Der Tommissar reprints a notice from Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe that gives a list of locations where Catholics of the archdiocese can’t be married. Most of the restrictions are quite sensible, but then there’s one…
... in gardens, near a lake, on a ranch, [“I won’t eat green eggs and ham, Sam I Am” ... Sorry, couldn’t resist] at Balloon Fiesta Park, the Lorreto Chapel in Santa Fe, wedding chapels in hotels, at the Mission of San Miguel in Santa Fe, or during the Latin Mass at San Ignacio Parish, etc.
And why, pray tell, can weddings not be held in these places? “We teach that marriage should be in a more spiritual place, in a Church itself.”
As yes, and we can’t consider the Tridentine Mass a spiritual place. Sure, I can understand the need for weddings to take place in parish churches as a sign that the married couple are part of the communion of the parish, whereas a wedding in some garden or unattached chapel don’t do that. Yet, I think the members of the Latin Mass community at San Ignacio Parish might dispute their inclusion in that group. In fact, requiring faithful members of the community to get married in a parish they don’t attend and where they are strangers would seem to have the opposite effect.
It’s amazing to me the lengths some people go to persecute those who have an attachment to the Tridentine Mass. If it’s not your cup of tea, fine. If you think it’s an archaic relic that’s going to die out, then let it. Why persecute it? Do these people not know Church history? The more Christians are persecuted and oppressed, the stronger they become.
Technorati Tags:bishops, Catholic, Latin, Tridentine, wedding
Mocking the most holy Sacrifice of Christ as if it is worthless and unholy!
Woe to you shepherds!!!
Isabelle
The good archbishop knows how much more beautiful the wedding would be, and what it might do for the Tridentine community and this is why it is outlawed. Very simple. These folks hate beauty.
Dom, my wife and I had the same problem when we married in Maine. The Portland Cathedral has an indult mass, but no other sacraments are allowed. There was no explanation of this, and no room to budge, either. Fortunately, the gentleman who was rector of the Cathedral arranged to have the Novus Ordo marriage rite said in Latin immediately before a Tridentine mass with the
wedding readings.
I feel bad for the mass-goers who actually live there, though. If they want a baptism or funeral, they must go to Massachusetts or New Hampshire.
Our own Tridentine-mass parish priest in Columbus Ohio has no such problems with the sacraments. He doesn’t even have to ask the bishop before doing the unusual ones like Tridentine marriage.
In the case of the Loretto Chapel, the ban is reasonable, as the chapel is no longer owned by a Catholic institution, but some private entity. A heretical sect offers “Mass” there every week.
What Father Z said, and Rob, too.
In the pre-VII days, the sacrament took place, quite simply, before the Nuptial Mass (if indeed there was a Nuptial Mass, and I gather there usually was, or so I hope!) The priest basically ratified the sacrament: “Ego conjungo vos in matrimonium in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”
If the sacrament took place, as it does today in the Novus Ordo, during the Mass, wouldn’t that be contrary to the rubrics of the pre-Vatican II Mass?
If the Bishop wrote “in San Ignacio church I could understand the beef, but as it stands, it looks like he knows a bit more about the rubrics than those who are so angry with him do.
This is the thing I hate. “The Latin Mass community”. As in “us, and not them”. I’ve had experience with a local indult mass and what it has effectively done is turn one parish community into two parish communities.
This is why I am praying that there will never be a universal indult. I would much prefer that the tridentine rite become yet another rite in communion with Rome, and as such, have Tridentine parishes as we have Byzentine parishes.
Valid, licit and separate.
Why did Archbishop Sheehan not put a clarification in the notice—something such as: (In the Traditional rite, wedding vows are exchanged immediately before the Mass begins.)
That would have made things clear.
One thing that is clear—Sheehan’s record is not good:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060813
I have little to say on this topic due to my excellent 16 years of Catholic school. I wish I knew the details about which you all speak. But the one thing I can add is this. I happened to go to the Cathedral in Santa Fe to Mass with Archbishop Sheehan 2 weeks ago. When I entered the building I saw what I thought was a priest (or a very old altar boy (with an earring in each ear). My expectations were immediately lowered. I thought now what am I in for. Well, my suspicions were wrong at least for the 10:00AM Mass with the Archbishop. It was the annual Gregorian Mass. They had a group called the Dessert Chorale – supposedly the best in the west. They were excellent. The entire Mass had gregorian chant music and it was very well done. The Archbishop seemed very orthodox. Surprisingly part of the Mass after communion was said in Latin. At the str=art of Mass, the Archbishop announced (happily) that this was going to happen.
So I don’t know the details of the above issue, but he seemed like he was orthodox to me. However, because of my 16 years of a lack of Catholic education in my Catholic schools, I am easily fooled. Maybe someone should just ask him, what his reasoning is regarding the latin mass!?!?
Desert (sorry no dessert) Chorale
An annual Gregorian Mass: how wonderful!
That means that the Cathedral uses the proper music of the Roman Rite on 1.9% of the Sundays of the year!
Well, whatever mistakes he made as rector (I’m not dismissing them, but the two bishops that actually kept Rudy Kos around bear most of the blame, I say as someone from Dallas), Michael Sheehan has had a job over the last decade in stamping out heresy and the cult of personality of his predecessor, Robert Sanchez, in Santa Fe. I was actually living in Santa Fe the first year Sheehan was archbishop and was part of a group doing “undercover work”, writing reports on the seminary and the out-there parishes in Santa Fe and Albuquerque. Sheehan was glad to have the info and actually acted on it; my sister continues to live out there and we’ve only seen things improve. Now, I don’t know what all this is about, but I expect there must be some good reason behind it, or there is some meaning to this that makes sense. Perhaps people who aren’t parishioners at San Ignacio are getting married there, for example? I dunno, but I’m sure there’s a decent reason, and it ain’t that the eeeeeeeeeevil archbishop is trying to stamp out reverence and orthodoxy in his jurisdiction.
pbrault – is that so about the Cathedral? When I lived in SF, in the immediate post-Sanchez days, the Franciscans there were good and it was one of the few places in SF you could go and not be actively annoyed at Mass. But that *was* 1994-95 – a few years ago. We also went to Mass at the Carmelites.
Hope everyone had a blessed holy day – if it wasn’t abrogated where you live!