truly unhinged from any sense of moral proportion. If Catholics had been polled during the Council if you would prefer a vernacular Mass or a relaxation of the Church’s prohibition of artificial birth control, it would have been a landslide vote to relax the artificial birth control rule. It does not surprise me what Paul VI did given the presence of homosexuals in the Vatican. They don’t have to worry that their personal budgets will be affected by children.
If I believed that lace and Latin, chanting and misnamed "Roman" chasubles would restore the Catholicism of the '40's - and that could be 1940's, 1840's, 1740's, 1640's or 1540's - I would join these brocaded and damasked young'uns forthwith.
I don't, however, share their diagnosis of the ailments of our Church, so I don't believe their prescription for relief will accomplish much, if anything.
One of the main reasons I don't share their vision is that they are aiming for what is easy - very easy. All you have to do is put Churchy, liturgical things back the way they were before 1950 and, Voila!, all will be well.
This diagnosis and prescription ignores the 95% (or more) of what has changed in Western cultures since the end of World War Two. It assumes there is no connection between our liturgical - liturgical, not religious - selves and our secular selves.
I'm not cynical. Neither am I simplistic.
TJM, it was Pius XII who started allowing vernacular and making serious changes to the liturgy.
As for women having 20 children minus birth control, many people never touch birth control and most never come near that number, but instead maybe half that when trying to have as many as possible...
meanwhile that latter number seriously reduced by not trying that hard, and reduced futher by trying NOT to have them via timing of fertility cycles and/or abstinence....people are not helpless animals stuck in high heat rutting cycle perpetually, and DO have control over bodily functions when they try.
Bob,
Please detail how Pius XII introduced the vernacular into the Roman Mass.
TJM, no need for me to detail anything, as a search of "Pius XII liturgical reforms" has detailed it since there was an internet.
It was he who opened the door to modern incrementalism which already was getting a full head of runaway steam by the time of his death. He made major changes to Mass and Breviary as well, and why so many fault Benedict for only allowing the 1962 Missal which was a major change from the ancient rite.
Any changes before Pius XII were minor indeed, past the 1700s classicist refurb of hymns, which ranked about same as "improving" any familiar very old song in quality and agelessness, a Led Zepplin version of When Johnny Comes Marching Home comes to mind.
TJM
Learn to make an argument based on something other than emotion and you might learn something in the exchange.
I must admit being floored when TJM, Mister Conservative Himself, goes and says what did the most damage to the Church was the one conservative thing Pope Paul did his entire reign, which was to reaffirm the most ancient Church teaching against birth control and abortion...
which birth control and abortion was something practiced by pagans to allow their freewheeling sex lives, and spoken against by the very oldest surviving Church documents before any council and before persecutions even dreamed of fading...
typical political read of religion, same as the liberals, "look at the votes it is costing us", and straight from Mister Conservative Himself, where Mark is "In Francis we trust", and TJM is "In Trump We Trust".
I am reluctant to complain too much about St. Pope Paul VI. Liturgically, he made a mistake in following what liturgists wanted for the “new” Mass. He wasn’t a liturgists, nor were most Catholic bishops, so they relied on liturgists to guide them. That was a horrible mistake. There’s a reason why so many dioceses no longer have Liturgical Commissions today!
But Pope Paul did try to reign things in, but by that point he was aging, depressed about a number of things, especially the “smoke of Satan” in the Church but also the execution of his best friend in Italy in a terrorist event.
But Pope Paul taught until the end that only discipline had changed because of Vatican II not doctrines, dogmas or morals. He said women could not be ordained and Humanae Vitae made clear what the purpose of sex is and its purpose is in marriage between one man and one woman and must be natural sex open to new life. That excludes sodomy for either heterosexuals or homosexuals and all are called to chastity given their state in life.
Pope Benedict tried heroically to address the liturgical mistakes that Paul VI allowed because Benedict was a liturgist among other academic leanings. Unfortunately, Francis has reopened so much of what both Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI put to bed.
Bob,
Pius XII issued Mediator Dei which refutes your argument. Have you read it?
Being conservative does not make you braindead. Humanae Vitae was a mistake. I have found its staunchest supporters have few or no children.
Bob,
I imagine you are part of the “In Biden We Trust” cult?
As for Benedict, and being a liturgist, I wonder why he stuck with the butchered Pius XII version, but can suspect his advisors or himself thought the 1962 version enough of a bone to throw to the SSPX folk in trying to draw them back in.....
while allowing the pre-Pius XII version would have been seen as total capitulation to the SSPX, since the non-butchered version is indeed known as the Pius X version...
And which allowed 1962 version was still seen by liberals as a total capitulation, so still a major loss on both ends, heads you lose, tails you lose, and then Benedict seeing even that undone by liberals.
And poor Paul was crushed by the end of his reign, never issued another thing after the reaction to Humanae Vitae...plus worn out from playing Vatican II referee between two vitriolic side...and then the Aldo Moro execution...and seeing the chaos from his own approved liturgical changes...
TJM, you need to read your Church history and the changes which Pius XII DID allow, and which changes to ALL the liturgy he DID introduce, which opened wide the door for all the later changes which followed...
As for your brain dead "everyone who disagrees with me must vote for Biden", that is below further commentary.
And as for birth control, take that up with the early Church fathers, not me, and meanwhile know no Catholic teaching ever disagreed with the early Church fathers, but you do, which says a lot about your fidelity to earliest received teaching...nearly every form of artificial birth control aborts a fertilized egg, which is indeed an abortion, and Catholics have always held that life is precious and not to be taken lightly, if at all.
TJM, you need to read your Church history and the changes which Pius XII DID allow, and which changes to ALL the liturgy he DID introduce, which opened wide the door for all the later changes which followed...
As for your brain dead "everyone who disagrees with me must vote for Biden", that is below further commentary.
And as for birth control, take that up with the early Church fathers, not me, and meanwhile know no Catholic teaching ever disagreed with the early Church fathers, but you do, which says a lot about your fidelity to earliest received teaching...nearly every form of artificial birth control aborts a fertilized egg, which is indeed an abortion, and Catholics have always held that life is precious and not to be taken lightly, if at all.
Your comment of, "I have found its (Humanae Vitae) staunchest supporters have few or no children", is worthy of Saturday Night Live and "Coincidence? I think NOT!", where of course, all people suspiciously not having children MUST be using artificial birth control rather than the too numerous to list other reasons and means people may have few or no children. I would suggest you clear this up and ask them to their face, except that I fear you really would.
A certain person here has long refused to accept that Pope Venerable Pius XII had enacted radical liturgical reforms. Said person has even denied the key role that Pope Venerable Pius XII had played in regard to the introduction of vernaculars into the Roman Liturgy.
=======
Said person has insisted that Peter Kwasniewski is a tremendous scholar whose declarations are to be taken seriously. That is interesting as Peter Kwasniewski has identified Pope Venerable Pius XII as a destroyer of the Roman Liturgy.
========
Peter Kwasniewski: The Once and Future Roman Rite: What We Lost from 1948 to 1962
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6lzt4-A11E
From the 3:35 to 5:00 minute marks, Peter Kwasniewski delineated the role that Pope Venerable Pius XII played in the destruction (Mr. Kwasniewski's opinion) of the Roman Liturgy.
To begin, Mister Kwasniewski stated that "The Novus Ordo did not emerge out of thin air...it was painstakingly prepared for by decades of scholarly utopianism, ambitious experiments, and trial balloons."
Mister Kwasniewski then identified Pope Venerable Pius XII as having in 1948 A.D., launched, in Mr. Kwasniewski's opinion, the supposed destructive liturgical reform in question.
========
At other times, Peter Kwasniewski has declared that the 1962 A.D. TLM is not pristine liturgy. He declared that the Church must return to the Roman Rite "prior to the severe distortions introduced by Pius XII in the 1950s."
"Pius XII first allowed the axe-wielding academics to lay violent hands on the Roman Missal."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob,
You just confirmed you are part of the “In Biden we Trust” crowd.
You are similar to Mark Thomas in that you disregard inconvenient facts!
Mark Thomas,
Dr. Kwasniewski’s knowledge of the Roman Mass surpasses by far the Pope and his Roche’s knowledge
TJM, you have both a serious short in your vote detection equipment, and a short between the headsets.
As if my constitutionally guaranteed private vote any of your business (along with Humanae Vitae supporter sex lives), I would vote for ANYbody over lost in old age fog/puppet of those running things Joe Biden who could not be trusted to operate an automobile away from own neighborhood, and maybe not even there...
Clue me in, Inspector Clouseau, what irrefutable evidence led you to the conclusion I would vote for Biden, past my stated impression that you worship politics, and I thereby disagree that Trump is our salvation? Any other evidence past my not buying into Trump as my savior? I trust NO party and NO politician as I know they do ANYthing for votes, to include betraying voters and their own elected platforms.
Mark, as for that Peter Polish Guy, just for the record, I have never read an article by him, nor do I sit around watching videos of anyone, saint or sinner, nor do I avidly read articles on assorted Catholic websites of any variety....on all the sites in total, I might find ONE article in one or two days worth reading, most times not even that.
As for the "reforms" (poor word in English implying "making better" when they truly are re-forms) of any pope, and Pius XII in this case, I know these things from reading history, and Pius stuff listed even on Wiki...
But, as for those changes, there no doubt in any serious historian's mind that Pius changed a LOT and set the stage for much more radical efforts in change, of which many/most have succeeded, and them done the Church no good....
Blaming only external societal changes for the collapsing Church seeks to ignore the fact that much of the damage was self-inflicted.
The biggest and most obvious being you cannot tell people this is the truth, and this is the way God meant it to be, and then change everything, and not expect the people to walk away in disbelieving disgust...only the most dedicated and/or gullible stay after such a patent switcheroo by obvious hucksters.
Peter Kwasniewski, whose knowledge of the Roman Mass surpasses by far the Pope and his Roche’s knowledge, has guaranteed the following:
-- We must rid the Church of the 1962 A.D. Roman Missal. Said Missal is unacceptable.
-- Pope Venerable Pius XII played a major role in the destruction of the Roman Mass.
-- The Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI is an "imposter Mass" that must be destroyed.
-- Pope Benedict XVI's two forms of the one Roman Rite peace plan "was destined to fail as knowledge of, and devotion to, the traditional liturgy increased."
1962 TLM is not pristine liturgy. We must return to the Roman Rite "prior to the severe distortions introduced by Pius XII in the 1950s."
-- "Novus Ordo is estranged from the company of all authentic Rites of East and West."
========
There you have it. For your liturgical/spiritual health, you would do well to avoid the 1962 A.D. Roman Missal. Pope Venerable Pius XII played a major role in the destruction of the Roman Liturgy.
Peter Kwasniewski has spoken. He knows best.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob said..."Mark is "In Francis we trust..."
I am, "In God we trust."
From there, I trust God's teachings related to His Papacy.
Therefore, I believe God as He has guaranteed that Pope Francis has been blessed with never-failing faith...that the Apostolic See will always maintain the True Religion...that we are to submit humbly to Pope Francis' God-given awesome authority to teach, govern, and sanctify us.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Peter Kwasniewski has insisted that "traditionalists" must abandon the tainted (supposedly) 1962 A.D. Roman Missal.
He has insisted that for the Church's liturgical, as well as spiritual health, we must return to "the Missale Romanum of Benedict XV, issued in 1920."
Peter Kwasniewski has insisted upon the rejection of "the revolutionary alterations of Pope Pius XII..."
=======
From Peter Kwasniewski's New Liturgical Movement article:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2019/08/why-restoring-roman-rite-to-its.html
"The position that has dominated the Tradisphere for a long time is that we should be content with 1962 as our point of departure for a healthy liturgical future."
"As far as I can tell, however, the purist 1962 and reformist 1965 positions are rapidly losing ground throughout the world, particularly as the internet continues to spread awareness of the ill-advised and sometimes catastrophic reforms that took place throughout the twentieth century to various aspects of the Roman liturgy, with Holy Week looming largest."
"Since I, too, disagree with the 1962 and 1965 positions, I would like to make the case for returning to the last editio typica prior to the revolutionary alterations of Pope Pius XII: the Missale Romanum of Benedict XV, issued in 1920."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, I stand by the Francis comment as you continue to stand by Francis in a hyper-papalist manner notably absent prior to the Francis reign, and even when said Francis abrogates his own authority to judge moral issues ("who am I to judge"), or even defend the Blessed Sacrament from those not in full communion ("yes...no...I don't know") clearly in conflict with all prior teachings from God and Church....so, yes, it is in Francis you trust.
Father McDonald presented this morning that "Pope Benedict tried heroically to address the liturgical mistakes that Paul VI allowed..." In turn, Pope Francis "has reopened (supposedly) so much of what both Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI put to bed."
There are others, along with Father McDonald, who subscribe to that school of thought.
There is also the school of thought that has viewed Pope Benedict XVI, most notably, via Summorum Pontificum, as having erred in regard to liturgical-related matters.
Interestingly, there are "traditionalists," as well as liberals, who have, for different reasons, criticized Pope Benedict XVI in that regard. What is certain is that it had fallen to Pope Francis to respond to Summorum Pontificum's failure.
=======
But that which I have found interesting is that within the TLM Movement, Pope Venerable Pius XII has, for years, been blamed for having initiated in earnest the liturgical chaos that, for decades, has disturbed various Latin Church Catholics.
Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, Saint John Paul II, etc., have been identified as having committed mistakes in regard to liturgical matters. But Pope Venerable Pius XII has, at least among leading "traditionalists," been lambasted for having been the main culprit supposedly in the unleashing of liturgical chaos within the Latin Church.
Peter Kwasniewski, has, in recent years, been the leader of the above school of thought. An increasing amount of those within the TLM Movement have bought into Peter Kwasniewski's trashing of Pope Venerable Pius XII's liturgical reforms.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob, I, in turn, stand by my comment that above all, I trust in God.
From there, I trust happily in God's Papal-related teachings that I have discussed often here. You have identified as, if you will, "hyper-papalistic," God's teachings in question — teachings that Holy Mother has guaranteed as holy.
I have every reason to believe, as guaranteed by Holy Mother Church, that thanks to the promise of Jesus Christ, Pope Francis has been blessed with never-failing faith. Pope Francis has also been blessed with supernatural wisdom.
Bob, the True Church has assured us that Pope Francis' Magisterium is fail-safe.
I stand as well with Pope Benedict XVI's holy example of having granted to Pope Francis his (Pope Benedict XVI) "unconditional reverence and obedience."
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As for my attitude about Francis, I am merely taking the man at his own word.....if he doesn't want to exercise his papal duty to guard and defend morals and the Blessed Sacrament, or prevent profanation of God's temple with idols, and wants to quash most ancient rites and crush those dedicated to a life of prayer, and in short, not be Pope, then far be it for me to tell him otherwise.....
I will respect his obvious wishes and chalk up anything else to modesty on his part. Maybe he'd be a lot happier if hyper-papalists weren't constantly pushing him to be something he clearly doesn't want to be, a real Pope.
Post a Comment