Only priest ordained for Archdiocese of New York this year - his 1st. Mass is EF Mass

[JReducation]

When I spoke about the SSPX, this is what I was trying to say. As much good as the SSPX does, it will not resolve the problems for the dioceses, because they are not diocesan. Dioceses need to have their own men. The SSPX, FSSP and the other societies of apostolic life are externs. They cannot be depended on for the long run. They are not incardinated into the dioceses. Like religious, the societies of apostolic life enter a diocese with a contractual agreement. They are free to pull their men out at any time. They are also free not to enter a diocese if the superior and the bishop cannot reach an agreement that is mutually satisfactory. Even if the SSPX wee erected as a prelature, if it follows the rules that Opus Dei follows, its pastoral activity is limited to those who seek them out. Prelatures don’t go out seeking faithful… They are not allowed to compete with the host diocese. At least, that’s the current law that governs the only prelature that we have. We have no idea if this is going to change or even when.

We really need to push vocations to the dioceses and to separate the vocation to the religious life from the priesthood. Some men are called to both, but not all. Some will be called to be parish priests, but not all.

The distribution of vocations between dioceses, religious and societies of apostolic life, along with the social, political and economic reality in which we live is going to force us to redefine and maybe redesign the parish model.

I’m very happy that the SSPX has about 500 priests. The difference here is that the SSPX exists for the sake of the priesthood. Other societies and religious communities do not or no longer do so, as we’ve returned to our original charism. Look at the Missionaries of Charity. They have 2,000 priests, not a single one is ever allowed to serve in a parish or any Catholic institution that is not a Missionary of Charity house.

I hope this presents a clearer picture of what is happening today with priestly vocations. Many of these organizations that put out statts don’t give us the background information. They just give us numbers. They’re not telling us what is causing those numbers. It can easily come across as a negative reflection on seminaries or religious communities, until you learn that there is a reason behind them, which is not necessarily a weakness, but a change in paradigm and changes in society that are beyond the control of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TimothyH]

One of the answers is not as easy as it sounds. Let the encouragement start from the family.

This, I think, is very insightful.

Contraception and small families which result have been a major factor in reduced vocations. Every Catholic had a brother or uncle who was a priest or a cousin who was a postulant in a convent back in the day.

Nowadays we have 2.3 kids and even then grow up, leave home and move half way across the country. The young are just not exposed to priests and religious except for an hour on Sunday and when the parish school takes a field trip to the monastery. Hispanics don’t do that and this is where the vocations are coming from, as well as the Asians. They buy a big house and live in it with their big extended family their whole life. Children who leave the nest tend to stay in the same city or town as the rest of the family. When an older brother or cousin becomes a priest or religious, the whole family has direct exposure and it is not seen as some kind of wierd, abonormal lifestyle choice but as a legitimate option which can lead to great joy and happiness.

I think vocations start in the family and that contraception is killing the family, and vocations as a result.

-Tim-

 

[prettiefly]

Father was the only diocesan priest ordained for the Archdiocese.
There were 35 priests ordained in NY for the different religious communities that live and serve in NY.

Yes, and the OP says that, ‘The bad news is only one priest was ordained for the Archdiocese of New York this year.’
It is a shame that such a huge Archdiocese only has one vocation of and for it’s own. I pray that perhaps Fr. D’Arcy will pave the way, will be an inspiration for more Traditional vocations to the Archdiocese of New York~

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I know for myself, seeing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass said in such a reverent manner is inspiring.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Arlington has only one parish staffed by religious.

And interestingly enough, they are Franciscans.

 

[JReducation]

This, I think, is very insightful.

Contraception and small families which result have been a major factor in reduced vocations. Every Catholic had a brother or uncle who was a priest or a cousin who was a postulant in a convent back in the day.

-snip-

I think vocations start in the family and that contraception is killing the family, and vocations as a result.

-Tim-

Of course we have to stop and ask ourselves what are the social conditions that triggered the contraception mentality. In my Gospel of Life ministry I find that people are on fire when they discover that they have been duped by the media and the world around them into fearing children, parenthood, pregnancy and commitment.

When our brothers preached against contraception, the response was bland. The typical Traditionalist was on board. The mainstream Catholic sat there looking at us as if to say, “I didn’t expect you guys to say anything different.”

As we moved to create the Franciscans of Life, we began to spend hours, days and months studying the contraception mentality. Boy did we learn a lot. The competition is ferocious. Because the Church presents contraception in an ethereal manner. Secular culture presents it with concrete and allegedly positive results. But it fails to tell its marketing audience, it’s agenda.

We threw out the whole “Contraception is a mortal sin” message and we preached, “You’ve been duped and here is the who and the why. All falsehoods lead to sin.” That gets people’s attention.

Unfortunately, our community is very small, because it’s fairly new. But we reach about 600 families each year since we began doing this in 2009. These families come back for more education, more guidance and spiritual direction and many join us in our work

Yes, and the OP says that, ‘The bad news is only one priest was ordained for the Archdiocese of New York this year.’
It is a shame that such a huge Archdiocese only has one vocation of and for it’s own. I pray that perhaps Fr. D’Arcy will pave the way, will be an inspiration for more Traditional vocations to the Archdiocese of New York~

http://sthughofcluny.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IMG_8715.jpg

I know for myself, seeing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass said in such a reverent manner is inspiring.

I would not say this too loudly. That’s one of the problems that many clergy and religious have with the Traditionalist movement. Many of us know that people mean well. They simply speak from the heart, without stopping to think of how they are heard by their audience.

We have to encourage each other to think about how we sound, not to us, but to the mainstream Catholic, especially the religious superiors and bishops. We always want to present the option of the EF, not Traditionalism.

Traditionalism involves a lot more than what the Holy Father had in mind when he published SP and UE.

Also, every vocation to an order or to a diocese that is in good standing is traditional. Dioceses and orders have their traditions and cultures that they try to protect. Pope Benedict said as much to a group of bishops making their Ad Limina visits about a month ago. He reminded them of the duty to protect the local culture and integrate whatever can be integrated into Catholicism. Not everything Catholic has to be Roman or European to be Catholic.

My wording for this would be, “I hope more priests in NYC will celebrate the EF.”

We’re not asking anyone to be as traditional as the SSPX. We’re not asking anyone to set themselves apart from their brother priests. We’re not asking anyone not to celebrate the EF and OF. We’re just asking for what the Church allows, diocesan priests who would be willing to celebrate the EF.

I’m saying this from personal experience. Many Franciscan communities had a big issue with this and there were some very hurt people who should have been hurt. They thought that the EF was being imposed on them and that they were being told that if they did not align themselves with this movement, they were outside of tradition. There were letters with questions to Rome, the Holy Father, the superiors general as well as letters expressing real hurt that they were being excluded from Catholic tradition.

Of course, we know that SP and UE never said such a thing. People ran with it and tried to do just as many did with the Vatican II documents. They read into it what they wanted to see and applied it. We know that the Holy Father has always upheld the mainstream, while trying to correct the liturgical deviations from the OF.

It’s better to ask for more diocesan priests who will be willing to celebrate the EF rather than more who will be traditional; because that leaves out of tradition those who don’t like to celebrate the EF. That’s not fair.

In our diocese we ordained six. All of them said that they do not like to celebrate the EF and wanted guarantees from pastors that they would never be asked to do so. The Archbishop is the only one who celebrates is regularly. I believe that he’s trying to take the fear out of it.

MY GUESS is that he’s trying to show that you don’t have to become FSSP or SSPX just because you celebrate the EF. Those who become FSSP or SSPX have a very specific vocation to that way of life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

It’s better to ask for more diocesan priests who will be willing to celebrate the EF rather than more who will be traditional; because that leaves out of tradition those who don’t like to celebrate the EF. That’s not fair.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Hi Br. JR,

I don’t think it’s a matter of fair or not fair. The majority of Catholics are not traditionalists, so I’m sure they are praying for priestly vocations in general.

If we would like to see more traditional priests, can we not ask our Father for the desire of our hearts? Is it a less perfect prayer?

God’s will is done regardless.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

It’s better to ask for more diocesan priests who will be willing to celebrate the EF rather than more who will be traditional; because that leaves out of tradition those who don’t like to celebrate the EF. That’s not fair./QUOTE]

Brother JR, the single most unifying definition of the term “traditional Catholic” is a love for the EF. It stretches the word to meaninglessness if a priest can say “I’m a traditional Catholic who doesn’t like to celebrate the EF.”

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

Hi Br. JR,

I don’t think it’s a matter of fair or not fair. The majority of Catholics are not traditionalists, so I’m sure they are praying for priestly vocations in general.

If we would like to see more traditional priests, can we not ask our Father for the desire of our hearts? Is it a less perfect prayer?

God’s will is done regardless.

What we ask God and what we say to others can’t always be the same. God always knows what we mean, people don’t.

JReducation;9333355:

It’s better to ask for more diocesan priests who will be willing to celebrate the EF rather than more who will be traditional; because that leaves out of tradition those who don’t like to celebrate the EF. That’s not fair./QUOTE]

Brother JR, the single most unifying definition of the term “traditional Catholic” is a love for the EF. It stretches the word to meaninglessness if a priest can say “I’m a traditional Catholic who doesn’t like to celebrate the EF.”

• PAX

Not necessarily. If you say that to me, I would object. I attend an EF mass several times a year. Yet, I’m very much a traditionalist. The EF does not define tradition for me. It’s one more element in tradition. That’s how most of us who are religious and clergy feel. When the word is used to mean only those who attend the EF regularly or celebrate it regularly, it leaves out a lot of people who are not regular with the EF, but are very traditional.

I’ll give you a simple example. As of this Sunday I will be superior general of a very traditionalist community, without the EF.

1. Habits all the time,
2. Long unkempt beards
3. One car for 27 men
4. The superior general may never use the car, he must walk, hitchhike or take bus.
5. LOTH is celebrated as it was in 1221, without any kind of chant and mass can only use plain chant and hymns, never Gregorian chant, not even when the EF is celebrated, because Clare and Francis forbade it.
6. No one leaves the house, even for fresh air, without permission
7. No one owns anything more than two habits, one pair of jeans and a work shirt, a bible and a breviary, two pens and a pad.
8. No radios, TV, internet for anyone except the superior general
9. Chapter of faults every Wed night
10. Use of the discipline
11. No one may use the title Father, except the superior
12. No one may have any money
13. No one is payed a salary or a stipend, we live on donations
14. No one may serve anyone from the middle class unless their life is in danger
15. No one may live among the middle class
16. Everyone must work
17. No one may live in a priory or a monastery, because it was not done in 1209.
18. No one may wear a crucifix, because Francis prohibited it. Your habit is your cross and you’re the corpus.

I can keep going, but you get the picture. These men consider themselves traditionalist. Who’s going to say that they’re not, because they celebrate the EF a few times a year?

That is the problem that others have with that word. Before this mess the word tradition was broad. It included the different cultures of dioceses, religious orders, nations and even towns.

For example, I will never forget how the Italians have wonderful traditions for celebrating the patron saints of the their towns and the nation. I found them to be an inspiration, when I was there as a student. We don’t make such a big fuss over saints in the USA. We have several American saints, most people never got into the let’s have a St. Elizabeth Ann Seton festival and close it with a big procession and mass.

The word has to recover its meaning so as not to exclude people who are well within tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Brother JR, the single most unifying definition of the term “traditional Catholic” is a love for the EF. It stretches the word to meaninglessness if a priest can say “I’m a traditional Catholic who doesn’t like to celebrate the EF.”

• PAX

A traditional Catholic by your definition, perhaps. Someone who comes from a tradition where the EF has never (or should not have been) the norm could also be a traditional Catholic.

 

[TrueLight]

Traditionalist vs. Traditional

I know folks don’t like to hear this, but there IS a difference.

Looks like Wikipedia is mostly right.

Traditionalist Catholics are Roman Catholics who believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65).[1] They are most commonly associated with an attachment to the Mass liturgy in general use in that time period (often called the Tridentine Mass, the Traditional Mass or the Latin Mass), but their theological and practical concerns are broader in scope.

Traditionalist Catholics are distinct from other groups of Catholics who have a broadly “traditional” or conservative outlook, since the latter tend to accept in general terms the legitimacy of the changes associated with the Second Vatican Council.

You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

I’m not pitting one form against another and I’m not saying if it is fair. I’m saying that is the reality.

 

[Melchior_1]

You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.

So I guess the other 22something Rites and those pesky Anglicans who just got their own “Anglican Use” can never be a “traditionalist” Catholic?

 

[TrueLight]

So I guess the other 22something Rites and those pesky Anglicans who just got their own “Anglican Use” can never be a “traditionalist” Catholic?

Again, traditionalist versus traditional.

I think a lot of people who are traditional specifically avoid calling themselves traditionalists because they are aware of the connotation. I have heard a number of people say “I’m a traditional Catholic, but not a traditionalist”.

In my experience, traditionalists also call themselves traditional. Whether one can be traditional and not prefer the EF is debatable, but I don’t think there is any debate in the term traditionalist.

 

[JReducation]

Traditionalist vs. Traditional

I know folks don’t like to hear this, but there IS a difference.

Looks like Wikipedia is mostly right.

You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.

That is just not reality.

Wikipedia is repeating what Traditionalists say about themselves. And we’re saying that this definition does not fit into ecclesiology. It’s not even ecclesioilogical. It’s an ecological term, if one thinks about it. It’s describing a specific human environment inside a larger one. It’s really describing a tetrad, not ecclesiology. Since so many people no so little about Human Ecology, they won’t understand the word in its truest meaning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

Wikipedia is repeating what Traditionalists say about themselves.

Probably. Who would know better, then the group which applies this term to itself.

I would love to look into how the term was coined. The people who coined the term “traditionalist” know what it means.

And we’re saying that this definition does not fit into ecclesiology. It’s not even ecclesioilogical. It’s an ecological term, if one thinks about it. It’s describing a specific human environment inside a larger one. It’s really describing a tetrad, not ecclesiology. Since so many people no so little about Human Ecology, they won’t understand the word in its truest meaning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I don’t even think the term “traditional Catholic” is ecclesiological at all. Yet it still exists.

 

[ProVobis]

You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.

How about the Latin OF?

 

[TrueLight]

How about the Latin OF?

I would say no.

It is about more than language for the traditionalist, is it not?

Again, I’m referring to the term traditionalist, not a traditional Catholic.

But I want to say that traditionalists use the term traditional Catholic more so than traditionalist probably.

I personally feel you can be traditional and attend the OF, but I can’t see that applying to someone who calls himself traditionalist.

But I absolutely do not agree with the definition that is often used on CAF that a traditional Catholic is one who follows the teaching of the Church. That is just not correct.

Back on topic, I would love to see more vocations for those who know and love to celebrate the EF because it is still a trial for many folks to get an EF in their parish and sometimes the excuse that is used is that there is not a priest who knows how to celebrate it.

 

[Timothysis]

I would not say this too loudly. That’s one of the problems that many clergy and religious have with the Traditionalist movement. Many of us know that people mean well. They simply speak from the heart, without stopping to think of how they are heard by their audience.

I was talking recently to a gentleman who attends the Latin Mass at my local Church (I attend the OF). Prior to the current pastor, the much loved monsignor celebrated the EF and attendance to it increased during the years. He has recently been reassigned after the bishop allowed him to remain as pastor for the untypical length of 16 years. The new pastor is a very devout and religious man who speaks latin since he served the EF in his native Malta but he never learned how to celebrate it. He started the process to learn and celebrate the EF at our parish but, according to this gentleman, made some mistakes in the beginning. This, in itself, was enough to cause certain “traditionalists” to leave this Church which has celebrated the EF since 1983. Attendance at the Latin Mass has gone from well over 200 to less than 120. Not only does it call into question the meaning of the term “stable group” but also supports the position that so called “traditionalists” care more about the liturgy than anything else.
How does one justify such a position?

 

[Timothysis]

You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.

And who are you to make such a judgment?

Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

Then it can be said that “traditionalists” are sadly mistaken in their understanding of the Church and the sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[TrueLight]

And who are you to make such a judgment?

Uh huh. That is the CAF way of saying “shut up”.

Anytime someone expresses an opinion, which a lot of posts are, which someone doesn’t like, then the “who are you to…” card is flashed.

Then it can be said that “traditionalists” are sadly mistaken in their understanding of the Church and the sacrifice of the Mass.

Okay. I’m just saying that is a common theme.

 

[Big_Feet]

Traditionalist vs. Traditional
You cannot be a traditionalist and say you prefer the OF.
Traditionalists tend to believe the EF is more efficacious etc.

It is kind of like saying one is a liberal or conservative Catholic.
Let’s stop putting monikers on it. One is either Catholic or they are not!.
They may be from one of the 23 Catholic Churches, but they are STILL Catholic!

I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church. There are numerous different liturgies used within the Roman Catholic Church, all of which are valid and acceptable. Each esteemed in its own way.

I feel by having a “Traditional Catholicism” forum on this site, it only encourages this feeling of separateness and exclusivity that should not be existent within the Church, especially within a specific Church (i.e. Roman Catholic Church). Since there are forums for Eastern Catholics, and those for Non Catholics, why not have one for “Roman Catholicism,” and understand that it is for discussion among and around the Roman Catholic Church?