A Scots priest contacted us recently to urge discussion on our blog about the forthcoming Ad Limina visit. He is very keen that the laity write to the Vatican well in advance of the Scottish Bishops’ Ad Limina visit, which is to take place during the first week in February.
There’s no shortage of problems in the Scottish Church for which the bishops must be held to account. This thread should serve to remind us all of the many scandals in the Church in Scotland at the present time. Many of them have been debated on this blog – like, for example, the case of the American priest, Father David Cotter, serving in the Diocese of Paisley, who announced on Radio Scotland that he supported the anti-life policies of the then presidential candidate, now President Barack Obama, for whom, Father Cotter cast his vote by post. Click here to read that thread
Sadly, there are plenty more scandals in the local Church – Fr Cotter’s support for a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights politician whom he helped achieve the most important and powerful governmental post in the world, is but one cog in a very big wheel of dissent and scandal.
But enough from me – here’s the piece submitted by the Scottish priest who asked for this thread:
In approximately 8 weeks the Scottish Bishops will be going to Rome for an Ad Limina visit, something which normally happens every 5 years but which due to the change of Pope has been 7/8 years since last happening.
At this the bishops will be asked to give an account of themselves, their actions, events in and plans for their Diocese and the Catholic Church in Scotland.
Over recent years, especially the last 2/3/4 years we have repeatedly seen actions by bishops which were not in obedience to Papal instruction/wishes, Roman Curia/Commission’s instruction/directions. Action/s have been taken by individual bishops/the Scottish Bishops Conference which have been disobedient and so failed to be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. As a result we’ve witnessed some actions/policies which are clearly schismatic. Here’s a brief overview of the goings on in the Church in Scotland.
In Glasgow, there was a murder in a Glasgow church. The priest, if you remember, was giving out rooms in the parish house. This murder of a young girl in a Catholic Church made headlines that brought the Scottish Church into disrepute. Bloggers should send details of this scandal to Rome, enclosing newspaper cuttings if possible.
In Dundee, the Vicar General had girl friends over a period of 18 years. Again, national headlines resulted. Headlines that should be sent to Rome.
In Glasgow there was a negative response to the papal Moto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, when Archbishop Conti stated that priests ordained after 1970 would not get permission to say the Tridentine Mass; this was outright rejection of the permission Pope Benedict had given to every priest in the world.
In Summorum Pontificum, bishops were told to encourage younger priests to learn the old Latin Mass, help them, so that its beauty and reverence would not be lost to future generations. Has any Scottish bishop done this? So far, one only hears of certain bishops’ deliberate suppression of the old Latin Mass, not their encouragement. Rome needs to be told that Summorum Pontificum has been mostly ignored in Scotland.
Then there is the increasingly common practice of priests administering the Sacrament of Confirmation instead of the Bishop. Yet, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 we read:
1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.
Although the Bishop may for grave reasons concede to priests the faculty of administering Confirmation, it is appropriate from the very meaning of the Sacrament that he should confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.
What grave circumstances have there been each year that bishops in certain dioceses confer this sacrament only 3-5 times? But they will go to Ecumenical services more than 5 times over the year! Rome needs to be told about this. If your child was ordained by a priest instead of the Bishop, write to tell the authorities in Rome so that they can raise the matter with the Bishops.
In 2000 in Scotus Seminary the Scottish bishops built a chapel. In it was placed a “crucifix”, claimed to be a work of art, which was strands of metal formed together to represent Christ’s body on the cross, naked, which looked like the leftovers from the previous night’s spaghetti bolognaise – it did not in any way show the real suffering and sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This was, in fact, a naked man who had modelled for the “cruciform”. Students were faced with this “cruciform” every time they entered the chapel. Imagine trying to pray with that naked man hanging above the altar. Little wonder that the seminary closed.
In this Chapel right up to closure students were discouraged from kneeling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, yet from the Year of the Eucharist came clearly the message that we urgently needed to get back to an awareness of the Real Presence, something shown by reverent actions. Again, I say, little wonder that we have no seminary in Scotland. Remind Rome of this background to the closure of Scotus.
The highly unsuitable, virtually doctrine-free “Alive O” Religious Education curriculum was implemented by the Scottish Bishops Conference late 80s/early 90s while Ireland was waiting for Rome to give approval to it; such approval was never given, in fact the opposite – according to Rome it is not suitable for teaching Catholic pupils and yet the Scottish Bishops have it in our Catholic Schools. Why? We need to tell Rome that children in Catholic schools are being denied a solid Catholic education.
Are things so bad here because the papal nuncios are part of the Bishops Club, members of the Magic Circle in the country to which they are posted; not wanting to rock the boat, therefore not reporting matters to Rome which are a betrayal of Catholic Faith/Teaching/Principals? Ask Rome why the papal nuncios are not passing on the truth about the state of the Church in Scotland.
If Bishops are not acting in obedience to Rome, shouldn’t this be reported by a papal nuncio? This certainly does not seem to happen in our present times – bishops allowing/advocating masses for homosexual groups to make them feel at ease, where there is no attempt to make clear they must repent and sin no more, is but one present day example in the UK. Masses for the Quest organization have been held in a Glasgow parish (Ed: we reported this in the newsletter at the time) so this is clearly a scandal that should be reported to Rome.
Within the last 2/3 days we have seen Rome’s/Pope Benedict’s outrage and betrayal, something brought about by Bishops in Ireland not properly and truthfully addressing matters. Why was Benedict/John Paul not informed of such matters? Unless Rome is kept informed about the reality of the local churches, similar scandals could break out elsewhere, including Scotland.
Rome, must act in an authoritative way when Bishops do not act in unity with the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” but they can only know about these scandals if we tell them. They seem to think Scotland is in a good condition. We must correct their misconceptions.
The above are but some issues that you may wish raised and investigated at the Scottish Bishops Ad Limina visit to Rome this February; you may have others of your own. If so they should be raised with/made known to the appropriate congregations/authorities in Rome within the next 3-4 weeks (they will need them by early January so that questions raised may be looked into prior to the February meeting) so bloggers are encouraged to write without delay to the relevant Congregations in Rome. END
Editor: Click here for the Vatican addresses and get those keyboards working. Costs very little to post a letter to Rome, so no excuses.
Click on ‘comments’ to post questions and comments. If you’d like help with your letter email us via the website and we’ll gladly advise.
-
I think if people decide to pass on their concerns about the state of the Church in Scotland they should stick to current issues.
The tragic events at St Patrick’s happened three years ago and the priest who was in the parish is retired. Why rake all that up again?
Scotus is closed, so unless the offensive crucifix is in another public place what’s the point in wasting the time of some Vatican official reading about something from the past?
There are certainly issues that could usefully be raised by the laity, though I suspect many, if not most, have been reported already, but we need to pick our battles.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne,
By all means you pick the battles you wish to fight – it is essential that everyone do that – but Father was writing in the context of the length of time it has been since the last Ad Limina and in the confident knowledge that the Bishops in this neck of the woods are experts at cover-ups. I think you might be surprised to find how much the powers-that-be DON’T know about the scandals that hit our headlines.
Until Michael Davies RIP sat down with Cardinal Ratzinger and took him through the statistics for England & Wales, the Cardinal had believed the picture painted by the English & Welsh bishops giving the impression that the Church in those lands was flourishing. That was quite an eye-opener for him and, it is widely held, a turning point in his attitude to the Church in the UK.
In any event, the priest-author of this thread article has emailed to ask me to add the following to his statement: “People should write about the one issue closest to their heart, (max two issues), being brief and to the point. Do not go on and on, as no attention will be paid and one’s effort will be to no avail. I also suggest that everyone make a point of writing to the Congregation for Bishops as they carry out the Ad Limina.” END.
It is, indeed, crucial to write short letters that get right to the point. Do not write generalised moany letters “things are terrible here, when are you going to act” – they’ll be ignored. I normally urge people to write about only ONE issue, so if you have two or more, try to get others to put their signatures to letters addressing each issue separately.
Your letter needs to name the priest/bishop/parish/diocese and give factual information, backed up with source material in the form of church bulletins, catholic newspapers, secular newspapers (and if you send a cutting, don’t forget to write the name of the newspaper/journal and the date of the publication – otherwise it’s useless).
However, while it is important – as Father says – to send copies to the Congregation for the Bishops, it is also important to write to the relevant Congregations – see details on the link in the thread article.
Do write, though: short, factual letters with supporting evidence where possible. Be polite but firm. Ask for action.
Frankly, we should be able to ask for a response as well but the Vatican doesn’t seem to DO responses. So don’t expect an answer. This is quite disgraceful. Just about every other major institution replies, routinely, to letters and in the case of letters addressing serious matters to, e.g. an MP, even those charlatans will reply personally. So, there is no excuse for the lack of courtesy not to say corrective action, from the Vatican. No excuse at all. Especially since they’re big on diplomacy and dialogue in dealing with non-Christians.
Occasionally correspondents do receive a reply and I’ve been very pleased at some of the replies I’ve received myself. But, generally speaking, people who write to the Vatican, receive no reply, so be prepared for that and, who knows, you just might get a pleasant surprise. And before some smart alec comes on to tell me that the main thing is that the problems we write about are addressed, not that we receive a reply – obviously. We know that. But, I repeat my response to all such false dichotomies – both would be nice.
Anyway – get those keyboards working without delay!
-
Eileenanne, I don’t get the impression that you are at all interested in fighting battles for the Church, but in niggling and quibbling over your obtuse perceptions. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
-
Happy to oblige Tomas, you’re wrong.
Editor,
The advice about choosing one topic and being brief sounds wise.
Eileenanne
-
Eileenanne
The point of highlighting these past scandals is clearly to give Rome the full picture. The Pope has to know that this Scottish hierarchy hasn’t just made a few mistakes, but has courted scandal for many years. Rome must have all the facts.
-
Eileenanne
Good – copy us on your letter!
-
Eileenanne & all,
If it’s any help, I’ll be writing a letter in my humble capacity as editor of Catholic Truth and I’ll be giving a brief overview, with enclosures of the scandals mentioned by Father in his piece – and then some.
So, it is better if everyone else simply addresses one issue of concern to you. The key issue for us all, really, is the fact that there is a clear determination not to supply the traditional Mass in parishes across Scotland.
If you are aware of anything else of concern either in your parish or in some other aspect of diocesan life (e.g. the newspapers on sale at the back of your church) then write about that. If you are a parent, you can say that you are unable to trust Catholic schools in Scotland – there is a growing number of parents who are considering homeschooling as a result. That sort of thing.
As for copy letters, Torkay – I recommend waiting until the first week in February, then anyone who wishes to do so, can copy their letters on this thread. Until then, keep your powder dry.
Get to it, folks!
-
Editor
Per your instructions, I’ve hung my blunderbuss back on the wall, poured the powder back into the keg, and put on a pot of tea…
One if by land, and two if by sea…
-
I’ll certainly be writing to our Holy Father, reminding him of the persecution my wife and I have suffered under Bishop Tartaglia here in the Diocese of Paisley. We’ve been mocked, ridiculed and ignored by our shepherd. Not nice.
A couple of months ago I sent an email to our parish priest at Saint Conval’s in the diocese of Paisley regarding the illicit use of Extraordinary Ministers. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before but it won’t hurt to recap. I am not an EM but I was asked to expose the Blessed Sacrament. I reminded our PP that this was illicit, as is the practice of EMs purifying the chalice. I backed up email with various quotes from the relevant documents and informed Bishop Tartaglia too. I got no reply. I went along to the parish today to find out that Father had introduced a ‘blessing’ for ‘Christ’s ministers’ taking the Blessed Sacrament to the sick. And yes, the Monsters still purify the chalice.
I won’t mention anymore just now but take it from me, things are bad in Paisley diocese. Bishop Tartaglia is often described as being ’sound’. He is anything but. I have a dossier prepared that outlines his dissent.
Thanks to the priest who asked for this thread. Let’s flood Rome with evidence and leave the Holy Father in no doubt about the lack of decent bishops in Scotland.
-
I should remind everyone that my wife and I were banned from kneeling to receive Holy Communion in Saint Conval’s by the parish priest. Bishop Tartaglia also told me that he would not provide a TLM in the diocese and could never see himself celerating this Mass. My request, according to the bishop, was just an affectation.
Something else has just come into my mind. Archbishop Conti said in an interview in The Scotsman that couples should be allowed to use condoms for hygienic purposes. Outrageous. In light of recent scientific evidence, I wrote to the bulldog of the Archdiocese, Mgr Peter Smith, asking the Archbishop to apologise to the people of Scotland for putting their lives at risk. Unfortunately the Chancellor was economical with the truth and said that the Archbishop clarified his statement. Porky pies, Peter!
Who could forget the PP of St Augustine’s in Milton who was blackmailed by a rentboy he picked up in a public park? Awful. And what of the missing priests of the Archdiocese? You must be proud, Your Grace. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in February.
-
May I commend your source, a brother priest, for his courage to speak so honestly and directly.
But I warn you, I will pray for him. This is because priests who have dared to question a bishop’s judgement and what he did, have had hell.
Over the last 30 years a number of priests who questioned bishops were made to suffer greatly for it. I can honestly say I do not know of such a priest being granted a request following similar questioning of a bishop or bishops. They were often moved usually to tough parishes with difficulties. When ever they seemed to be getting to grips with the problems they were moved again.
Bishops persecuted, bullied them, with most of the priests subsequently expressing the view, that they wished they had kept their mouth shut.So editor:
This is why you have great difficulty in getting priests to support you openly on this blog.
You, editor, should be more understanding and less aggressive towards priests holding their silence. -
I hope this won’t side track the thread, but I have never understood the occasional references on the blog to “… missing priests of the Archdiocese”
I would assume that if a priest has taken leave of absence the Archbishop is well aware of his whereabouts. We have no reason to suppose – or have we? – that any priests have disappeared without explanation, so this is perhaps not an appropriate subject to raise in correspondence with Rome.
Eileenanne
-
Petrus
Two great posts highlighting the grave failures of our bishops in Scotland. I’m sure you will put the case equally well in your letter to Rome. Well spoken!
-
The only thing i can’t understand is how in the light of this astronomical crisis in the Scottish Church, Eileenanne is content to try to pick holes in our posts. Typical Eileenanne.
Scotus Priest
I think the point is that too many priests are compromising faith to further their careers. What could be more important than keeping the faith? A plum parish? Get real. Remember, we are all called to enter via the narrow gate.
-
Athanasius
Why don’t we try to set up an Ad Limina for the Catholic Truth Bloggers? I propose youself, the editor, Tomas de Torkay and I to go and meet the Holy Father. A few nights of pasta and wine (non-alcoholic stuff for me) and good chat, culminating with a meeting with the Holy Father. The poor pope would have a paso doble!
-
Scotus Priest
With the very greatest respect, may I ask if you entered the sacred priesthood for an easy life without persecution?
Our Lord was persecuted from the very day of his birth. He was misunderstood, blasphemed, threatened and finally betrayed, arrested, falsely accused, scourged through to the bone, spit upon, had His hair and beard ripped from the roots, was crowned with thorns that pierced through into His brain, was struck so hard with the reed that His eye sockets filled with blood, carried a cross that tore the flesh from His shoulder and was finally crucified.
I’m sorry, what was that you were saying about fearing the wrath of the bishop for speaking up for the truth? You see what Archbishop Lefebvre gave up and the persecution he suffered even after 60 years of priestly service to the Church and the Popes?
I truly believe that you have a good priestly heart, but I also think you should pray to the Holy Spirit for that strength that was given the Apostles when they were hiding for fear in the upper room.
-
I am pleased to see Petrus mention that he wrote to his Parish Priest.
Natural Justice and Christian Charity demand that one complains in private to one’s Parish Priest about an issue in the Parish before writing to the Bishop or to Rome. Of course, if the PP does not provide a satisfactory response, one can include that reponse in the letter to the Bishop.
Unless the complaint is of a very grave nature I do not think that Rome will entertain a complaint without the complainant showing they have raised the matter with the Parish Priest and then the Bishop.
-
Benet
I think sacrilege is very grave, don’t you?
-
Yes, Petrus.
-
I agree with what you say, Benet. It is important to speak/write to the PP privately and give the him the opportunity to correct abuses. Absolutely. Well said.
-
Benet
I agree that Petrus has gone down the right road with this, first making the complaint to his PP and then the bishop. And he’s absolutely right, sacrilege is about as grave as it comes. To think that Catholics are having to write to Rome because their bishops and priests are committing and/or permitting sacrilege. Who could have imagined such a scenario just fifty years ago.
-
Benet,
allow me to disabuse you. At one time, the Vatican authorities insisted that we approach our bishops before approaching them. That changed when they realised that the bishops were not acting upon information. They are now quite happy to hear directly from the faithful.
Eileenanne,
at least one of the “disappeared” Glasgow priests has left to marry the girlfriend he’s had for most of his ordained life. I fully intend to mention that in my own dossier and to point out that Scots priests are either “disappearing” from alleged ministry or announcing their infidelity from the pulpit (and receiving a standing ovation for their “honesty”). Such is the palpable lack of grace among the faithful in modern Scottish churches.
As for someone always knowing where they are – wrong. There have been instances of priests going off and nobody – their own familities included – knowing where they are. One of our researchers rang one such parish fairly recently to ask for Father X and the PP said straight that he had no idea where he was, he’d walked out a few months ago…
That’s the level of chaos we’re dealing with here.
Scotus Priest,
I do take your point about the suffering priests may have to endure if they “come out” and maybe you are right about me being too aggressive. However, I think my “aggression” is likely to pale into insignificance compared to the conversation priests are likely to encounter at their judgement.
Then we’ll hear cries of “come back, editor, all is forgiven…”
-
Scotus Priest
My understanding of Editor’s efforts to get more priests involved here was not to identify them “openly,” knowing full well that such identification would spell disaster for them. There is no way a priest-blogger can be identified by simply blogging here with a pseudonym, unless he reveals details about himself which betray his identity.
I believe Editor’s quest has to do with nothing more than getting more priests to join in the restoration of the Church – which would include the restoration of their true priestly office – but correct me if I’m wrong, Ed.
-
Editor,
Thank you for the disabuse! I still think it necessary to write to the Bishop before writing to Rome so that the Bishop cannot claim he was unaware of the situation that gave rise to the complaint. He can hardly take action against an erring PP if no-one informs him of the PP’s actions.
Have you seen changes due to past ad limines? Why do you think this one will be so effective in removing the scales from the eyes of these Bishops and priests?
Perhaps we show too much respect to the office-holder due to his office of priest?
-
Torkay
I believe you’re right in your summation of editor’s intent. I know of one priest already who uses every traditional instruction from Rome to improve his parish. It may annoy the bishop, but he can’t act because Rome has spoken. More priests need to follow suit, taking instruction in how to celebrate the Tridentine Mass and encouraging their parishioners to receive holy communion on the tongue, kneeling, etc. This is all they have to do.
-
Benet, I think you will find that we do, in fact, always contact our bishops first as a matter of routine but not because we think the bishop will act – we now know that they won’t. It is interesting, though, don’t you think, that the Vatican authoriies (those who want to know the truth, that is) have said they no longer expect us to write to the bishops first. Still, in a spirit of charity, not to say of pouring coals of fire on episcopal heads, we do always contact the bishop with concerns first. Having said that, I count the newsletter as part, at least, of our correspondence with the bishops, bearing in mind that we are only publishing that which is already known to the bishops. Hope this is clear but it’s late and I’m writing in haste because I need to get to work to close the blog down for the week.
Also, note that I am forbidden from writing to Archbishop Conti unless I do so via the Archdiocesan solicitors (precisely to prevent me passing on information about bad priestly behaviour) although I broke that rule recently when I wrote to every Scottish bishop about Summorum Pontificum. Replies to date: zero.
Torkay is partly correct in his analysis of my exhortations to priests. Obviously, nobody (not even moi) expects priests to use their own names on the blog – there is a recognised protocol of usernames, so that is perfectly acceptable. But two things must be said in this regard. Precisely because priests are so reluctant to be named and take a public stand against the modernist bishops, I am increasingly lacking patience with them for contributing so seldom to this blog. What possible excuse can there be from priests signed up for the blog but seldom participating when just by their presence, they encourage the laity to keep up the fight? That is very little to ask but I’m done asking.
Secondly, there’s safety in numbers. I’ve tried several times to get the priests whom I know to be sound and suffering in this crisis, to allow me to introduce them to the others but such is the fear of discovery and reprisals, that they are too afraid.
And – as Athanasius said – fear of unpopularity and not being “promoted” are not really valid reasons for being complicit in the scandal of this crisis, for, make no mistake about it: by our silence we are complicit in the scandalous actions and inactions of our bishops. People have said to me, often, that if what we are saying about the dire state of the Church in Scotland really is true, then the clergy would be speaking out. That’s what they say because that, frankly, is what should be happening. Oops, there I go again – too aggressive…
Yes, Athanasius, we know that there is at least one priest in a Glasgow parish who is learning the TLM – we advertise his Masses and we applaud his obedience to the Pope: we came to know about his orthodox and traditional leanings through one of our long-term readers and supporters who happens to be a parishioner there but there again, with respect, the one time Father appeared on this blog was to invite us to support his Masses (if you recall, we had a Traditional Parish in Glasgow thread way back when). Father came on with an Irish username, which I cannot recall, but – hilariously – signed his real name at the end of his post.
Maybe, reading this will bring him back onto the blog but do you see my point? If the several priests whom we know to be doing their best to be faithful to the traditional faith in one way or another, were to blog here more regularly, not only would the beleaguered laity, myself included, be encouraged in the fight, but the bishops reading this would begin, perhaps, to realise that they are not fooling all of the priests all of the time.
Comprenez?
-
editor
Yes, I see your point. Even anonymity can’t bring out priests out into the battle field.
-
Exactly, Athanasius.
This thread will now close but will be re-opened next Friday.
Benet, I forgot to say that, yes, the laity writing prior to an ad limina can make a difference. Some years ago the Pope publicly admonished the Australian bishops during their ad limina and it was widely known that the laity had written in droves. I’ve no time to seek out links right now but they must be there, somewhere, hint hint.
Thanks to all who have contributed so far – I know there are more contributions to come next week.
-
Further to the difficulties faced by priests in Scotland (and probably elsewhere) in showing greater inclination towards Tradition and all that goes with it in the face of likely persecution by their bishops, may I ask, in all sincerity, what are the obstacles to them resigning their posts and becoming associates of the SSPX as independent priests?
I am only able to attend an SSPX Chapel due to the outstanding courage of a priest who did just that, and may God guarantee him a place in Heaven as his reward.
If it is not too much to ask, might a priest-blogger enlighten me, as the SSPX must surely be in desperate need of more priests to service more chapels?
-
I’d like to further explore leprechaun’s post – what would happen if a modern priest resigned from his diocese and asked to be admitted to the SSPX? Is that possible and is there a precedence for it?
-
Petrus and leprechaun, Fr Rolph in (?Leicester, I believe) is a diocesan priest who resigned from the diocese and joined the SSPX. It is certainly possible. I have never heard of any Scottish priest resigning to join the SSPX although at least one resigned to marry in the nearest Presbyterian church (with half a dozen fellow priests in attendance to help break open the champagne) but one of our bloggers has pointed out to me (and intends to come on here and point out to the rest of you!) that umpteen Glasgow churches have closed down/are boarded up, including Drumchapel’s Church of Saint Pius X. She thinks this is something she wants to put before the authorities in Rome in good time of the ad limina.
Which is why I’m here. Time is moving on folks, and I know it is a very busy time, especially for those of you practising to play Santa Claus, but will you start to put together a (preferably) short (one side of A4 paper only is a good rule of thumb) letter to send to the Vatican about YOUR diocese?
-
As you say Madam Editor, time is running out and this blog will close temporarily at midnight on Monday.
I was rather hoping, before it does, that one or more of the priest-bloggers would give an indication in response to my question, about the difficulties associated with becoming an independent priest working with the SSPX.
Is it a question of accusations of schism? Or of not having good standing within the conciliar hierachy? Or of not being able to manage on the stipend offered – or just what is it?
-
leprechaun,
I have spoken to a few priests on this topic at various times and the simple answer is that they just do not want to join the SSPX. They want to be a diocesan priest. End of.
Perhaps one of them will answer you directly, but don’t hold your breath.
-
Leprechaun, to try and answer you:
Whilst there is one Priesthood, given by God, there are different ways in which God asks His priests to carry out the duties/office of priestly ministry.
Decades ago many went to the missions taking the Word to evangelize nations.
Others did this work at home in their own countries usually in the place they came from – diocesan priests.
SSPX, in todays terms, is more of an equivalent to a missionary order in that a priest will be posted somewhere; this will most probably not be his
own home area.
One’s home maybe where a priest hopes to/wants to work – what God asks of them/calls them to. It may be that it is by standing up for the Catholic faith where it is under attack within a diocese, that a priest feels he can best serve the Lord. Hence a desire to remain in their diocese rather than join SSPX. -
I happened on a copy of the Western Catholic Calendar of 2006, today, and have a list of Catholic Churches closed within the Archdiocese of Glasgow from 1975 onwards.
Saint Bonaventure – 1992
Saint Francis – 1992
Saint Francis of Assisi – 1993
Good Shepherd – 1975
Saint John Evangelist – 1982
Saint Joseph – 1984
Saint Luke – 1993
Saint Nicholas – 1979
Our Lady of Assumption – 2005
Our Lady of Consolation – 2004
Our Lady of Fatima – 2004
Our Lady of Peace – 1987
Saint Pius X, Drumchapel – 2004
Saint Stephen – 1999Fifteen closed in one Diocese alone over 30 years. I have not even had the opportunity to get information elsewhere in Scotland.
I also heard today that Saint Saviour’s Church in the Govan area of Glasgow is to be turned into a Chapel of ease. My informant had no idea what that meant. Does any of our Catholic Truth blogger have any suggestions as to what is meant by a Chapel of ease?
Remember way back in 2007, the young Polish woman, Angelika Kluk was murdered (please remember her in your prayers). Her body was buried in Saint Patrick’s, Anderston, Glasgow. See link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6623821.stm
A man was caught and convicted of this crime.
But the Church was never reconsecrated.Neither was this same Church reconsecrated, following buddhist ceremonies taking place over a few days, whilst the parish priest was elsewhere.
-
And it seems that Cardinal O’Brien has made a generous offer to the Anglicans. The offer being a place to worship at Christmas. Don’t believe me? Then read this link.
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_498.shtml
-
Scotus Priest:
Thank you for your response to my question about priests going independent and serving Tradition via the SSPX.
It didn’t occur to me that the desire to stay put in a familiar area would be a reason for remaining with the conciliar Church.
I can add little to what Athanasius wrote in his 10:35 pm post of December 13th, except that if the original apostles had all decided to remain at home and oppose Judaism from within the environs of Jerusalem, Christianity might have been still-born.
May God bless you and help you to make the best use of the talents and the opportunities He has given you.
-
gloria
St. Saviour’s in Govan has been demolished. Maybe that’s what they mean by a ‘chapel of ease,’ e.g., no chapel at all!!
-
Scotus Priest
I can perfectly understand that not all priests are called to the missionary work carried out by the SSPX, but I think leprechaun was referring more to diocessan priests remaining as independent friends of the SSPX within their diocesses.
There are many cases in other countries of priests having left the Novus Ordo situation while remaining within their diocese to work independently for a restoration of tradition. This does obviously have its difficulties, such as where the priest will live, where he’ll celebrate Mass, etc., although some have managed to find sufficient supporters to finance them.
With the advent of Summorum Pontificum these drastic actions are maybe not quite as necessary as before, provided that priests are prepared to take a stand on the pope’s teachings and permissions and not let themselves be disuaded by hostile liberal bishops from doing their priestly duty to restore traditional Catholic worship and practice. Too many lack the courage to act as they should. They fear more the wrath of the bishop than the wrath of God, it would appear.
-
Scotus Priest
Apologies for the double “s” in Diocesan and Diocesses. I’m a tattie muncher!
-
Scotus Priest
Just in case you haven’t read it, have a look at “Priest, Where is Thy Mass?” which chronicles the adventures of 17 independent and SSPX priests and how their parishioners supported them.
One of our former bloggers, Perpetua, attends just such an independent parish, and her PP is Father Ringrose, who has a chapter in the book.
-
Torkay, one slight but significant correction – NONE of the 17 priests interviewed in Priest Where is thy Mass? are SSPX priests.
They are all diocesan priests who couldn’t take it any more and – I believe in most if not all cases – approached the SSPX for help and advice.
gloria – a chapel of ease is simply a kind of “extra” church, in a large area. So the people can attend more “easily” than if they had to travel to a remote part of the city. Sounds like a posh way, in this case, of retracting the decision to close St Saviour’s!
-
Gloria,
The little Chapel of Ease in our village was used for offering Mass, but was not licenced for weddings and funerals. It had a regular attendance of 50 or so, but then a new parish priest closed it down and sold it off after 98 years in order to boost the count in the parish church, and also to add money to the diocesan coffers.
In so doing, he raised the average Godliness of each congregation, and set me on the eventual route of a return to Tradition.
-
Thanks for your answers on the Chapel of Ease. I don’t recall having heard the term used before Sunday, so wondered what it meant.
-
editor & gloria
St. Saviour’s has already been demolished. There is no church there now.
-
Thanks for that reminder, Athanasius. I have a friend in that parish and she told me at the time that they’d lost the battle to keep St Savior’s open.
So, gloria, I wonder where’s this alleged “chapel of ease” in Govan?
Comments are now closed.
46 comments