No invitation for FSSP or ICK to Boston

27 comments

• What is the date that Holy Trinity is slated to close?

• I appears that Abp. Lennon’s first point is that Abp. does not intend to start a Tridentine parish at this time.  I am reasonably sure that FSSP runs all sacramental life in their parishes according to the earlier rites. 

  Maybe Lennon is saying that O’Malley is OK with “tridentine mass” which can be done in any church sanctuary (so to speak).  It might be that he feels the need for an entirely new parish with Tridetine sacramental/parish life structure is too much.  I don’t know, just conjecturing.

• There is now no projected closing date for HT.

• I think Bishop Lennon seems sadly misinformed regarding the intent of Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei. He leaves the impression it ONLY relates to providing for a Liturgical preference, albeit in a very minimalist way. What is the motivation for such outright stinginess? What of parish life? Is it my imagination or does he even give pause that entire community has developed around the old rite and its ecclesiology?

  What does he not understand? What is the rationale for the continued lack of pastoral solicitude after over 15 years since its
  reintroduction in Boston? Is it ignorance or mal-intent? Something stinks.

• Cardinal Hoyos says traditionalists are not second-class citizens

  Traditionalists deserve respect, cardinal says

  Vatican, May. 31 (CWNews.com) – Cardinal Dario Castrillion Hoyos, the
  Vatican official charged with relations with traditionalist
  Catholics, believes that traditionalist often do not receive enough
  respect from Church leaders.

  The Colombian prelate told he Italian daily Il Giornale that
  traditionalists should never be treated as second-class citizens in
  the Church. He admitted that the Church sometime shows more
  consideration in dealings with Protestant and Orthodox groups than
  with traditionalist Catholics. At the same time, Cardinal Castrillon
  Hoyos suggested that some traditionalists should avoid “types of
  exasperated criticism” of Church leaders.

• Folks,

  I have here reproduced the comments of His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome on 5 May, 2004, which he gave here in a written interview for The Latin Mass Magazine. The most
  relevant to the situation, which are perhaps strong enough to be cited in a formal appeal, are as follows. It may shed light on the current thinking in Rome, while it(the Motu Proprio)‘s local pastoral application remains extremely uneven; hence, the RCAB. 

  “I don’t like, indeed, those views that would like to reduce the
  traditionalist phenomenon to only the celebration of the ancient
  rite, as if it were an stubborn and nostalgic attachment to the past.
  That does not correspond to the reality that it is lived within this
  vast group of faithful. In reality, what we frequently find is a
  Christian view of the life of faith and of devotion shared by so many
  catholic families that frequently are enriched by many children that
  has special characteristics, and we can mention as examples:
  a strong sense of belonging to the Mystical Body of Christ, a desire
  to maintain strong links with the past that wishes to be seen, not in
  contrast with the present but in a line of continuity with the Church
  to preserve the principal teachings of the faith, a profound desire
  for spirituality and the sacred, etc… The love for the Lord and for
  the Church, finds within the particular Christian views of these
  faithful its highest expression through their attachment to the
  ancient liturgical and devotional forms, that have accompanied the
  Church through the centuries of her history.

  “It is interesting besides, to note, that within this reality, we can
  find many young people, born after II Vatican Ecumenical Council.
  They show, I could say, a sympathy of the heart for a form of
  celebration and of catechesis, that in harmony with their feeling,
  gives ample space to a climate of the sacred and a spirituality, that
  is attractive even to the youth of today, that certainly cannot be
  defined as nostalgic or a leftover from the past. I would like to
  remember also that this venerable Rite has formed many saints
  through the centuries and has shown the face of the Church to the
  world. . .

  “In the Church there is a great variety of gifts placed at the
  service of different levels of consciousness and sensitivity, each
  with their own specific traits, that find a place within the abundant
  richness of Catholicity. It cannot be denied that between this
  variety of gifts and sensitivities we have also the faithful called
  traditionalists, that they should not be seen as second class
  faithful, but should be protected in their right to be able to express
  their faith and piety in accordance with their particular
  spirituality, that the Holy Father recognizes as totally legitimate.
  So it is not the case to oppose, as if they were in some ways
  antagonists, two different sensitivities: the one called
  traditionalist and one so called modern; it is instead the case of
  the freedom to proclaim the same Catholic Faith, with different
  emphasis and expressions that are both legitimate, in the full and
  reciprocal fraternal respect.”

  The entire interview follows:

  http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2004/hoyostlm.html

• Now, some quick thoughts on His Eminence’s comments above.
  1. Traditionalists are not a group to be moved from parish to parish;
  they enrich the life of the Church.
  2. The highest authorities in the Church know that we want more than
  just the Mass – we want a particular type of spirituality. This
  spirituality is not “wacky”; it is authentic Catholic spirituality.
  Catholics express their spirituality in parish life.
  3. The collaboration between “German” and “Latin” parishioners at
  Holy Trinity is an example of collaboration, not antagonism,
  and “reciprocal fraternal respect” between Traditional and “modern”
  Catholics.
  4. Attachment to the Traditional Mass includes a bundle of things – a
  type of catechesis included – that is not “nostalgic”. (Sorry, you
  were wrong, Michael Paulson and your source at the Weston School of
  Theology.)
  5. If Traditionalists are not to be considered “second class
  citizens,” then why were we not even treated like members of the
  parish, with fewer rights than people in territorial parishes? I
  think we ended up in a juridical “no man’s land”, possibly in
  violation of canon law.

• Holy Trinity is currently slated to close once it loses both its social services. On 31 March 2006, when “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” Home for At Risk Youth is supposed to vacate Holy Trinity Rectory. Kit Clark Senior Services departure remains unclear at this time.

• Alrighty, I say that the Institute of Christ the King needs a new name.  ICK is a horrible abbreviation.

  “Fr. So-and-so, ICK”

• The Indult orders are not short of vocations.  How ironic that a diocese that is short of vocations would choose to deny entrance to the diocese to them. 
  The archdiocese must believe them to be “devisive”.  Any one who opposes the “Modernist” view must be “divisive”.

  New Church have at it.

• In my mind, Bishop Lennon does not speak for Archbishop Sean.

• The Latin abbreviation for the Institute is—well, I’m not sure what, but it’s not ICK.

  The full name is “Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest”, so: ICRSS?

• As vicar general, Lennon does in fact speak for O’Malley

• What I meant was that in my mind he doesn’t necessarily know what is going on in the mind of Archbishop Sean.

• I think this is a very wise move. Such a church runs the distinct danger of setting it self apart from the body of the church, and the pride and arrogance it seems to instill are negatives in anyone’s book of christianity.

  Lets get the one body right, not fragment into special little enclosures, please. One weekly indult mass per parish, and let more parishes have them, but no diocesean total tridentine churches, please.

• This is pastoral issue Mr./Ms. Kozal. I suppose you can say the same about every other rite of the Church. This is precisely the lack of understanding regarding ecclesiology, that was addressed in my previous post that featured an interview with Cardinal Hoyos. Please take the time to read this interview to get a better understanding the issues at hand.

  In fact, Benedict himself is very concerned about the current lack of pastoral solicitude.

• I hear there’s plenty of parking in Norwood. And the Pope is currently busy with the legal formalities for all the amateur canon lawyers out there.

• And Rob, the tone of your post is EXACTLY what I am talking about!

• I think it’s canon 216 says that laity have a right to worship in their rite.  The laity HAVE A RIGHT to the Tridentine IN CANON LAW.

• Do you understand the issues at hand with the Indult community in Boston? Nothing you said demonstates that you understand the pastoral implications regarding the potential destruction of this community. I wish it were as simple as a “one size fits all” Catholicism. Do we share role in this?

  http://www.rcab.org/Pilot/2006/ps060217/PastoralCommittees.html

  http://www.rcab.org/Pilot/2006/ps060217/LiturgicalArtsConference.html

  http://www.rcab.org/Pilot/2006/ps060113/BCChurch21stCentury.html

  The Church is indeed a “big tent”.

  I very well understand the cultural war that in ongoing both within and without the Church. I am a native of the Boston area nearly 48 years, a member of the Indult community for nearly 12 years and extremely active in Archdiocesan circles for almost 10 years. Would you like me to post a resume on my credentials on this issue.

  What we have recieved (if you care to research) in terms of Pastoral treatment has been and continues to be despicable. We present solutions. We get silence.

  Have you ever had the frustration in having a “conversation” with someone who does not make eye contact and looks over to your head to the far corner of the room?

  This describes our communication with the RCAB, whether it be Parish life, Reconfiguration or Financial accountability.

  Age of the Laity? Yuh. Clericalism is alive and well.

• Infanted,

  Well, no, that’s quite correct. The confusion arises over the use of “Tridentine rite.” The Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal is not properly a “rite” as canon law describes it. Canon law is referring to rites as in Latin rite, Byzantine rite, Syro-Malabar rite, Gallican rite, Ambrosian rite, and so on.

  The Tridentine Mass is not properly another rite.

  There are good arguments for allowing people to be able to participate in the Tridentine Mass, but that’s not one of them.

• Dom is technically correct. The “Tridentine” is probably better descibed the Ancient Rite of Rome that was imposed on the entire Latin Church in 1570. Most of the prayers date from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great. Today it tends to function as a Usage, existing along side the normative Novus Ordo Missae of 1970. The Ancient Roman Rite was never officially abrogated but fell into disuse after 1970, until the Indults of 1971, 1984 and 1988. It ceased in Boston ironically in 1971 and returned at Holy Trinity in 1990.

  The Church of Rome is the Primal See of the world and the Patriarchal See of Western Christianity. Founded by St. Peter in 42 it was consecrated by the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul during the persecution of Nero (63-67 AD). It has maintained a continual existence since then and is the source of a family of Rites in the West. While the origin of the current Rite, even in the reform of Vatican II, can be directly traced to only the 4th century, these connections point to an ancient apostolic tradition brought to that city that was decidedly Jewish in origin. 
  After the Council of Trent (1560) it was necessary to consolidate liturgical doctrine and practice in the face of the Protestant Revolt. Thus, Pope St. Pius V imposed the Rite of Rome on the Latin Church (the Rites subject to him in his capacity as Patriarch of the West), allowing only smaller Western Rites with hundreds of years of history to remain. Many younger Rites of particular dioceses or regions ceased to exist. So, the term “Roman” Rite wasn’t created until the 1500s.
   

  Latin

  Rite of an overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics, and majority of Catholics in general.
  Named because of the use of Latin in the Liturgy, and is still part of Canon Law: “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.” (Cannon 928, 1983 Code)
  Ambrosian
  The Rite of the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy
  Thought to be of an early origin; probably consolidated, but not originated, by St. Ambrose in the 4th century. 
  Bragan
  Rite of the Archdiocese of Braga, the Primal See of Portugal, it is only occasionally used. 
  Derives from the 12th century or earlier.
  Mozarabic
  Confined to the Rite of the Iberian peninsula-specifically, the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain, and 6 of its parishes. 
  Known to exist from at least the 6th century, but probably with roots to the original evangelization. 
  Beginning in the 11th century it was generally replaced by the Roman Rite, although it has remained in the locations listed above. Its celebration today is generally semi-private.
  Dominican
  Rite of the Order of Friars Preacher (OP), founded by St. Dominic in 1215.
  Carmelite
  Rite of the Order of Carmel, whose modern foundation was by St. Berthold c.1154.
  Carthusian
  Rite of the Cathusian Order founded by St. Bruno in 1084.

• Omission:
  It ceased in Boston ironically at St. James the Greater in Boston’s Chinatown in 1971 and returned at Holy Trinity in Boston’s South End in 1990.

• My suggestion for whatever it’s worth: If you’re attending the Men’s or Women’s Conferences in Boston, prepare a short note & hand it to Archbishop O’Malley asking him to keep Holy Trinity open.  It woud be a big show of support for the faithful, allowing them to continue worshiping in the manner and location they have for many years, and will also avoid disrupting the important social service agencies fulfilling the mission of the Gospel to serve the poor and needy.  Since the Archbishop has been all too willing to changes plans to accomodate dissidents, it’s about time he accomodates those who support the faith.

• In Chicago there is a parish, St. John Cantius, that not only offers Tridentine masses AND Novus Ordo masses in English and Latin, but even has its own religious order.  The Bishop of Chicago apparently does not find any of this threatening to the status quo.  The pastor of this church has taken a decaying building with a moribund parish and turned it into a thriving, living thing.  Why on earth can’t we have such a thing in Boston???  It boggles the mind.  The indult is generously offered throughout the midwest, but in the states of Vermont and New Hampshire there is not a single indult mass offered, and the only reason I have been given by a representative of the Diocese of Manchester is that “there is a group in schism” in New Hampshire (which I guess would be encouraged if they offered a sanctioned indult mass??? this makes no sense to me).  The only indult mass in Massachusetts is kicked from pillar to post, when the AoB isn’t busy ignoring us.  What is wrong with New England??!!

  Read it and weep for what we’re missing out on:

  http://www.cantius.org/

  and especially the inspiring history of the resurrection of this parish:

  http://www.cantius.org/Renaissance.htm

• I think it’s canon 216 says that laity have a right to worship in their rite.

  The rite of Latin Catholics is the Latin rite, which currently is celebrated according to the missal of Paul VI. The Missal of Pius V (aka “Tridentine”) is not a separate rite, just a separate Ordo of the Roman Rite. The faithful have a right to their particular rite, but not necessarily a particular form of that rite. The normative Ordo today is that of Paul VI, and it is the only one we have a strict “right” to.

  That said, I think this decision is unfortunate. An FSSP parish would THRIVE in Boston, I’m sure of it. Look what Bishop Olmstead has done in Phoenix. He permitted the Latin Mass in one Church, and now that it has proven itself, he is expanding the indult. I think the indult here in Boston has more than proven itself since Cardinal Law extended it.

  btw, I did ask Archbishop O’Malley a few years ago when he came to town whether or not the indult would continue after Holy Trinity is suppressed. His response: “I’m sure it will, I’m sure it will”.

• I believe that O’Malley is no supporter of the Latin Mass based on what occurred in the Diocese of Fall River, MA when O’Malley was Bishop there. For 10 years the requests for an Indult fell on deaf ears but months, and I mean literally months before O’Malley was transferred to Florida, permission was granted. Way out on Cape Cod. In a Church used only in the Summer by a priest who did not want to say the Latin Mass. Priests who expressed an interest were forbidden to say the Mass.

  The very fact that the Fraternity and Institute would thrive in Boston are the reason they are unwelcome. They would bleed off so many seminarians, future seminarians that it would make St John’s a ghost town.

  And what is next for Boston? Conjecture has been that O’Malley will absorb the lightening and bad karma and then be promoted elsewhere. Who succeeds? Lennon?

  Time to rely on the Christian virtue of hope and thank God that I am not in the diocese of Boston and never will be Godwilling.