How We Dress for Mass

115 Responses

  1. P.R.Margeot says:

    Excellent, thank you to the Editor.

    We should never judge anybody by their clothing. I recently wrote about a very poor parish where men, women ,and children dress well in very ordinary clothes.

    As Jesus said, external appearance is meaningless as an indicator of the interior.

    However, with respect, I would suggest that women in particular have a grave duty to be aware of the necessity for them to be modestly dressed. There is no need to be long here: let our sisters realize that they should cover their body so that others (men) who may be weak or whatever do not have temptations , do not have improper thoughts and forbidden desires during the mass. As simple as that, as easy as that. Here, mothers should teach their daughters from a young age of the duty they have in this respect. And here, I would hasten to add (for the benefit of readers who never had the privilege to be at a traditional mass) that In traditional Catholic churches around the world, this is the norm and everybody is happy about that situation. No one would remotely consider that that situation is abnormal !! No, the reverse is true : to have immodestly dressed women in church is not normal.

    So much is happening, so many good things are coming to our Holy Church.

  2. Victor Victoria says:

    I agree, an excellent Editorial.

    The previous contributor appears to analyze the sitaution from the perspective of a male heterosexual. I am left wondering why women in particular have this grave duty thrust upon them. Why don’t men “have a grave duty to be aware of the necessity for them to be modestly dressed”? Is the implicit assumption here that women are not weak, and cannot be tempted, or have “improper thoughts and forbidden desires” during Mass, or elsewhere for that matter? Don’t fathers (and mothers) have a duty to teach their sons from a young age the duty they have in this respect?

    Why the intense focus by PRM on women and how they dress at Mass? Why the intense debate in the Southern Cross in the 1920s focussing on the immodest dress of women who were showing too much ankle? Is there an element of patriarchy in this sort of lopsided focus?

    So much for us all to reflect upon!

  3. P.R.Margeot says:

    I won’t spend time here to respond to what the previous contributor wrote.. He knows exactly what I mean, we have gone through this before, many times,

  4. A. Accolla says:

    Love this foto. I remember so vividly dressing like these little girls. Which parish is this?
    thanks for the article.

  5. Mark Nel says:

    Good decision PR. VV is, as usual, clearly intent on provoking an argument.

  6. Victor Victoria says:

    My comments were made in good faith, and I take strong exception that Mr Nel sees fit to impute my intentions in such a crass manner.

    I would hope that Mr Nel would take congisance of the combox rules before making future posts. (For example, the rule to “NOT make personal attacks on other commenters. Disagree with each other by all means, but do so respectfully. Personal attacks on fellow commenters will not be tolerated.”)

  7. P.R.Margeot says:

    I know Mr Nel, I know, how to deal with this constant provocation, this desire to constantly confront, challenge. I know, as he told us so long time ago, that he enjoyed doing this: to stir , to annoy others. He knows full well by now how others react, but he carries on and on and then when others react and attack him, he always inevitably says: I am out of here, leaving every one thinking that he is gone for good. The next day, he is back as if nothing had happened. A joke.

    Another alternative would be to ignore his writings. I was told it was not charitable to write that. LET THIS NOT GENERATE INTO TIRADES. I am also sick and tired of that attitude.

  8. Victor Victoria says:

    What an unfortunate descent into ad hominem attack. I have absolutely no desire to respond in kind.

    What I find to be all the more worrisome is that the very act of picking on women vis-à-vis modesty/immodesty appears to constitute in itself a most chillingly disrespectful personal attack.

  9. P.R.Margeot says:

    May we all have a Holy Day today, All Saints’ Day. And tomorrow, we remember specially our dear departed. We pray that those not quite in Heaven may arrive at thge eternal bliss with all the Saints. Blessed are the pure hearts, they shall see God.

  10. Derrick Kourie says:

    The above nicely illustrates why liberalism is such a wonderful philosophy. Its motto is: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. (Apparently it was not Voltaire who uttered these words!) Liberalism is the foundation of all the freedoms (speech, movement, religion, conscience, etc), and hence the foundation of authenticity. It is also the foundation of growth (individually and collectively) and of progress. If I am liberal, I allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, or partially wrong, and that your views might change or influence mine. Liberals tend to respect the individuality and uniqueness of others (also in the way in which others choose to dress to Mass).

    The opposite of liberal is not conservative—a liberal can hold conservative views yet still believe in the right of others to differ. The opposite of liberal is akin to the idea of imprisonment. The “illiberal” is imprisoned in her own world and does not like it to be challenged. Illiberalism shuts down discussion; it shuts down change; it hunkers down in trenches and sees enemies all over the show.

    Many will consider the views of PRM and Mark to be outragously provocative and argumentative, but because of the underlying liberal policy of the SC (and the web in general), they are free to express them. If their views are occassionally challenged, it is not at all obvious to me that the provocation started with the challenger. For example, in the post-Freudian 21st century it is outrageous to speak as if women are somehow asexual beings. Even if you believe that the sexuality of men and women differ considerably, it is at least worth discussing the extent of those differences.

    Of course, liberalism acknowledges the need for order, which is why this editorial is so well written: it appeals for a generally liberal approach to the matter of dress at Mass, but also for due constraint which respects the sensibilities of others. It hits the nail on the head when it says: “To Jesus, external appearance is meaningless as an indicator of the interior.” Jesus is not threatened by your views, nor by mine, nor by your dress, nor by mine. For me, Jesus is the model of a liberal. He allows all the freedom to choose to love, the freedom to bind oneself to God, and the freedom to make wrong choices. For a liberal Christian, Jesus is the foundation of liberalism, because we can be confident that in the end, Jesus will make all things well (to paraphrase the words of Julian of Norwhich).

    Now I have been a little provocative, and I will withdraw from further discussion…

  11. P.R.Margeot says:

    No, no, do not withdraw. We may have a chance to prove that Liberalism is an Error and has been condemned by the Popes. We may also re-prove what mess and chaos Liberalism has brought to the world.
    Don’t get me wrong : I think I understand what you write. The liberal is the gentleman/woman who is kind, gentle, tolerant, civilized, educated most of the time, would not dare to say anything to an outageously dressed person in church, because ” of their rights, human rights”, after all they can do, say anything, anywhere. The BEAUTY of liberalism, which blinds people left, right, and centre…
    What type of liberal was Jesus?
    I heard He chased the vendors from the Temple. Poor guys trying to make a living and being chased away….

    My views are considered provocative and argumentative? My views are the views which have passed the test of Time, they are those of the Church I will dare to say, with humility. In spite of the modernist Revolution which followed the council, the Church basically sticks to her 2000- year History and doctrine and Tradition. I stick to these, I can’t go wrong. The Church is traditional, that is her destiny and mission. She cannot be otherwise. Certainly not revolutionary.

    Besides, she also uses the computer, the cellphone, facebook, and the Pope travels on Boeing jet planes. She lives in the modern world, is adapted to this day an age. Should she now adopt Liberalism and become soft, she would become like one of the present- day denominations.

    Indeed the S.C. allows very liberal and ‘progressive’ views to be proposed and debated. The progressives should be very grateful. They must never forget that they are the challengers, they want to overthrow the good order, the established order, they want to introduce all sorts of aberrations, novelties, laws in Parliaments. Shall I enumerate them ? No, I’d rather not. We would have torrents of comments from certain commenters who promote these views.

  12. lovemore says:

    Brothers and sisters in Jesus,I clearly understand that we people,we tend to take a post personaly,or relating it to previous happenings,yet the only message here is”LET NOT WHAT WE WEAR DURING OR AFTER MASS,BE AN INSTRUMENT OF CURIOSITY AND LUST……”.Here it seems like its too general but it is good like that,it leaves you with a challenge,despite which society,religion,sex or race are you affilated to.Am I right to leave the political affiliation as attached to christian norms,just as a christian you musn’t be affiliated to any political world,,,,,,,holy brothers I’m not judging,,,,,,,let us just pray for the spirit of understanding.

  13. Marie says:

    When I read these comments, I wonder about the christian religion.

  14. P.R.Margeot says:

    Once we understand what happened in the recent history, one would understand the need to restore the Catholic Faith, to restore Tradition, and to allow the mass of all time to be freely said anywhere , as gently commanded by the Pope in his Motu Proprio of 2007. We cannot ignore or forget the fact that the Church is under attack from all quarters( remember that started with the flight to Egypt…).

    Consider now the tens and tens of physical attacks on churches, desacration of cemeteries, these occur nearly daily, consider the struggle of Christians in lands ruled by other religions, consider the obnoxious laws being passed throughout the world…

    If any reader is saddened by the fact that there is (apparently) strife and some tension in the S.C. site, just consider that Catholics must stand up to what is perceived as the desire of certain to revolutionize the Holy Church and to impose their views, which are liberal, progressive views.
    Remember : LIBER alism means truly to be free….free from God’s rule and free to establish the rule of man on earth. One day we will be asked this question: HAVE YOU ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF MY CHURCH ?

    Oremus pro invicem

    We ain’t got much time, if you ask me.

  15. Victor Victoria says:

    It would appear that the previous contributor is playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word “liberal” … the freedom in liberalism is a freedom from those dogmatic impositions of human institutions which are seen to be unreasonable in the light of the best of human reason.

    A liberal Christian would probably baulk at the conventional idea of “God’s rule” (if by that is meant a rule analogous to that of an Emperor or Empress over his/her subjects), since he or she would probably realize that God never imposes, but always invites. And we are free to accept or reject the invitation. This is the way of love … and God is Love … authentic love can never coerce, and so can never really “rule” another, except by mutual consent … in the sense, I suppose, that there is only one God but three Persons in the Trinity. (Gosh, I feel like I’m walking into a dangerous bog here!)

    It is precisely those human institutions that establish “man’s rule on earth,” and that sometimes seek to impose inane and narrow-minded rules that foist injustices on people, and abrogate their freedom to think for themselves, that liberals detest.

    Thinking about it, Jesus was a bit of a liberal. He rejected the conventional orthodoxy of the Temple caste, and paid the ultimate price for this: he was censored by the system by being executed by the system. Was he not perhaps seen by the religious elite of his day as a dangerous revolutionary with liberal, progressive views? Often seen to be hanging out with the marginalized of his day? Sinners, prostitutes, drunkards, Samaritan women and tax collectors! The cheek of such liberal behaviour! It’s the sort of thing that could tear the very fabric of our safe little society asunder, et cetera, et cetera … .

    I would hope that so-called liberal Catholics are not trying to “impose their view” on the Mystical Body of Christ, but are rather inviting others to see where the human institution has failed (by sometimes imposing unjust human laws on the People of God). This invitation is one to remove the blinkers, to see the full vista, and to make decisions in the light of both faith and reason, utilizing the best insights of theology and the sciences to aid us in our ever-deepening comprehension of the truth.

  16. Bryony Klugman says:

    “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19.

    “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42.

    “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6.

    Scarcely Jeremy Bentham, or John Stuart Mill, let alone Che Guevara.

  17. Mark Nel says:

    “…the human institution has failed (by sometimes imposing unjust human laws on the People of God).”

    Just one of many examples that pop into mind, when I think of what the ‘liberal Catholics’ consider to be unjust laws, is the subject of divorce. It was our Lord, not a human institution, who imposed a stricter law regarding the sacrament of marriage than had existed in the Jewish tradition prior to his incarnation. Yet despite this the ‘liberal Catholics’ want the Church to change the allegedly ‘unjust’ laws regarding marriage.

    The Church has not failed! Not at all! We humans have and are failing in our endeavours to enter through the narrow gate. So, instead of us changing, we want to change the gate so that it is more accommodating of what we want, not what God wants.

  18. Derrick Kourie says:

    In his book, Orthodoxy, GK Chesterton says: “As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.” Upon his death in 1936, Pope Pius XI called GKC a Defender of the Faith—so much for the sole representatives of liberalism being Bentham, Mill or Che Guevara. (In heaven’s name—what flights of fancy dragged that name into a discussion on liberalism.)

    The distraction away from the theme of dress code at Mass into liberalism occurred when ad hominum (illiberal?) attacks were made on the bona fides of a respondent. The appeal to liberalism was an appeal to patiently listen to the views of others even if you do not like them. Instead, we have had a constant (and deliberate?) misconstrual of the intended meaning of the word, ranging from the imputation that to be liberal means to wish to be free from the rule of God, to toleration of the desecration of cemetries, to being at the root of all obnoxious laws. We have the outrageously provocative attempt to claim as having passed the test of time views which were explicitly judged by Vatican II to have served their time. We have a profoundly perplexing insinuation that liberalism and Che Guevara are somehow associated! And we have an unreferenced quotation dragged up from somewhere in the woodwork (“…the human institution has failed (by sometimes imposing unjust human laws on the People of God)”) in order to arrive at an unqualified assertion that the Church has not failed. (I wondered whether the intention was to assert that the Church has never ever failed at all? How far does its infallibilsm creep? But we have had that conversation many times before.)

    To get back to the theme of dress code at Mass: Jesus invites us to share in his body and blood. He knows our hearts and minds. “To Jesus, external appearance is meaningless as an indicator of the interior.” John records that when Jesus first invited people to eat his body and drink his blood, they went away in disbelief. His response to his disciples was a liberal one: “Will you too leave me?” He does not force or threaten. He respects their free choice. My appeal (to myself and to others) is to strive to be like Jesus: to respect the choices of others; to “judge not, and you shall not be judged”.

  19. Bryony Klugman says:

    For G.K. Chesterton, Dr Ian Ker’s recent and much acclaimed biography (Oxford University Press, 2011), like his biography of Newman, is highly illuminating. He would certainly be amazed by this interpretation in support of a concept of liberalism to which GK could not have been more opposed, just as he has been by gross misinterpretations of Newman marshaled in support of radical interpretations of Vatican II and of the primacy of conscience.

  20. Bryony Klugman says:

    GK was a liberal in politics, but most certainly not in religion, a distinction clearly drawn in Dr Ker’s biography, supported by extensive quotation. Indeed, he would be thundering from the heavens if he had heard this misrepresentation.

  21. Bryony Klugman says:

    Che Guevara was a humorous reference to another contributor’s question: “Was he not perhaps seen by the religious elite of his day as a dangerous revolutionary with liberal, progressive views? “, but both the allusion and the humour have clearly been lost.

  22. Bryony Klugman says:

    “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” – G. K. Chesterton

  23. Derrick Kourie says:

    GKC’s liberalism was not limited to politics. Rather, it was a life philosophy that informed his entire value system and spirituality. For example, in “Heretics” he says: “We who are Liberals [i.e. politics] once held Liberalism [the philosophy] lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith.” This hardly sounds like his liberalism was ring-fenced around the political sphere only.

    The quote below indicates that GKC differentiated between liberalism as a means of questing for truth and liberalism as indifference and unlimited tolerance. “When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says.” (Heretics).

    Thus, GKC did not endorse liberalism in the “anything goes” sense that PRM and others mean it—i.e. the tolerance of or indifference towards evil. Neither do I. That is the context of the GKC quote on tolerance. But I have no doubt that he would fully endorse liberalism in the sense that I have stated above: a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue; to take others seriously, irrespective of their station in life; etc. Because he regards liberalism is deeply egalitarian, he links it not only to democracy, but also to tradition, which he calls “democracy of the dead”.

    Taking others seriously without regard to their rank (or dress!) is exactly what Jesus did. This is why it is correct to say that “the religious elite of his day [regarded him] as a dangerous revolutionary with liberal, progressive views”. But Jesus’ liberal and progressive way of spreading his revolutionary message is the antithesis of the doctrinaire Marxist, Che. The one passively tolerates the injustice and evil of his own death, and as a consequence bequeaths to us the life-giving freedom of his resurrection. The other kills and is himself killed in his violent pursuit of his godless utopian dream, but bequeaths a sterile distopian island dictatorship. Liberalism is therefore at the opposite end of the spectrum to communism as well as all the other fundamentalisms.

  24. P.R.Margeot says:

    Basically, the liberal says: nobody tells me what I must do. He wants to free himself as much and as far as he can go, from G-d ‘s Authority, he analyses, he observes, he is educated, and as another reader quite cotrectly said, he wants to widen the gate….he does note like the narrow gate, he also wants to lower the bar so that more and more can cross or jump…he makes the rules, in other words…,No, the liberal must sumbit humbly, by all means use his brain to better the world and all peoples.

    Finally, and quite rightly too : Does the liberal favour re-marriage of Catholics? You know the story :” surely G-d who is loving and has a WIDE MIND, surely He would not object to me ,after all not a bad man,just that my marriage did not work, surely He would not mind that I re-marry to this wonderful woman I met recently. We both have children from a first marriage and we will contribute to makind’s progress by being happy together and may be have one child…

    Does the liberal favour contraception?

    Does the liberal favour the marriage of priests ? I know, the maronites do it. Let’s leave that one out.

    Does the liberal favour the ordination of women?

    And what does the liberal think of the obnoxious laws all over the world favouring the “marriage of gays” ?

    Is the liberal strict when it comes to the Eucharistic fast? Or would he say: G-d is great , He understand, He has a broad mind, all these rules are man-made, I have MY conscience, I canm do as I please. I am a liberal.

    No, no, keep Liberalism for yourself. Be happy in it. But do not try to revolutionize the Church to impose YOUR views. Be humble and be happier.

    Have a great sunday in our Lord.

  25. Mark Nel says:

    Mr Kourie and VV have referred to ad hominem attacks which I have ignored because there was no such attack. There was just a factual statement about how VV quite obviously and deliberately misconstrued PR’s first comment in this thread to make it seem like PR had some sinister agenda against women. If anyone was launching an ad hominem attack it was in fact VV on PR. VV could have made his point without implying that PR had some sinister agenda against women.

    It seems like liberals have developed a tendency of doing this uncharitable branding of their opponents. It has become par for the course that, when one holds an opinion that differs from that of the liberals opinion, the liberals disingenuously brand their opponent in some uncharitable way.

    Take the recent example where Cardinal Keith O’Brien is branded as a bigot simply because he holds a view and a belief, in accordance with Church teaching, that is not shared by those who do not hold the Church’s teaching in this regard. This is unconscionable behaviour and an absolute disgrace! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/britains-most-senior-catholic-is-named-bigot-of-the-year-8274698.html

  26. Derrick Kourie says:

    PRM: You insist on putting your own spin on what a liberal says and does. I do not want to go into all the hot topics you raise, since I am already concerned about driving this thread away from its main theme. In short, liberals may well differ from one another about the various themes you raise. However, they will agree that the way ahead should be through open discussion rather than threat of expulsion, excommunication, dismissal and the like. Crassly put, they believe in the survival of the fittest in the realm of ideas. And they believe that the ideas of little people are worth hearing.

    Liberals will whole-heartedly support the pope’s Regensburg appeal for rational discussion. They believe that ideas with merit cannot be suppressed, but will continually re-surface until they receive an adequate response. Of course, in the realm of religion, it is accepted that “the Church is not a democracy”; but neither is the Church a monarchy or dictatorship. Quoting from Lumen Gentium, the CCC(91) puts it thus: “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”

    The problem arises when millions of loyal and faithful Catholics have genuine doubts and concerns about an issue. Millions of people, young and old, have abandon the Church because they find its response to the issues you raise to be entirely unconvincing. Liberalism says: don’t simply dismiss those doubts as male fides or ignorance, or worse, as the influence of the devil. Don’t let yourself off the hook with the convenient excuse that these people are simply seduced by the pleasures of the secular world or seeking the wide gate. Don’t try to put a lid on the pressure cooker. Is there not blame perhaps from within?

    There is much more I could say about these matters, but I am conscious of the editor’s request to keep the posts to a reasonable length, and I am afraid I fail miserably in that. Pascal’s famous quote comes to mind: “I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter.” In fact, I do not even have the time to be engaging in this debate at all, and will therefore try to resist from further interaction.

  27. Bryony Klugman says:

    For GK Chesterton readers may wish to consult Dr Ker’s acclaimed biography, widely regarded as definitive, as well as GK’s own writings, and make up their own minds about the extent and limits of his liberalism..

    I note no accurate acknowledgement of how the notion of linkage between liberalism and revolutionary ideas was first introduced into this thread, for it was not introduced by me, Perhaps this is because it might have disrupted an ideological mutual admiration society.

    “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
    G. K. Chesterton

  28. Derrick Kourie says:

    I construed the following words to be an ad hominem attack: “VV is, as usual, clearly intent on provoking an argument.” Why? Because they seem to me to impute frivolous motives to someone who has legitimate concerns.

    Everyone is aware of the fashion amongst a certain young men to exert themselves to the limit to develop rippling abs, forearms and a six-pack of stomach muscles. Everyone has seen such youngsters wearing tight-fitting vests (and jeans) to maximally display the results of their efforts. Should such men not be encouraged, as much as women, to dress with due decorum when coming to Mass?

    See now! I have already caved in on my resolution to stop responding to this thread. At least this response is about dress at Mass.

  29. Derrick Kourie says:

    I acknowledge that the linkeage of “revolutionary” and “liberal” was not introduced by BK. It was in fact introduced in two posts by PRM, and then picked up by VV.

  30. Bryony Klugman says:

    Of course If one chose to invoke a “Spirit of GK Chesterton” without any need for evidence, and his writings thus reduced to rough guidelines, GK could be used to justify almost anything. One could even form/mobilise a self-elected/appointed “We are [no in/definite article] Chesterton” organisation to support such an interpretation.

  31. Victor Victoria says:

    What a hopeless mess … it is as if chipping away with incessant mischaracterizations will ultimately do the job of driving those perceived not to be “orthodox Catholics” away.

    BK probably knows that I was talking about Jesus as being perceived by the Temple caste as a social/spiritual revolutionary rather than as a violent political revolutionary … as someone who could undo the neat little system of economic hegemony that the priestly caste had arranged for themselves post-exile, where the poor had to travel to Jerusalem to the Temple to pay good money for Temple sacrifice! That was certainly the context of my post, talking about the “social misfits” Jesus spent time with. So why the incessant efforts to mischaracterize, and take the thread down a thousand little cul-de-sacs? Is it to draw attention away from the central issue, namely the (patriarchal?) tendency of some to focus on women as the focus for modest/immodest dress? (Mark, please note that these are questions, and not assertions or ad hominems.)

    Mark knows that I was simply asking questions about PRM’s intentions as regards his first post in this thread [if he doesn’t, he can actually go back and read what I wrote] … but suddenly, asking questions has become identified as an ad hominem attack. This extraordinary mischaracterization looks to be a clutching at straws in a campaign to find an ad hominem where none exists, but I might be wrong in my estimation.

    Getting back to the main theme of this thread (as per the comments rule to “STAY on topic. Discussion and feedback of the issues relating to the articles posted on this site is the object of the comments section.”):

    I remain confounded that some would focus exclusively/excessively on the dress of women. I personally find it rather distracting when ripped men wear tight-fitting clothes and flip-flops to Mass, their low-rise jeans or shorts revealing too much cleavage, leg and ankle et cetera. I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t dress in such a fashion … not at all. I’m simply wondering at the //apparent// double-standard of some men focussing excessively/exclusively on the dress-code of women who attend Holy Mass.

  32. P.R.Margeot says:

    Point taken , Mr Kourie, about the young men.

    They should ALSO be reminded of the need to be properly dressed in church. I understand such young men to be focussed on their physical training, their gym, their sacrifices to have the body they have, their very, very hard work, then their pride afterwards when they can show off their sculptured body to all. If they come to church in a very tight T-shirt (to maximize the view and display), then one would ask about the intention. Was the whole ‘exercise’ to attract attention?

    Let’s also agree that these young men(normally) constitute a very small minority. If Mr Kourie wants me to include them in that very particular situation which is the need to be properly dressed in church, then I have no problem.

    I have said many times, and will say it again now, that in traditional Catholic Churches, one does not find this problem, this issue. It is non-existant. Nobody, young or older, woman or man, would contremplate to come to church dressed like the young men described above. You see what I am getting at ?? Why is it that in traditional churches, there is simply not those problems and irritations ? Do they have a recipe, a formula?

    To conclude with some humour( Grr….!!), I propose that we open a scale to measure ourselves on the Liberal Scale :: From 1 to 10.
    1 would be the least liberal
    10 would be the ultra, ultra, ultra liberal…
    ( I need time to decide where I will position myself….Hmm)


  33. P.R.Margeot says:

    Above should read: ” would NEVER contemplate….etc”. Sorry.

  34. P.R.Margeot says:

    sorry x 3 : should read ” ever”.

  35. Victor Victoria says:

    Now I am truly confounded … I am left wondering as to what, precisely, is meant by “//traditional// Catholic Churches”.

    I think that this might mean SSPX churches, but that is only an educated guess. (The principal reason I make this guess arises since most Roman Catholics would assume that the Catholic Church is traditional by definition, since it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic [as prayed in the Creed]).

    Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to the precise meaning or intention behind the adjective “traditional” in the phrase “traditional Catholic Churches”?

  36. P.R.Margeot says:

    Mr Victoria will be enlightened: in a traditional Catholic church, the faithful have the M.O.A.T., you know the moat defending the Church against errors and dangers, the faithful do not hear modernist sermons , the faithful kneel for communion, they receive the Host on the tongue, they listen to good priests who are there to give the good sacraments, to help souls to be saved. These faithful stick to Tradition , they have behind them 2000 years(warts and all) : they can’t be wrong.
    They are sheltered from errors , poison dished out by modernists , liberals, progressives. They also know thar the tide is turning through the good offices of the Pope who is steering us to calmer waters.
    Salus animarum suprema lex

  37. Victor Victoria says:

    Is Mr Margeot suggesting that Catholic Churches where the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated are not traditional?

    I wonder what language Jesus used at the Last Supper … I think it safe to assume that it wasn’t Latin, which was the language of the Imperial colonisers.

    If tradition is what is handed down from the very source out of which the tradition arose, then those who celebrate Mass in the vernacular are probably the authentic traditionalists. But that’s only an educated guess.

  38. Günther says:

    Well, we know the language Jesus and his disciples used was Aramaic. In fact, it is unlikely that Jesus spoke Latin at all. Aramaic was his first language. He certainly spoke Hebrew, the language of the Torah and theology. He probably spoke some Greek, which was the universal language of culture and politics and all official business (much as English is in South Africa).

    He had no cause to learn Latin. For one thing, the Romans did not occupy the Galilee region, which was governed by Herod Antipas, so Jesus would have had little contact with Roman soldiers who might speak Latin. And even when he did come into contact with Romans, the shared language was Greek. So Pontius Pilate’s discourse with Jesus was most likely in Greek.

  39. Bryony Klugman says:

    True, but it is surely equally significant that in the synagogue He observed Hebrew, the traditional liturgical language, rather than, as far as we can tell, advocating the use of vernacular Aramaic in liturgical proceedings.

    In “Veterum Sapientia” (February 1962), Blessed Pope John XXIII upheld strongly the continuing use of Latin, Greek and the other ancient languages of our Eastern churches, while paying particular attention to Latin and noting its usefulness in preventing distorted understandings of Church teaching, into which errors living/dynamic languages were more likely to fall:

    “…amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West. … the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular….The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored…”

  40. Victor Victoria says:

    I have searched the Vatican website, and fail to find an English translation of Veterum Sapientia. I am now curious as to whether there is even an “official” English translation of this apostolic constitution available on the Web. I am even more curious as to what this might imply.

    The “vernacular-language” genie is out of the bottle, and I very much doubt that anybody is going to get it back in, even if they blow the antique dust off anachronistic apostolic constitutions.

    From what I can tell, Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related languages, and it would appear that the roles of these two languages remain hotly debated by scholars to this very day.

    Certainly, following Aramaic, Greek appears to have quickly become the principal liturgical language of the Church (both East and West), and to have remained so for at least the first two centuries. If we are to make appeals to tradition, then we should probably be learning Greek rather than Latin. Latin was introduced as a “modernist innovation” well down the line.

  41. Victor Victoria says:

    Though, if we are going to follow the tradition of Jesus Christ, then Aramaic it apparently should be! (Or is that the vernacular?!)

  42. Mark Nel says:

    There may be no official version of Veterum Sapientia on the Vatican website but there are nevertheless accurate translations available. Here is a link to one translation of Veterum Sapientia (On the Promotion of the Study of Latin) http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html

  43. Mark Nel says:

    Correction: “There may be no official version” should read “There may be no official English version”

  44. P.R.Margeot says:

    Latin it is, Latin it will remain. The Popes said so. The council used it exclusively. What //could// be the problem?? (I like this new way of writing // , very modern, very distinguished).
    I can’t be long, I can’t take my employer’s time too much. Mind you, he is quite liberal I must say. Phew…

  45. Victor Victoria says:

    But did Jesus say so?!

  46. Victor Victoria says:

    Can you read Latin fluently, PRM. What fraction of the world’s population is proficient in Latin?

    So what could possibly be the problem? Hmmmm …

  47. Victor Victoria says:

    Incidentally, I have taken Latin courses at the tertiary level, and I am extremely fond of the language. I have even been to some Novus Ordo Masses in Latin. But I must say that I infinitely prefer to attend the Mass in my vernacular tongue.

    Now how did we get here from “how we dress for Mass”?

  48. Bryony Klugman says:

    G.K Chesterton responded to the idea that Latin is a “dead” language: “Every living language is a dying language, even if it does not die. Parts of it are perpetually perishing or changing their sense; there is only one escape from that flux; and a language must die to be immortal.”

  49. Mark Nel says:

    VV asks: “Now how did we get here from “how we dress for Mass”?”

    The answer to this question lies in VV’s earlier comment #173466 when he writes: “I wonder what language Jesus used at the Last Supper … I think it safe to assume that it wasn’t Latin…”

  50. Bryony Klugman says:

    “Veterum Sapientia” is scarcely more “antique” than the Second Vatican Council. It reflected the mind of Blessed Pope John XXIII, and is not the conspiratorial product of Curia apparatchik. Neither can this constitution be blamed on sabotage by the young Fr Ratzinger.

    What is remarkable is not that the vernacular has become widespread but rather that Latin in the liturgy has survived a half century of deliberate suppression and is now flourishing in many parts of the world and not least among the young. Granted, the baby boomers and even some younger old- trendies have problems with it, as they have have tended to brand anything that does not fit into their idea of “inexorable progress” as “anachronism”. That is why so much antagonism has been directed against the restoration of the old liturgy, as it has against the reforms of the Novus Ordo. If the old liturgy is so unpopular and lacking in support, then surely its critics could rely on it dying away, but no – they have wanted to keep it suppressed precisely because they fear it will regain a considerable following, not only among schismatics and elderly people who are unreconciled to liturgical change, but among young people as well. That is the real fear.

    Time will surely tell what really has been anachronistic.

  51. Victor Victoria says:

    Actually, Mark, that was merely a response to PRM, who spoke of “traditional Catholic Churches” as those who have the so-called M.O.A.T.

    My point was that the Tridentine (Latin) Mass is incorrectly called the Mass of All Time, since Jesus apparently used the vernacular (i.e. Aramaic) at the Last Supper.

    Sorry to have confounded you so …

  52. Victor Victoria says:

    Who, precisely, has deliberately suppressed the Latin liturgy? That is quite a claim … we now await empirical substantiation!

    A natural progression or evolution is hardly an act of suppression, methinks.

  53. Mark Nel says:

    You’re never wrong are you?

  54. Victor Victoria says:

    Were you looking in the mirror when you posted that?

  55. Bryony Klugman says:

    There was nothing “natural” about the removal of altars, altar rails and the sudden discontinuation of Latin even in the Novus Ordo in all but a handful of churches in English-speaking countries. These changes were not mandated by the Council but directives were interpreted “liberally” to provide licence for this. There was no rule regarding the destruction of church interiors or altars and altar rails, which is why we can fine ad orientem Masses are quite common in continental Europe, as are altar rails. In England, the Oratorians usually say Mass leading the congregation facing East. Elsewhere in English-speaking countries, even where lay people said they didn’t want such changes, bishops often deceived them by saying that they had to endure these changes because the Council and they themselves (the bishops) “said so”. In recent times, most notably in Cobh in Ireland, the laity fought the bishop through the civil authorities and have succeeded in frustrating such vandalism and iconoclasm.

  56. Mark Nel says:

    Here is some really cheerful and, of course, excellent news: Pilgrims arrive in Rome to celebrate Latin Mass permission: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pilgrims-arrive-in-rome-to-celebrate-latin-mass-permission/

  57. Mark Nel says:

    I particularly enjoyed this from Fr Zuhlsdorf: “The Holy Father … is bringing us back into continuity with the way that Catholics have worshiped for centuries … After the Second Vatican Council there was a rupture in ritual, of our worship of Almighty God. There was an artificial imposition of the liturgy after the mandates of the Second Vatican Council. We didn’t actually get what the Second Vatican Council mandated. And it caused a rupture in how we worship as Catholics.”

  58. Victor Victoria says:

    So, Donal has a problem with the post-conciliar bishops, accusing them of such things as destruction and vandalism. I think that we now have a much better understanding of his perspective …

  59. Victor Victoria says:

    Sincerest apologies for the Freudian slip!!! … that should have been BK …

  60. Victor Victoria says:

    Goodness, BK, accusing vast swaths our Catholic bishops of iconoclasm … is that not perhaps a personal attack of the most vicious sort?

  61. P.R.Margeot says:

    It is high time that Catholics realize that indeed much destruction was done after the council.

    We’ve gone through this many times, Catholics by now know what is at stake. The experiments and innovations and ‘aeration’ have produced untold disasters, chaos, calamities. The tide is turning now, we are heading towards calmer waters with the Pope at the helm.

    Even in France, that bastion of “Laicity”, freedom of this , freedom of that, absolute freedom, Cardinal Vingt-Trois( far from being a tradi or having any love for tradis) has stepped in the debate concerning that obnoxious law being presented to France. I leave the readers to guess what the law is about. The good news, more good news, is that there will be a Massive demonstration on the 18th Nove in Paris. The French will say NO to that proposed law which would destroy the Family, the cell of society as ordered by G-d. That law would be unjust for children who need a father and a mother. Nobody needs to have a Phd to understand that.

    Slowly , sanity is returning to society via the Church one would dare to say. The Church is all-important and remains our Beacon, our Hope, our Joy. Once the M.O.A.T*. is allowed without any restrictions , everywhere, peace will descend on us. The Motu Proprio saved the Church, in a sense, considering the importance of the mass. The Mass and the High Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ. The mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary: not an informal meal between brothers and sisters, where people are free to dress as they wish. Freedom, freedom….

    * new readers should know what does M.O.A.T mean : The Mass of All Time, the Tridentine mass. Go to YOUTUBE and click : The Sacred Silence of the Traditional mass.You will be awe-struck. Go, you deserve it, that would pick you up instead of reading insanities all over. Blessed are the pure at heart.

  62. Derrick Kourie says:

    New and old readers should be assured that the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. Jesus meets you where you are. Do not be taken in by pseudo-prophetic linkages of the Tridentine Mass to the establishment of peace in the world. Recognise that any doctrine which elevates one form of the Mass over others is nothing less than heresy.

    If you find the old Tridentine Mass said in Latin to be meanignful for you, by all means attend it. I would even suggest that you try it out sometime if you have not yet done so, because the Lord wants you to be where you are most comfortable with Him. Just make sure that the Tridentine Mass is not being celebrated by a schismatic SSPX priest, for then you will be in violation of explicit regulations of the Church.

  63. P.R.Margeot says:

    Is the commenter above getting angry ?

    Firstly, I should say THANK YOU to the Priestly Society of St Pius X for having saved that mass. which is not being forced on any one . Remember that. You are not being forced, nobody will take the novus ordo from you. The Pope has decided. The market will decide, to be mercantile. For that, we need a Free market which we did not have until recently. Things are improving. The tide is turning, to the horror of progressives, who have had their glorious day.

    Remember also that it is elementary justice done to that mass which progressives and liberals and revolutionaries have suppressed artificially, boom, from one day to another, so to speak.
    Recognize the Truth, instead of hiding your head in the sand.

  64. Victor Victoria says:

    As part of this free-market economy, can we still have the Novus Ordo celebrated in the previous English translation, with readings taken from the Jerusalem Bible? You know, for those few of us who prefer it?

  65. Victor Victoria says:

    Interestingly, PRM fulminates whenever “the” subject is brought up … and yet, he feels free to bring “the” subject up on a column about dress at Mass! What a sordid little dalliance with the offensive.

    We have been exhorted to “STAY on topic. Discussion and feedback of the issues relating to the articles posted on this site is the object of the comments section.”

  66. Victor Victoria says:

    PS I detect not a hint of anger in Derrick’s post above … he appears to point out some simple facts in his usual cool, calm and collected manner, and if anything does much to try and ameliorate unnecessary tensions.

  67. Bryony Klugman says:

    A previous contributor has misrepresented my statement. I did not say that “swathes” of bishops or that all post-conciliar bishops were guilty of iconoclasm. I did say that unwarranted and unauthorized destruction of church interiors became commonplace, even in defiance of the views of “the People of God”, since the 1960s in the English-speaking world in particular. (I pointed out that churches in continental Europe were much less affected or infected by the craze to turn churches into kitschy Star Trek command centres). Visits to countless “reordered” churches will confirm this for all who have eyes to see. However, to take just two examples, readers may wish to google Archbishop Rembert Weakland, whose “reordering” of his cathedral in Milwaukee was highly controversial (as the entries on him confirm)., as well as Bishop John Magee of Cloyne, whose laity fought him through the Irish planning board and succeeded in preventing the destruction of Ireland’s last intact Catholic cathedral (her ancient cathedrals having passed in the sixteenth century into the possession of the [Anglican established] Church of Ireland).

    Significantly, although Bishop Magee claimed this reordering was mandated by the Council, Rome refused to back him and stated that there was no such mandate.

    It may also be worth pointing out that both prelates resigned soon afterwards amid scandals, (particularly acute in Archbishop Weakland’s case) surrounding child abuse. One cannot help feeling that it is a pity that they did not spend a fraction of the energy devoted to ripping out their sanctuaries on far more fundamental issues in their respective dioceses.

    I might add that these painful issues are fully covered in reputable Catholic press reports available on the internet.

  68. Victor Victoria says:

    Some perspective is warranted: the previous contibutor recently made the claim that “Latin in the liturgy has survived a half century of deliberate suppression,” and was challenged to provide some empirical justification for this astonishing claim.

    I took his subsequent post to be an attempt to provide such justification (even though it didn’t do anything of the sort) … in it he makes astonishing claims that ” bishops //often// deceived them [the laity] … ,” implying that many bishops were involved in this deception. Forgive me if my deliberate hyperbole of “swathes” of bishops was too naughty to be seen for the humour it was intended to be.

    Incidentally, my suggestion that “Veterum Sapientia” is covered in antique dust has more to do with the fact that this apostolic constitution appears to have been consigned to the dustbin of history, receiving little to no attention since its promulgation [no official English translation even being readily accessible!]. The same certainly cannot be said of the Council documents. So making the comparison that VS is “scarcely more “antique” than the Second Vatican Council” misses my point completely.

    That VS is anachronistic is hardly deniable. Simply compute what fraction of today’s faithful attend Mass in the vernacular on any given Sunday, and the demonstration will have been invincible.

    Victor Victoria!

  69. Victor Victoria says:

    A conspiracy theory remains just that until empirical proof is provided …

    Victor Victoria!

  70. Bryony Klugman says:

    Not “conspiracy” (who said it was?), just often willful stupidity and collective bad taste, the effects of which are rapidly becoming far more “antique” than John XXIII’s apostolic constitution, which is, if anything, back in vogue.

  71. Victor Victoria says:

    The Latin course enrolment in this neck of the woods doesn’t bear that wishful thinking out, I’m afraid …

  72. Victor Victoria says:

    Nebulous claims of an unsubstantiated “deliberate suppression” is the stuff of conspiracy, I’m afraid …

  73. Bryony Klugman says:

    Those attending vernacular Masses and vernacular seminaries are numerically in decline in the developed world. Those attending traditional Masses and traditional (approved, not schismatic) seminaries are growing, admittedly from a small base; little liturgical choice having hitherto been provided. As the the Americans say, “Do the math”.

  74. Bryony Klugman says:

    Some people seem to see conspiracies everywhere. I myself adhere to the cock-up school and there have been great liturgical and architectural cock-ups over the past half century.

  75. Bryony Klugman says:

    In this neck of the woods indeed – a tiny part of the Catholic Church.

  76. Victor Victoria says:

    Actually, I was referring to Latin courses at a particular tertiary education institution, where the laity would be enrolling!

    I decided to use Google to try and get some actual statistics for this Latin Mass revival … I found a link over at http://catholicheritage.blogspot.com/2010/02/latin-mass-statistics.html

    Here we go …:

    “Friday 19 February 2010
    Latin Mass Statistics

    Rorari Caeli has pointed out recently released statistics for the availability of the Traditional Latin Mass across the World (except Ireland, for some reason) as of February 2010. The raw statistics and methodology are available here (in French).

    A few headlines are that:

    The United States has 289 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 359 (approved + SSPX) with a total Catholic population of 64.6 million. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 223,000 Catholics.

    Switzerland has 21 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 45 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 3.2 million. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 152,000 Catholics.

    Britain has 37 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 53 (approved + SSPX) with a total Catholic population of 4.8 million. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 129,000 Catholics.

    Germany has 49 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 88 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 26,297,000. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 537,000 Catholics.

    Austria has 11 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 19 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 5,755,000. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 523,000 Catholics.

    Canada has 23 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 39 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 13 million. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 568,000 Catholics.

    Australia has 17 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 28 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 5,239,000. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 308,000 Catholics.

    New Zealand has 6 episcopally authorized every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 10 (approved + SSPX) with a Catholic population of 459,000. That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass per 79,000 Catholics.

    Population figures are as in the Pontifical Year Book for 2005.

    Ireland had a Catholic population of 4.2 million according to the same statistics. Ireland has 6 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass sites out of a total of 11 (approved + SSPX). That is 1 episcopally authorised every Sunday Latin Mass site per 694,000 Catholics.”

  77. Bryony Klugman says:

    The historic Sacred Heart Church in Limerick, Ireland, was sold in 2007 by the aging Jesuit community to a property developer, who planned to turn it into a health spa. Everything that could move was sold, to the scandal of the local community whose forefathers had in harsh economic time contributed towards its building and decoration. There was interest from other religious bodies but the Church, regarded as an architectural gem, was sold to the highest bidder.

    Fortunately, as a result of the property crash, a community of priests of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Their average age is 32 and the Church is flourishing, particularly among the young. Other churches in Limerick have become boarded up and sold off.


  78. Bryony Klugman says:

    All these statistics appear to prove is that bishops have been restrictive in authorising the traditional Mass, which is why the Holy Father liberated it in his recent Motu Proprio, stating that there was no authority to limit what had been licit in the first place and that clergy had no need to ask the local Ordinary for permission to celebrate it.

    Catholic clergy saying or training to say the traditional Liturgy is rising, particularly among the young, which youthful trend is frequently lamented by such bodies as the Association of Catholic Priests, who are generally aging opponents of the traditional Liturgy.

    Together with the more dignified vernacular Mass we now have, thanks to the late Pope John Paul II, the widening and unstoppable use of the traditional Liturgy will make for a much strengthened Church in the years to come and will very likely prove to be Pope Benedict XVI’s greatest legacy.

  79. Bryony Klugman says:

    There are some missing words in the post above regarding the former Jesuit Church in Limerick. The traditionalist order founded with the approval of Pope John Paul II (and incidentally wholly unrelated to the SSPX), recently bought the property, which had been in danger of falling into ruin. It is now flourishing, according to the local (secular) newspaper.

  80. Victor Victoria says:

    Methinks thou dost spin too much ;-)

  81. Bryony Klugman says:

    There have always been doubting Thomases, and doubtless there always will be, but as regards this issue Time will prove to be the truest judge..

  82. Victor Victoria says:

    I am reluctant to post this, but, to provide some conuterbalance to the rose-tinted-spectacle view painted by BK of this Institute, I post a (perhaps libellous? certainly contentious!) “Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site” warning from http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0608.htm :

    “Third “Indult” Priest of Institute of Christ the King Implicated in Crimes

    From: The Fathers

    As the indultarian organizations, also known as Ecclesia Dei, become more and more like Church of the New Order to which they bend the knee, they are taking on more of the New Order liturgics, New Order doctrine, and New Order morality (or lack thereof).

    One of these “indult” organizations, known as the Institute of Christ the King, a relatively small organization operating out of Florence, Italy, and having a handful of sites in the United States, has in just a few years racked up a record of crime, of which Newchurch would be envious.

    In 1999 one of the “indult” priests of the Institute was sentenced to 180 days in jail for committing three felony burglaries and theft related to stealing $9,000 of religious objects from two churches and attempting to fence them. An organist for the Institute was charged with the same crimes.

    The Superior of the Institute at the time said that after the felon priest had served his jail time, he would be accepted in the Institute and given another post overseas. Now what is revealing is that three years later this same Superior of the Institute was sentenced to 18 months in jail and 20 years probation after pleading guilty to three felonies against youths under his care at two churches run by the Institute of Christ the King. He plied the youths with alcohol and drugs, as well as bound and handcuffed them, in order to attack them. These crimes were perpetrated under the “watchful” eye of Newchurch Bishop Raymond “Bully” Burke, of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, who himself was embroiled in sex scandals in his diocese before being shunted off to St. Louis.

    In March 2006 news outlets reported that a third Institute priest has been implicated in sex crimes. Now, the National Registry of Traditional Latin Masses reports only eight members of the Institute currently in the United States. So the conviction of two “indult” priests and the charges against a third bespeak an unspeakable corruption with the Institute of Christ the King. And this is the kind of “indult” arrangement that Bernard Fellay and his liberalist Fellayites in the SSPX want to sell out to. Has he lost his mind? Does he want this kind of corruption to spread within Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society as it has spread in “indult” societies already?”

  83. Victor Victoria says:

    Elsewhere on the internet we read “The Institute of Christ the King, a venerable international order of traditional Catholic priests loyal to Rome, suffered the scandal of its North American superior, Fr. Timothy Svea, being sentenced to 18-months in jail for tying a 16-year-old boy to his bedpost in the interest of sex games.”

  84. Victor Victoria says:

    I reiterate:

    Methinks thou dost spin too much ;-)

  85. Bryony Klugman says:

    I would never rely on a scurrilous sedevacantist website which regards the Institute of Christ the King as “bowing the knee to the modernists” and even regards the SSPX as “modernist”!

  86. Bryony Klugman says:

    Readers should indeed look at the website relied on by the previous contributor for his attack on the Institute of Christ the King. It is littered with heretical references to NewChurch, NewPope, conspiracies and supposedly satanic rituals taking place within the Vatican. Like their equivalents in the secular world, the website is full of prurient speculation about the Catholic Church, including religious orders, regardless of the facts. The basis for the story above is not clear, unlike, for example, the scandals which took place in Cardinal Daneels’s Belgian archdiocese with his direct knowledge, which were covered extensively and accurately in the mainstream Catholic and secular press.

  87. Victor Victoria says:

    Careful, BK, I stated that I was reluctant to post, and that the Website’s post was potentialy libellous. The Fr Timothy Svea case is documented at http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Svea_Timothy_E.htm

    Coverage in the secular press is documented therein.

  88. Bryony Klugman says:

    Abuse of children is an horrific crime, which unfortunately is found throughout the church in among all sorts of clergy, traditional and otherwise. It is most commonly found among married men and occasionally women. It is found in other churches among married as well as celibate clergy, as the (Anglican) Archbishop Peter Hollingworth scandal revealed in Australia, and in England more recently in the Anglican diocese in Chichester. One should not resort to using such horrific crimes and scandals as a means of discrediting a religious order. The crimes of an individual priest should not be used to undermine the work of faithful clergy in Limerick who happen to belong to the same Order. It is not I who needs to be careful, for I have not repeated anything libellous or potentially libellous, much less taken pleasure in conveying such reports.

  89. Victor Victoria says:

    My intention was clearly stated: [1] Methinks thou dost spin too much! and [2] something with which to counterbalance your overly-rosy picture of the Garden of Eden in Limerick.

    What I (reluctantly) posted was the evidence that Google had dredged up for me to illustrate this point. I take no delight in conveying such sickening reports. Posting it simply serves to illustrate that the Church is not a perfect society … that no portion of the Church is a perfect society, or a saving remnant.

    Finnish en klaar!

  90. Bryony Klugman says:

    There can be no justification whatsoever for relying on a crazy website run by prurient and disaffected people, who believe that the Pope is not a real Pope and that even the SSPX are crazy modernists, in order to “counterbalance” the work of faithful priests. Our priests, the vast majority of whom have never committed any crime of abuse, have to suffer enough from the secular press besides this kind of slur being visited upon them. Reference to such a case, based on statements found on a manifestly extremist website and unrepresentative of that order as a whole, marks a new unethical “low”.

  91. Bryony Klugman says:

    We can assume that the three priests in Limerick are virtuous and holy men and, based on even reports in the secular press, that their apostolate is flourishing, where there had been a derelict church on the brink of ruin. If so, this IS “rosy” and something to rejoice about. The actions of an individual priest in America does not detract from their dedicated work. Such men need prayers and support, not prurient begrudgery.

  92. Mark Nel says:

    VV, you say you take no delight in conveying sickening reports and yet you do convey them! VV, I think it is plain for all to see that it is you that is putting spin on the above. A distasteful habit you engage in fairly consistently in these threads.

  93. Victor Victoria says:

    This is how the argument appears to have gone:

    BK marked a new unethical low by claiming that “Latin in the liturgy has survived a half century of deliberate suppression,” and was challenged to provide some empirical justification for this astonishing claim.

    The extent of his empirical justification appears to have been the work done by three priests in Limerick (whose relatively-young average age is of some profound import) to restore a derelict church. This institute of traditional priests who use the Tridentine Rite is the sole “proof” proffered for a (crazy?) conspiracy-theory claim.

    To illustrate that the individual members of this institute of traditional priests are just as capable of great evil as of great good, I posted a particular example great evil (sourced from several independent sites).

    Smear the “crazies” at the tradi website all you like, BK: go instead to http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Svea_Timothy_E.htm if you prefer … I’m interested in the veracity of this particular claim, not the alleged craziness of their propaganda.

    (All in the Church are capable of great evil or great good: we are all faced with such choices every day. There simply is no “saving remnant” of Tridentine liturgists who form a perfect society upon which the future church should be modelled.)

    BK made the breathtaking claim that “Latin in the liturgy has survived a half century of deliberate suppression,” the “prove it” gauntlet was then thrown down, and ever since we’ve been down some nasty cul-de-sacs, but remain as unconvinced as ever that there is any substance to his claim!

  94. Bryony Klugman says:

    As this contributor well knows, the “new low” referred directly not to the liturgy but to his use of a case gleaned from a sedevacantist website in order to smear the work of the Institute of Christ the King. I have not claimed that the traditional liturgy is the saving remnant, but that it will prove to be a strong element, along with the recently reformed vernacular liturgy, in the recovery of the Church.

    The ICKSP in Limerick are not responsible for the actions of a fellow member of that order in America. Neither does it detract from their work in any way, which if they are undertaking it in as dedicated a fashion as possible is indeed “rosy”. It is disgraceful that anyone should try to denigrate their work. Latin in the liturgy was effectively suppressed in many parts of the English-speaking world, even in the Novus Ordo. It was abandoned without mandate (no alternative provision being made) in tandem with wholesale “reordering” of churches, equally not mandated. This is why so much of the Father’s work has been devoted to restoring dignity in the liturgy, which was the most evident manifestation of “rupture” in the 1960s, to which development he has been so vociferously opposed.

  95. Bryony Klugman says:

    *Holy Father’s work

  96. Victor Victoria says:

    Let me get this straight … BK smears the work of post-conciliar Catholic bishops, making wild and unsubstantiated allegations that they “often deceived” the laity, and were responsible for “vandalism and iconoclasm,” the “destruction of church interiors,” “deliberate suppression” of Latin in the liturgy, et cetera.

    And then he has the sheer temerity to tick me off for disgraceful behaviour in denigrating the work of three priests in Limerick!

    Did the pot just call the kettle black?

    And where, precisely, did I actually denigrate the work of these young priests? BK saying so doesn’t make it so!

    As BK knows full well, nowhere did I claim that the ICKSP in Limerick are responsible for the behaviour of the former Prior and US Superior of the order. I made it quite clear that this information simply served to counterbalance the distorted picture painted by BK: too much spin needs to be deflated, to mix my metaphors. As repeatedly stated, I didn’t rely solely on one website as regards the polar opposite of the rosy Garden-of-Eden scenario: I double-checked my facts against http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ . I posted the tradi account simply because it included other data.

    Could BK tell us precisely why he brought news of the Limerick trio to this thread in the first place? After all, “STAY on topic. Discussion and feedback of the issues relating to the articles posted on this site is the object of the comments section” and all that.

    And “The recovery of the Church” from what, I might pointedly ask?

  97. Victor Victoria says:

    This mischievous allegation of “suppression of Latin” warrants further investigation:

    The 1947 encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, states that “the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people.” He was emphatic, though, that only the Holy See had the authority to grant permission for the use of the vernacular.

    The Conciliar document Sacrosanctum Concilium provided that vernacular languages could be more widely employed in the Mass.

    Pope Paul VI established the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (the Council for Implementing the Constitution on the Liturgy) in 1964.

    The Consilium presented their revised liturgy to the Synod of Bishops in 1967. The bishops voted mostly in favour, though raising some concerns.

    The retired Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci presented the pope with their “Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass” in 1969, prepared by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and 12 theologians. The study argued that New Order of the Mass “represented, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The pope asked the CDF to examine the study, and they found that many of the claims were “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false”. Some observations were, however, taken into account.

    Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised rite of the Mass in April of 1969.

    Let us not forget that Sacrosanctum Concilium entrusted expansion of the vernacular in the Mass to “the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority” (i.e. to the Bishops’ Conferences). Bishops’ conferences the world over quickly voted to expand the vernacular, but //always had to request confirmation from the Holy See.//

    This little précis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI for a detailed account) leads one to wonder who BK is challenging as regards a “deliberate suppression” of Latin in the liturgy? The Bishops’ Conferences, yes, but ultimately the Holy See itself, by all accounts!

    To claim that “It [Latin in the liturgy] was abandoned without mandate” is a specious and demonstrably false claim. There was a clear mandate from the higherst authority in the Catholic Church. There was a clear evolution in liturgical practice (during, and [even further] post, the council), supported in full by the Holy See, whose approval //had// to be obtained. What further mandate does BK actually require?

  98. Bryony Klugman says:

    “…something with which to counterbalance your overly-rosy picture of the Garden of Eden in Limerick.” counter-“balance” – indeed!

  99. Victor Victoria says:

    I, personally, would tend to argue that many of BK’s claims in this thread are demonstrably “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false”.

  100. Bryony Klugman says:

    I do not share the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s critique of the Novus Ordo, Neither have I questioned the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, which I have often and still usually attend. Neither do I belong nor have I ever belonged to the SSPX. Neither have I defended the position of the SSPX. Neither do I belong, nor have I belonged to any organisation within the mainstream Catholic Church other than simply the mainstream Catholic Church. Neither do I oppose or have I opposed the vernacular in the liturgy. I have said that Latin in the liturgy in the English-speaking ends of the Catholic Church has been suppressed without mandate, This has effectively been the position, which rupture the Holy Father and others have been trying to remedy. I have simply suggested that the traditional Liturgy, along with the recently revised Mass, may well prove to be essential elements in the recovery of the Church.

  101. Bryony Klugman says:

    “Trust the people, as Disraeli famously said. Readers can make up their own minds based on the statements above.

  102. Bryony Klugman says:

    ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

    36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

    2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

    Readers may note the principle of the preservation of the use of the Latin language – not “discontinuation” – and that the limits of the use of the vernacular “may” be extended – not “must be extended”.

    Also relevant:

    3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

    23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing…

    54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

    Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

    And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

    55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

    The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism…

  103. Victor Victoria says:

    The evolutionary history post the council has already been articulated in a previous post, but this warrants repetition, especially in the light of the previous post.

    What exactly does “Latin in the liturgy has survived a half century of deliberate suppression …” mean? Choosing to celebrate Holy Mass in the vernacular (and not just in English-speaking sectors of the Church) must necessarily mean not using Latin. If this is seen as a deliberate suppression, then so be it. But was it done //without mandate?//

    BK deliberately reverts to 1963, knowing full well that there was additional development post the council.

    Sacrosanctum Concilium itself entrusted expansion of the vernacular in the Mass to “the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority” (i.e. to the Bishops’ Conferences). Theirs is the mandate! Latin-rite Bishops’ conferences (of all regions, of all languages) the world over quickly voted to expand the use of the vernacular, but //always had to request confirmation from the Holy See.//

    To claim that “It [Latin in the liturgy] was abandoned without mandate” is a specious and demonstrably false claim. There was a clear mandate from the highest authority in the Catholic Church. There was a clear evolution in liturgical practice (during, and [even further] post, the council), supported in full by the Holy See, whose approval //had// to be obtained.

    Again, I reiterate an important question: “What further mandate does BK actually require?”

  104. Bryony Klugman says:

    Readers may also find interesting the reflections of Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on “Latin and Vernacular: Language in the Roman Liturgy” (2006. It might be mentioned for the benefit of those who may not know that Cardinal Arinze is not European but Nigerian.


    The whole of the document is relevant, but some points are worth noting. Cardinal Arinze acknowledges the unjustified discontinuation of Latin:

    “5. Did Vatican II discourage Latin?

    Some people think, or have the perception, that the Second Vatican Council discouraged the use of Latin in the liturgy. This is not the case.

    Just before he opened the Council, Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962 issued an Apostolic Constitution to insist on the use of Latin in the Church. The Second Vatican Council, although it admitted some introduction of the vernacular, insisted on the place of Latin: “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (SC, n. 36).

    The Council also required that seminarians “should acquire a command of Latin which will enable them to understand and use the source material of so many sciences and the documents of the Church as well” (Optatam Totius, n. 13). The Code of Canon Law published in 1983 enacts that “the Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (can. 928).

    Those, therefore, who want to give the impression that the Church has put Latin away from her liturgy are mistaken. A manifestation of people’s acceptance of Latin liturgy well celebrated was had at the world level in April 2005, when millions followed the burial rites of Pope John Paul II and then, two weeks later, the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI over the television.

    It is remarkable that young people welcome the Mass celebrated sometimes in Latin. Problems are not lacking. So, too, there are misunderstandings and wrong approaches on the part of some priests on the use of Latin. But to get the matter in better focus, it is necessary first to examine the use of the vernacular in the liturgy of the Roman Rite today…”

    He also cites the supposedly “antique” and “anachronistic” Apostolic Constitution of Blessed Pope John XXIII:

    “Latin has the characteristic of words and expressions retaining their meaning generation after generation. This is an advantage when it comes to the articulation of our Catholic faith and the preparation of Papal and other Church Documents. Even the modern universities appreciate this point and have some of their solemn titles in Latin.

    Blessed Pope John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia, issued on 22 February 1962, gives these two reasons and adds a third. The Latin language has a nobility and dignity which are not negligible (cf. Veterum Sapientia, nn. 5, 6, 7). We can add that Latin is concise, precise and poetically measured.

    Is it not admirable that people, especially well-trained clerics, can meet in international gatherings and be able to communicate at least in Latin? More importantly, is it a small matter that 1 million young people could meet in the World Youth Day Convention in Rome in 2000, in Toronto in 2002 and in Cologne in 2005, and be able to sing parts of the Mass, and especially the Credo, in Latin? Theologians can study the original writings of the early Latin Fathers and of the Scholastics without tears because these were written in Latin…”

  105. Bryony Klugman says:

    From the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” surely suggests continuation of and familiarity with Latin in the liturgy.

  106. Victor Victoria says:

    Cardinal Arinze, then-head of the CDW, spoke after the election of Benedict XVI: ( http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600806.htm ):

    “He said the election of Pope Benedict, who wrote extensively about liturgy as a cardinal, kindled hope for reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and which rejected the new Mass and several Vatican II teachings or directives.

    Cardinal Arinze shares that hope, but said people should realize that the pope “cannot change the faith of the church.”

    “He cannot disown Vatican II in order to make the Lefebvrites happy. The pope cannot reinvent everything, or act as if Vatican II did not take place,” he said.

    While some have proposed a wider indult to allow use of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass with fewer restrictions, Cardinal Arinze said he is happy with Pope John Paul II’s rules, which require the involvement of the local bishop.

    “When you speak of wider use for everybody, it raises some questions, which have to be examined more carefully,” he said.

    The cardinal said he thought that for most people the question is not the Tridentine rite versus the new Mass, but the much more basic issues of faith, love of Christ and the appreciation of the importance of Sunday Mass.

    “If a person has these, many of these other problems would fall into line,” he said.”

  107. Victor Victoria says:

    The “liturgy in the vernacular” Genie is out the bottle – //with mandate// from the highest authority in the Catholic Church. BK isn’t going to get it back in … neither is anybody else, for that matter.

  108. Victor Victoria says:

    And what good is singing the Credo in Latin if you don’t understand what the words mean?

    Sure, it is a pragmatic concession at a multi-lingual Mass (such as at World Youth Day Masses) … but at Sunday Mass? Why?! To what good end?!

  109. P.R.Margeot says:

    A tree is judged by its //// fruits.////

  110. P.R.Margeot says:

    Latin, the dead and pure language, the sacred language, will stay. Medicine and Law used it as well, by the way. And when I see Zulu people(poor people, they walk to church) by their hundreds singing the Credo in Latin at each Tridentine mass, that makes me think. Who taught them ? Latin is actually very easy to learn. The missal shows both the latin(left) and the vernacular(right page). Wherever one travels, one is at home. At home. I vote Latin for UNITY.
    Latin is staying, has been saved, we sleep soundly tonight.
    The Jews and the Muslims have retained their sacred language, the Holy Church does the same.
    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
    O Lord give us many holy Priests and religious vocations.

  111. Bryony Klugman says:

    Both the Holy Father and Cardinal Arinze have been concerned with far more than Archbishop Lefebvre’s followers but with the principle of Latin in the liturgy in itself, as their writings make clear. Readers can, as ever, look up the relevant statements and make up their own minds.

    BK has made it clear that she has no desire or interest in putting the “vernacular genie back in the bottle”. She has been making the totally opposite point: that the traditional liturgy, now liberated and having been illicitly curtailed, will not be put back in the bottle: but – hey – why should she bother to repeat this when this other contributor will continue to insist on caricaturing her views as he seems to do with others whose views differ from him?

  112. Bryony Klugman says:

    “…from his?”

  113. Bryony Klugman says:

    Cardinal Arinze’s statement regarding the SSPX has nothing to do with his statement regarding the relationship between Latin and the vernacular in the liturgy and life of the Church, as the statement cited by me above makes explicit.

    Similarly, the references to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy highlighting the continuing use of Latin predate and have nothing to do with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.

    To reiterate, and as was restated above, I more often than any other attend and am happy to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, particularly since the recent, much-needed vernacular revisions were made in order to make it more dignified. therefore to suggest that I want to curtail the vernacular is as false as it is downright silly, as I have never held the view attributed to me.

    It is true,however, that I am glad that the traditional liturgy, illicitly curtailed, is now free to run in parallel with the Novus Ordo as another version of the same rite, and that this liturgy will never again be illicitly restricted. That is all. Indeed on this point I agree with Mr Kourie’s recent statement regarding the traditional Mass.

    What is clear from statements cited of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as well as Cardinal Arinze and documents from Vatican II, is that it was explicitly stated that it was not intended that the regular use of Latin should be abandoned, but rather that it should become more familiar to the People of God. That it was thus abandoned, largely in English-speaking countries, is an abuse which is now at last being addressed by the Holy See.

    If such a remedy really is unpopular as its critics claim, it will surely fail, but many fear really that it will not fail, knowing of course that this is about much more than liturgical language, which is why they are so angry, disappointed and embittered.

    Time, of course, will tell, but I myself feel little doubt about the ultimate outcome.

  114. Victor Victoria says:

    I was more interested in Cardinal Arinze’s statement that “While some have proposed a wider indult to allow use of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass with fewer restrictions, Cardinal Arinze said he is happy with Pope John Paul II’s rules, which require the involvement of the local bishop.” BK didn’t seem to have all that much confidence in some (many? all?) local Bishops, whom he variously accused of having “often deceived” the laity, and of being responsible for “vandalism and iconoclasm,” the “destruction of church interiors,” “deliberate suppression” of Latin in the liturgy, and of being “restrictive in authorising the traditional Mass,” et cetera.

    Where BK sees a deliberate suppression of Latin in the liturgy, I see a deliberate promotion of the vernacular in the liturgy.

    Whereas BK claims that “It [Latin in the liturgy] was abandoned without mandate,” I point out that the vernacular in the liturgy was adopted with mandate: the various Bishops’ conferences (and not only the English-speaking ones!) each voted overwhelmingly, surely after wide consultation with the lay faithful. Since the approval of the Holy See //had// to obtained to ratify these decisions, the mandate effectively came from the highest official ecclesial authority.

  115. Bryony Klugman says:

    Readers can read the material provided for themselves and make up their own minds about what was actually said and intended, as well as the cases of church destruction, detail of which cases can be followed on a (secular) archtectural website.

    It may well be obvious that any attempt at discussion with the abrasive contributor above is utterly pointless as he is only interested in personalised caricatures and confrontation.