K
KnightOfSPUD
Guest
I heard that there used to be about 14 grades of monsignori then, what are they and I alrady am informed of the three present classes.
- Status
B
bardegaulois
Guest
Here’s what I can find:
The Domestic Prelates:
The Domestic Prelates:
- Protonotaries Apostolic, who attest all important papal documents.
- Auditors of the Rota, who are canonists.
- Clerks of the Reverend Chamber, who partook in treasury functions.
- Domestic prelates who were voters and referees of the Apostolic Signatura.
- Abbreviators of the greater part, who transcribed papal bulls.
- Other domestic prelates, who were not any of the above.
- Private Chamberlains Supernumerary.
- Honorary Chamberlains in Purple.
- Honorary Chamberlains extra Urbem.
- Private Chaplains
- Honorary Private Chaplains
- Honorary Private Chaplains extra Urbem
- Ordinary Chaplains
E
Elizium23
Guest
Pope Francis has made new Monsignori scarcer than hen’s teeth. Wikipedia says, “Even since Pope Francis decided to grant no requests from bishops for appointments to ranks higher than that of Chaplain of His Holiness, existing members of all three ranks established by Pope Paul VI retain their membership. Higher ranks are still attained by virtue of membership of certain chapters of canons or because of being a vicar general, and new appointments continue to be made for officials of the Roman Curia and the diplomatic service of the Holy See.”
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The best article on the subject historically, addressing your specific question, is from the 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
newadvent.org/cathen/10510a.htm
Of course, that article was superannuated by the motu proprio Pontificalis Domus of Blessed Pope Paul VI issued 28 March 1968, which yielded the three classes with which you relate that you are acquainted. Protonotaries Apostolic and Prelates of Honor are still created in limited and specific instances, as related by another commenter, but the vast majority of the diocesan priests throughout the dioceses of the world could only now be eligible to become Chaplains of His Holiness. One of the conditions for that title being conferred is that the priests proposed are above the age of 65.
newadvent.org/cathen/10510a.htm
Of course, that article was superannuated by the motu proprio Pontificalis Domus of Blessed Pope Paul VI issued 28 March 1968, which yielded the three classes with which you relate that you are acquainted. Protonotaries Apostolic and Prelates of Honor are still created in limited and specific instances, as related by another commenter, but the vast majority of the diocesan priests throughout the dioceses of the world could only now be eligible to become Chaplains of His Holiness. One of the conditions for that title being conferred is that the priests proposed are above the age of 65.
C
commenter
Guest
The drastic decrease in the “grades” between priest, and bishop, goes along with the earlier reclassification of Minor Orders, so that now a man is not considered “ordained” at all until he is made a deacon. There used to be “clerics” leading towards ordination, some of whom would never go on to diaconate or priesthood, but others would. This “grey area” between laity and ordained has been eliminated.
The focus now is on the sacrament itself: deacon, priest, bishop. The diaconate was always a full “ordination” in itself, but most laity didn’t realize that, just as they used to overemphasize the importance of “Monsignor”, as a “rank”. In the future I think the position of “Monsignor” will be eliminated totally, with all existing ones retaining their title.
I think at an earlier time minor orders, and monsignori, were ok. But when Holy Orders is so misunderstood, and under attack, the Church has to refocus on the basics. It’s not a question of the Church changing its teaching, but changing practices that have become more misunderstood in our confusing times.
The focus now is on the sacrament itself: deacon, priest, bishop. The diaconate was always a full “ordination” in itself, but most laity didn’t realize that, just as they used to overemphasize the importance of “Monsignor”, as a “rank”. In the future I think the position of “Monsignor” will be eliminated totally, with all existing ones retaining their title.
I think at an earlier time minor orders, and monsignori, were ok. But when Holy Orders is so misunderstood, and under attack, the Church has to refocus on the basics. It’s not a question of the Church changing its teaching, but changing practices that have become more misunderstood in our confusing times.
O
otjm
Guest
I can’t speak to other areas of the US - or anywhere else - but it seems to me that precious little of bestowing the honorary title of Monsignor was just about as scarce during the reign of John Paul 2; at last, it was in this archdiocese.
I had two relatives, one on each side of my family, who were monsignors when I was a child - but that was in the 50’s, and there didn’t seem to be much at all about naming any priests as monsignor for a long time after that.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
I’ve got a vocation to be Private Chamberlain Supernumerary.
If women are admitted I’ll go into schism.
If women are admitted I’ll go into schism.
K
KnightOfSPUD
Guest
the english translator of the pope, msgr. miles, what degree is he?
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Allowing for singular versus plural, it means “Our Lord”. And after what the real One said.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Actually, there were many priests who received the honor of monsignor under both John Paul and Benedict. It was, however, a two step process (normally) for priests in their dioceses. The pope named them but they were ordinarily named upon the recommendation of their diocesan bishop – and there were various dioceses that chose either not to seek the honor at all or to do so only very rarely.
O
otjm
Guest
Ours apparently one of them.
One of my classmates in seminary has made monsignor; another one a year ahead of me, and one who was a year or two behind me made bishop; all within the last couple of years.
C
Chatter163
Guest
I lived in the Archdiocese of Miami for many years. Under Archbishop Edward McCarthy (1977-1994), there were basically no monisgnori named. But under his immediate successor, Archbishop John Clement Favalora (1994-2010), there were many named–so many that some priests joked that he was making up for all the years that his predecessor did not name them.
I disagree with the prediction that Monisgnori will ultimately be eliminated. Under a different pontiff, the situation could easily shift, and while some bishops might still then choose not to name them, there would be plenty of others who would likely do so. A bishop once told me that the naming of monsignori was a way of honoring priests who render excellent service to the Church, especially for those who were unlikely to become bishops, and as such, were good for priestly morale.
I disagree with the prediction that Monisgnori will ultimately be eliminated. Under a different pontiff, the situation could easily shift, and while some bishops might still then choose not to name them, there would be plenty of others who would likely do so. A bishop once told me that the naming of monsignori was a way of honoring priests who render excellent service to the Church, especially for those who were unlikely to become bishops, and as such, were good for priestly morale.
K
KnightOfSPUD
Guest
Probably you’re right. After all, His Holiness said he was considering to resign if the situation demands it. Probably a successor with conservative ideas might bring back the monsignori.
O
otjm
Guest
Bestowing honor on another individual is neither liberal nor conservative, as both sides do such acts.
As to the Pope, one of the issues that has marked his reign is an expressed concern about clericalism within the clergy (and that is by no means limited to priests, as it addresses both bishops and Cardinals as well). The Pope has clearly shunned some of the “accoutrements” of the papal office; he has not done so as a commentary on previous Popes, but rather as a witness to others of how he sees clergy should live out their lives.
This has not set well among those who feel that the “pomp and circumstance” of office is important. And lest anyone try to tie this to conservatives, there have been a plethora of not so conservative bishops who have had their share of “pomp and circumstance”.
Of Christ, it was said that He “had no place to lay His head”, and the Gospels are replete with examples of not only Christ, but also the Apostles living a life of service and poverty (with a particular example of St. Paul).
Yes, another Pope may bring back more designations of monsignor. Whether that is good or bad is less about awarding the title than it is about how the one being so titled conducts themselves. Having had two relatives and a classmate who were or are monsignors, and all of whom were/are humble people, it is not the title but the person and how they react.
Should the Pope, who lives a life of humility, determine that he does not wish to have the title bestowed, I fail to see that such is a “liberal” view, or makes him into a liberal.
For far, far, far too long, the commentary of “princes of the Church” has been around. John Paul 2 spoke about being “shepherds” and in looking at the two designations, the latter strikes me as more Gospel oriented. Perhaps the Pope sees the issue of the title “monsignor” as a similar issue; given that he comes from South America, there may be something in that life experience which propels the issue. I, for one, am not going to criticize.
Nor am I going to use this as a not so subtle means of categorizing him.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
The presence of the monsignori…in the Roman curia, in the Holy See’s diplomatic corps, and in the dioceses around the world…is of very long standing and of very special meaning. I am glad the nominations are at least unaffected in the offices of the Vatican and in the diplomatic corps. I hope the decision concerning the elevation of monsignori in the dioceses will be one day re-visited.
K
KnightOfSPUD
Guest
Which reminds me. Why do some bishops like to use the Monsignor title rather than their Most Rev. I’ve seen these instances while I was reading the autobiography of my congregation’s founder. The bishops use Dr, Don, Dom, or Msgr. Likewise people in this age also say Msgr. even though they’re consecrated.
B
bardegaulois
Guest
Titles of clergy are not universal throughout Christendom, but are set by national convention. Thus, we would call any priest “Father” in English, but in French, “mon père” would refer only to a religious priest, secular priests generally being “Monsieur l’Abbé.” Likewise, Monseigneur or Monsignor is the title used for bishops by convention in France and Italy, while in the English-speaking world it refers only to a prelate who is not consecrated a bishop (and is an honorary title, not a position).
I hope that clarifies things.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
For us, in Europe, especially the countries of a Romance Language, the title (Monseigneur, Monsignore) is readily understood by us as the address “My Lord,” when we hear it in our language.
It is the term proper to a prelate, whether it is a bishop or an abbot or an honorary prelate…i.e. what the English speaking world knows as a “monsignor.” I actually have found most English speakers not to associate saying Monsignor with “My Lord” but simply as an appropriated title.
(It is also legitimate to address, for example, the Prince of Monaco, in French, as Mon Seigneur, especially after using his full title the first time in the conversation.)
Don is used in Italy to distinguish those of us who are of the secular clergy from the regular clergy; the regular clergy are addressed normally as Padre. Not that I mind on the occasions when I am called Padre (or Father, if in English). It is a most beautiful and touching thing to be called!
(The French equivalent is that diocesan priests are Abbé while Religious priests are Père…although an abbot, interestingly, is addressed in French as Père Abbé!..or Monseigneur.)
When I was with the bishop who ordained me, in private I would often call him Don but always Monsignore or Eccellenza in a public setting. For me, it was a matter of familiarity and the closeness of working together. He is dead now and I would honestly only use the more formal when speaking with his successor.
Dom, of course, is short for Dominus. When a document is sent to me in Latin, it will be addressed with Dom., Dominus or Pater but, honestly, the principal time I otherwise use Dom personally is with monks…and then most particularly Benedictines of the English Congregation.
Personally, I have not found Monsignor used frequently by bishops outside Europe…I do see it used for bishops in the secular media in ways not always in keeping with the countries where it is not done – but then this is by people who typically do not know protocol and who do not distinguish between what is the custom in, say, Italy or France and what is the custom in the United States or the non French speaking parts of Canada, for example…in those places, Monsignor is uniquely a title of honor for priests.
It is the term proper to a prelate, whether it is a bishop or an abbot or an honorary prelate…i.e. what the English speaking world knows as a “monsignor.” I actually have found most English speakers not to associate saying Monsignor with “My Lord” but simply as an appropriated title.
(It is also legitimate to address, for example, the Prince of Monaco, in French, as Mon Seigneur, especially after using his full title the first time in the conversation.)
Don is used in Italy to distinguish those of us who are of the secular clergy from the regular clergy; the regular clergy are addressed normally as Padre. Not that I mind on the occasions when I am called Padre (or Father, if in English). It is a most beautiful and touching thing to be called!
(The French equivalent is that diocesan priests are Abbé while Religious priests are Père…although an abbot, interestingly, is addressed in French as Père Abbé!..or Monseigneur.)
When I was with the bishop who ordained me, in private I would often call him Don but always Monsignore or Eccellenza in a public setting. For me, it was a matter of familiarity and the closeness of working together. He is dead now and I would honestly only use the more formal when speaking with his successor.
Dom, of course, is short for Dominus. When a document is sent to me in Latin, it will be addressed with Dom., Dominus or Pater but, honestly, the principal time I otherwise use Dom personally is with monks…and then most particularly Benedictines of the English Congregation.
Personally, I have not found Monsignor used frequently by bishops outside Europe…I do see it used for bishops in the secular media in ways not always in keeping with the countries where it is not done – but then this is by people who typically do not know protocol and who do not distinguish between what is the custom in, say, Italy or France and what is the custom in the United States or the non French speaking parts of Canada, for example…in those places, Monsignor is uniquely a title of honor for priests.
K
KnightOfSPUD
Guest
The Msgr. is sometimes being used here in the Philippines though we are at the thin line of rejecting and accepting our Hispanic heritage. The problem is that sometimes the bishops don’t understand why they are still called Msgr. even though they have never been a Msgr. in their career.
Thanks so much that clears up so many questions. And I mean a whole lot of other questions which occurred to me while I was studying my congregation’s history
- Status