Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 30th Jul 2014 at 15:38pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Bishop Roche named as secretary of liturgy department in Rome

By on Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Bishop Roche (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Bishop Roche (Photo: Mazur/catholicchurch.org.uk)

Pope Benedict XVI has appointed Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, raising him to the dignity of archbishop at the same time.

Bishop Roche, 62, stepped down as chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy earlier this year after a decade in the role. During that time he had overseen the drafting of the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

As secretary he will be the Vatican’s number two on liturgy, serving under Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, who has been nicknamed “Little Ratzinger”.

Bishop Roche said: “I have to confess that I was very surprised and shocked by the news of this appointment. I am sorry to be leaving the Diocese of Leeds with its priests and people whom I have loved very much. I shall miss them enormously.

“I am, however, aware and deeply humbled by the confidence Pope Benedict XVI shows in me in entrusting me with this responsibility. I shall do my best to fulfil the task that lies ahead.”

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of the bishops’ conference of England and Wales, said: “It is a great honour for England and Wales that one of our bishops has been given this responsibility in service of the Apostolic See. Bishop Arthur has our full support and prayers as he undertakes this role. We will miss him very much.”

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    I’ll give it about an hour before somebody starts trying to spin this as an anti-”Magic Circle” move from Pope Benedict!!!

  • am-s

    That long?

  • Burt

    I don’t know if it’s anti “magic Circle” or pro. But when i read:  ‘
    Pope Benedict XVI has appointed Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments’
    I was also surprised and shocked as Bishop Roche said he was.
    I said to myself “Doh!” in a Homeresque  way. Like someone just told me they appointed Ian Huntley to babysit their kids.

  • nytor

    He’s been promoted because of ICEL. At least it means he won’t get Liverpool. The way is clear for Bishop Davies ;)

  • nytor

    Well, to be fair the new translation, in which he had a significant hand, is better than the old, and as long as he is kept out of matters pertaining to the EF or to the enforcement of Redemptionis Sacramentum it should be alright.

  • Guest

    Many congratulations to His Grace! An excellent addition to the Congregation.

  • South Saxon

    +Arthur is hardly the most popular member of the hierarchy. His drastic closure of churches, particularly around Pontefract and Wakefield, won him few friends.

  • Fathershelton

    I know the Holy Father must have a long-term plan in making this appointment, but it seems to me he has just undone all the good he has accomplished for the Sacred Liturgy during his pontificate.  The new Secretary for Worship and Sacraments is to be a man with little obvious love for the Roman liturgical tradition?  How can this be?  It becomes harder to blame the SSPX for their fear of constant Vatican wavering.  

  • nytor

    I know. My immediate reaction was “not going to Liverpool then”. His removal from this country is a boon, as long as he doesn’t do too much harm in Rome. Anyone know what his titular new archiepiscopal see is? I can’t find it anywhere.

  • Cestius

    The new translation may be more faithful to the original Latin, but they should have got someone of a literary bent to sort out the readability and put it into good English that flows.  As it is, it’s clunky and doesn’t read well.  Whatever the other faults of the old version, it did read smoothly.

  • teigitur

    Oh God!

  • nytor

    Agreed. The best option of all, of course, is to use no translation at all…

  • nytor

    It’ll be alright. As long as he never makes prefect.

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    Yes. Definitely.

  • Parasum

    He’s been given Rusticiana:

    http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News-Releases/Latest/Pope-appoints-Bishop-Arthur-Roche-to-senior-role-in-Rome/Bishop-Roche-s-Biography

    ## “catholic-ew” ? Hmmm…

    OTOH, to complicate things, there is this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Roche

    “Since July 2002, Roche has been chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, which oversees the translation of the Mass into English. He has earned a fair amount of controversy during his tenure for issuing restrictive guidelines for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum and for closing parishes in his diocese.[1]”

    ## Has he been kicked upstairs ?

    See also:

    http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/d2r41.html

    It’s in the prefecture of Numidia, which was part of the:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture_of_Africa

    of which there is a map here:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/NE_200bc.jpg/986px-NE_200bc.jpg

    info about Numidia being found here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidia

  • Parasum

    Why wasn’t the 1962 English translation (or even that of 1965 ?) adopted, with whatever changes might be required ? A good deal of change would be required, but even though the 1962 Missal had only the Roman Canon, an intelligent, careful, & skilful translator should have no problem in making an accurate yet dignified translation that reads well as liturgical English. 

    People are perfectly able to read non-colloquial English when they come across it in “The Lord of the Rings” – Tolkien deliberately adopted a high style for much of the book - and that style is further from colloquial English than liturgical English is. What seems to bother people with the new translation is (in part), that it adopts the rhetorical devices of the Latin. Why should it not ? The use of some rhetoric comes naturally to people every day – they just don’t notice it.

  • Jeannine

    Bishop Roche’s departure leaves the Leeds Diocese in need of a new bishop. Seems to me Leeds has a good chance of getting a bishop more to your liking.

    Bishop Roche may have been promoted to the Secretary position; but as the article says he will be reporting to the “Little Ratzinger,” an opportunity to learn to love the liturgy.

  • Mike

    He’s left just in time before bankrupting the diocese. Never before has one Bishop single handedly achieved so much damage. Fitting that it is in the same week that another of his priests has been arrested. 

  • OneTimothyThreeFifteen

    He’ll be wanting to replace birettas with bobble-hats given half the chance!

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    You mean go back to Greek, and therefore avoid the faults that occurred when it was translated into Latin. Yes, I agree.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OTCKAYXC6V65WVJUPZFYCCUEUU Lee

    Errggghhh. No, even further back, Hebrew or Aramaic. Greek has a tendency to use one word for meaning a plethora of things. Latin is a tad more concise and precise !

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    That’s an interesting point. The way I see it we either want to go back to the bedrock of our faith and to what the earliest Christians did – in which case it’s Greek, Aramaic of Hebrew – or we want to go for the easiest thing for most people to understand – in which case, the vernacular. 

    Either way, Latin ticks neither box.

  • Emma07

    Wonder who’ll replace him?

  • nytor

    Ha, he’s been rusticated to Rusticiana.

  • nytor

    No, the whole point is that the Church has over the centuries “wandered onto the wider fields of Divine Truth”, as Newman put it. “Going back to what the earliest Christians did” can only ever be bogus. We don’t know for sure exactly what they did, and in any case to take that attitude entirely dismisses centuries of development, of divine inspiration. You express a typically facile post-Vatican II attitude which understands not that of which it speaks.

  • nytor

    “He has earned a fair amount of controversy during his tenure for issuing restrictive guidelines for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum”

    Which, given that he has no right to do anything of the sort, understandably aroused controversy. Maybe a stint in the the congregation will enable him to learn what the rules actually are.

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    And you make the mistake of assuming that those who disagree with you are less educated than you. You also make the mistake of not really reading the posts you respond to.

    Firstly, I understand Newman’s views on the development of Doctrine (and the associated bits and pieces) quite well.

    Secondly, I’m not suggesting going back to the early Church. There are some things from that era that would be good to recover in my view, but you (well, Newman) are right in that the understanding of the faith brought about by centuries of tradition can’t be reversed.

    Rather, I was responding to the ‘no translation at all’ statement. This does rather imply going right back to the source, no? Fair, then, to wonder what that source might be…

  • paulpriest

    Well it’s one of the worst-kept secrets for years that when Bishop Longley was offered Westminster and ‘declined’ ; Cardinal Cormac and the ‘Venerabile mob’ went hell for leather in performing a last minute coup d’etat to guarantee Bishop Roche became Archbishop…

    ..it failed – for reasons which may never be fully known but let’s just say that many of those terrified of the prospect used every trick in the book and every resource/contact and desperate plea they could garner to prevent it.even to the extent of constructing a frantic frenetic Facebook page opposing the potential appointment. Clerics, Cardinals, European/Oceanic bishops, european politicians and  papal doctors and curial secretaries got involved in a no-holds-barred last ditch attempt to ‘Stop Uncle Arthur!!!”

    Let’s make it clear there were many valid reasons for this opposition – the canonical negligence in diocesan visitation – the reckless mishandling of finances and canonical protocols for the closing of churches – the horrendous treatment of priest & parishioners at Allerton Bywater – the misrepresentation of papal pronouncements e.g. Summorum Pontificum didn’t mean what it said but what Cormac and the antagonistic oecumaniacs wanted it to say -  the ludicrous shenanigans of the Vicar general adopting a blog sockpuppet and engaging in online slanging matches on Damian Thompson’s blog [his identity being made all the more obvious by his dyslexia!]  – the diocesan communications officer insulting parish representatives and kicking them out of Hinsley Hall [in the presence of BBC radio!]
    ..the list of travesties just went on and on…the closure of Churches via DVD..the extortionate refurbishment of that Tower of Babble Hinsley hall while other churches and schools were told they had to go [and one of the main reasons was the gaping hole in finances to pay off the clerical abuses in Middlesborough!]
    No we most certainly had enough valid reasons to panic at the proposition that we’d have a Cormac mark Two in Ambrosden Avenue…

    Admittedly as a result we got +Vin – and may God forgive us…

    Do I believe that under Archbishop Roche we’d have had months of ongoing negligent scandalous silence while his Holiness was victim of a hate-filled witch-hunt/stitch-up at the hands of the media over the clerical abuse scandals?

    Do I believe under Archbishop Roche we’d still have the ludicrous Catholic Communications Network that isn’t exactly Catholic in that it promotes Contra-Catholic events, doesn’t communicate and cannot exactly be called a network when it takes five hours to answer a phone and even then either refuses to answer or can’t answer even the simplest enquiry?!!

    Do I believe that Archbishop Roche would have dismantled the administrative network [a hive of activity] at archbishop’s palace and pulled up the drawbridge as happened under +Vin?

    Do I believe that Uncle Arthur’s tenure would mean we’d have had the scandalously hostile and negligent treatment of the Ordinariate? Or an ongoing repudiation of Summorum Pontificum?

    Do I believe that under a Rochey regime we’d have had the CES’s Madam Stannard conspiring with the government in drafting a directly anti-Catholic Health & Sexual education bill? Would Archbishop Roche have permitted the appointment of pro-abortion ex-MP Greg Pope?

    Do I believe we’d have had the fiasco of the Vaughan and the farcical ‘telepathic’ backdown after Govian intervention-no-intervention?

    Would we have had the continuation of the scandal of the John & Lizzie? [who not only haven't stopped the contraception/abortifacient provision, the abortion referrals etc, they're actually gaining some renown for their gender reassignment surgery!!!!]

    Do I believe that if Archbishop Roche had led the ad limina group we would have had the effrontery to defy a papal invitation to attend EF solemn vespers in the Vatican?

    Or do I believe under an Archbishop Roche tenure we’d have had the fiasco of the Papal Visit preparations where we’d spent all the money but hadn’t got Coventry Airport and proposed cancelling a big Beatification Mass and had the audacity to ask the scots to downsie Bellahouston?!! [and all Credit to Damian Thompson for his Spectator article revealing alll this and forcing the intervention of the Government and Chris Patten]. Would an Archbishop Roche have abrogated Conference’s duties to be representative in force in the media and instead hand over the whole remit to the Dastardly & Muttley pair at Catholic Voices [and all the ensuing condom/Civil Partnership/gay marriage debacles?]

    Or would Archbishop Roche have done something about the ongoing pro-Life scandals of  Connexions in Catholic schools and would he have tidied up the Catholic reservations re the regulations of the euthanasia-permitting LCP?

    Would an Archbishop Roche have given jaw-droppingly outrageous media interviews where Catholic teaching was seen as open to debate and provisionally open to change because ‘who knows what’s down the road?’ ?

    Would Archbishop Roche have attended and given an inaugural memorial speech extolling an abortionist among abortionists and gratefully praising the Royal Collage of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians for conscience clauses they didn’t actually have? or tell them that the Church had no business interfering with their clinical decision-making?!!!

    …and would Archbishop Roche have rewritten Catholic teaching and Conference declarations in regard to civil partnerships only to get his legs slapped by the Vatican and be forced to retract and ‘clarify’…?

    …I simply do not know! Which is why I’m wearing out my knees in prayerful regret at my conniving in his non-appointment.

    I’m ecstatic that Bishop Roche is out of Leeds – a role for which he was never suited – he’s an academic and an ecclesiastical politician/networker – not one for restrictive shepherding and administrative/spiritual leadership..it means he’s not being compensated with Liverpool for not getting Westminster & Birmingham [an appointment which - given the Leeds track record - woud have been disastrous] and it means that in the CDW he can really engage in that for which his mind and soul was truly directed [remember for all Uncle Arthur's faults it was his unswerving support of the Arinze position re the new ICEL which ultimately forced the US bishops to toe the line] It’s an intellectual role in which he diverges from Cormac his mentor in being a snail-paced change ‘conservative’ plus he’s now in the safeguards of the auspices of ‘Little Ratzinger’ who will allow the real so far limited academically minded Roche to  come to the fore and shine!!

    It’s the perfect role for the future His Grace and I open my heart in prayer and best wishes for him and wishing all the beneficences and graces in his future mission….

    …sure I doubt anyone is not going to opine that Cormac will be hugging himself with glee at the appointment – thinking this will intensify the English College’s credentials/position among those within the ‘progressive’ official opposition to the Benedictine program – think the old Martini/Sodano etc network and at the centre that venomous  neolithic reprobate Silvestrini who will simply never go away…

    But I sincerely think Cormac is very much mistaken – I think this is an opportunity for the salvation of Uncle Arthur – he’ll be among like-minded associates in the CDW and thriving in that which he loves most..the challenge to his intellect and I think this will lead to a very grateful Archbishop who will enmesh himself in the academic exercise and dissociate himself from the old gossipy macchiavellian machinations of the English college old-dear tabletista…the Holy Father has opened his arms to one of his flock – I think Archbishop Roche will become a dutiful, efficacious and trustworthy commendable servant….much to Cormac’s chagrin…

  • paulpriest

     Oafish comment – Latin being dead has an unextinguishable life and an indomitable universal definitive role of not being subsumed by socio-cultural usage or the zeitgeist. I rarely expect better from you but this really is a nadir in your contributions

  • paulpriest

     and here we go again..that infernal appeal to Newman’s ‘development of doctrine’ by someone who thinks it means the exact opposite of what Newman was actually saying….i.e. that the Truth of the Person of Christ is open to revisionism and relativist pragmatisms according to the altering mindframes of the listeners and the paradigmatic shift of the faithful’s self-unfolding by their metaphysical and psycho-spiritual demands…Protagoras thrives…eho needs a zeitgeist when people are ready to bale out of it at whim anyway?

  • Benedict Carter

    May God help us all. 

  • paulpriest

     Big picture Benedict – remember it’s the big picture…There isn’t that hulking great magic circle monstrosity in the lungs of England any more…having Rochey in Liverpool would have meant the finish of everything – futurechurch-superchurch at the end of the pier – group hug sessions on pastoral enablement and  theology of the body for the over-80s -  with added foxy bingo and aerobics classes , an engelbert humperdinck impersonator, a local boyband, an alternate comedienne, chicken in a basket and the chippendales every other Tuesday…

  • Burt

    When I first heard of this appointment, and that Bishop Roche will be made Archbishop in view of what I knew of his history. 

    However I am concerned at another implication of this appointment in that it involves a reshuffle and Roche is replacing Archbishop Di Noia.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1202720.htm

    Archbishop Di Noia is being reassigned to fill a newly created post of vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.” it seems a new post to aid talks with SSPX.

    I have misgivings about this on the grounds I think it will make it impossible for Bishop Fellay to accept reconciliation. If the SSPX are expected to accept “the entirety of “Nostra Aetate” I see no hope in reconciliation.
    That syncretic document really explains the Assisi fiasco, a low point in reign of (love him though I do) Pope John Paul II.

  • nytor

    I wasn’t talking about going back to the “source”, or however you phrased it. I don’t see it as “going back” at all, in fact.
     
    I was talking about the use of an authentic liturgy in the true Tradition of the Church and indeed as Vatican II (that much-misinterpreted council) intended.
     
    The Council had no intention of abandoning Latin. They wanted to reform the liturgy to make it more accessible, yes, but nothing more. They had no intention of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making the entire thing vernacular. Indeed, when one objector suggested that use of some vernacular would lead to the end of the use of Latin in the liturgy, there was laughter. They simply didn’t believe it would happen.
     
    The fact is that the vernacular novus ordo does not do what the Council intended (and was indeed formulated not by the council but by the appalling Bugnini). It is not reverent and is subjected to all sorts of abuses. It does not encourage faith in the Blessed Sacrament. It encourages priestly and lay grandstanding. Most importantly of all, it is not universal. The point of mass in Latin is that it was the same all over the world, wherever you went. The Church prayed as one, not just in geography but in time with all of the previous generations who had used the same language in the liturgy. Think of all the great saints who died for it – in England, the English martyrs. Who would die for the novus ordo?

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    Sorry Paul… still not playing :)

  • paulpriest

     ..and there you go again – confusing me with someone who gives a damn that it’s you making such comments – it’s the content of what you say that makes me rend my shirt and bewail the state of catechesis and apologetics in the land….

  • paulpriest

     The problem is basically not Nostra Aetate but the 1974 & 1985 commentaries together with the ludicrous comments of Cardinal Kasper which muddies and obfuscates the dogma of the Church Triumphant.

    It’s the problem of the first Abrahamic covenant and its Mosaic ratification being misapprehended as separate from the second – the first comes from God – the second IS God and is inextricably bound to the first – there is no separate ‘get out of jail free card’ for judaism , especially rabbinical judaism – the covenant is a precursor to the new life in baptism and fulfilment in Holy Mother Church. This is never precluded or denied in NA and the Fellay/SSPX problem is their arrogantly reading it one way while denying that it is all inextricably bound to the absolute necessity for baptism either here or by desire or after Death to become one with the Church Triumphant…

    Cardinal DiNoia is a close friend of a friend and is truly a wise old bird whose power of communication and dialoque is inspirationally effective – he’s the SSPX’s best chance to save themselves from their donatistic delusions where they pretend Holy Mother is saying that which it can never say and never would….

    [a small aside - this country has a lot for which to be grateful to Cardinal DiNoia - so say a little prayer in thanks for him]

    But then again Cardinal Gagnon was one of the most sainted Catholic diplomats of the last century and Lefebvre still spat in his face at the eleventh hour [although Gagnon's personal testimony reassured me that he was convinced the archbishop was being browbeaten and coerced into being more pugnaciously hostile by his associates - I don't think it's a secret that a deal was brokered and then Lefebvre returned from discussions and performed a volte-face; implying soft words had made him temporarily soft in the head...
    ...and Blessed John Paul's lengthy emotionally-charged reprimand at the beginning of his papacy didn't help the wounds feel less tender. - it's ironic how we are always more harsh with those whom we know should be on our side and more sensitively excusing of our outright enemy]

    I have neither the patient charity nor the merciful love of the present Holy Father – I’m incredulous at the words of Fellay and feel that if I’d had to listen to his pig-ignorant arrogant presumption and downright defiant rudeness I’d have clocked him one and sent him into the middle of next Tuesday…

    The worst aspect of spiritual pride is ingratitude…

    …and at present given what the Holy Father has done for them and suffered in public and private unjustly for their sake?

    the SSPX must be determined as a bunch of delusional thoughtless ingrates.

  • Burt

    Paulpriest
    you are obviously someone with a lot more inside info than I, so I will hope any of your more optimistic signals that the new appointment of Bishop Roche is not so bad will be something that turns out true.

    I am not a member of SSPX but I do not regard them as the enemy.

    To me they should be thanked for at least working hard to maintain the Tridentine Rite and I wonder if without their presence Benedict XVI (and indeed JP II) would have tried to ensure that it is never to be considered abrogated.

    To me the enemy are those who despite Papal exhortations ripped out altar rails. Forbade my children and their cohorts making their first Holy Communion to learn how to receive Our Lord on their knees, fed direct by Him in guise of a priest.

    The enemy for me are those who brought in altar girls. 

    To me the enemy are Vat II enthusiasts who still think everything in doctrine and moral teaching is up for grabs.

    I was hoping for a reconciliation with SSPX, as a vindication of Lefebvre, and a way for me to be able to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

  • Alidylan73

     Well, well, Pual Priest has spoken we should all stand shoulder to shoulder and hang on his every word!
    Surprised you have enough time to come on here Paul, haven’t you got a member of Catholic Voices to harass and insult?

  • paulpriest

     It’s not exactly insulting to denounce those insulting our reason, our sanity, our patience and the moral and praxic teachings of Holy Mother Church. When [if ever???!!] Catholic Voices start to defend authentic Catholic teaching on any issue i will be there with them shoulder to shoulder reinforcing the bulwark – until then I will continue to criticise them for abrogation of responsibility and dereliction of duty. Actually I’m at home convalescing after being hospitalised. A minor eye injury after I’d spent a long night in a staring match with Dr death Evan Harris and engaging in an emotive barney with Giles Fraser – was I doing the CVeebies job for them? Perhaps…

  • paulpriest

     Holy Mother Church will not be thwarted..God’s will will be done – the SSPX will be home soon enough – it may just take the odd bucket of iced-water and the odd reminder of with whom they are dealing to get them back in…don’t worry – just pray hard that those involved accrue fewer bruises and scars in the process….

    ..as for everything else you’ve said – check out the blog – I agree!

  • Burt

    ‘Holy Mother Church will not be thwarted’

    Indeed, Gates of Hell will not prevail and all that…
    and of course we are instructed to pray “Thy will be done”

    but I am also aware that Our Lord questioned if whether “The Son of Man find any faith when He returns”

    while I know it’s important to understand Gospel texts in context, that line could indicate a Church that appears to fail it’s mission at the end of time.

    As you say It’s all in God’s hands. But the Bishops have a duty and responsibilty to be careful to maintain the True Faith intact.

  • paulpriest

     Oh I’ll concede that point – our crowd seem to have abandoned Catechesis evangelism & apologetics – they’ve neglected virtually all respect and dignity and defence of the sacraments and instead have attempted to pin their sail to the mast of ‘social teaching and activism’ – well surely if that were the case we’d at least have a Pro-Life bishops conference and a thriving Church-backed pro-Life movement?

    Er…NO!

    The late great Phyllis Bowman was forever bewailing the fact that so often Our Chhurch hierarchy was part of the problem!

    Be it support of the mental capacity act, or silence over the HFEA Bill, the screw up over the abortion limit  debate [where Evan Harris ran rings round them with dodgy data that the ill-informed 'experts' couldn't counter], the  ‘gratitude’ for the assisted suicide guidelines…and need I repeat the fiasco with Connexions, the LCP, the John & Lizzie and the scandal of CAFOD?

    Oh we’ve a right bunch at present – look how they’ve screwed up over same-sex marriage by refusing to appeal to Catholic teaching on it? They’ve  now stated that the PURPOSE of marriage is having and raising children – that’s not the purpose – it’s the aim – for the love to overflow into being Graced by God with the gift of children…the utilitarian ‘Purpose’ argument is like Dawkins selfish gene – that the purpose of chickens is to make eggs – that the only reason for a hammer to exist is to make more hammers!
    Hence they will fail…dismally!

    Need we mention Catholic schools where the faith is being repudiated and dismantled? Or the dioceses who are using every trick in the book to destroy the financially burdensome catholic schools and sell the land off to the highest bidder?

    Need we mention the ideological pornography of the ‘Futurechurch’ paradigm where parishes are wiped out and massive central superchurch hubs are created where the professional laity thrive yet the majority of the faithful are left pastorally abandoned to the wolves?

    Oh we’re having a bad time of it…but we have a wonderful man in the barque of Peter and we have the promises of Christ that we will n ot be orphans…

    Hope my friend:Hope!
    Pray too – sometimes with words.

  • Damon

    I see that a bishop’s farewell letter has been published. Is it genuine?
    http://ecclesandbosco.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bishops-letter.html
     

  • Burt

    “..we have a wonderful man in the barque of Peter…”

    Agreed. I was delighted when “Habemus Papam” was announced, because I was praying it would be him.

    I loved his predecessor too.

    But both are disappointing in this way for me. They both feel it is necessary to insist how The Second Council was such a good thing,
    In my view it is so patently obvious it has proved nothing less than a complete disaster.
    The triumph of the heresy of Modernism. The cause of a loss of Grace and faith in the world and the sole reason the Church is failing it’s mission.

     (ironically both John Paul II and Benedict were radical members of the pereti at the time of the Council, who contributed to making the rods for their own backs during their papal reigns)

    As for  our own “bunch at present…”

    Yes their responses to the homosexual ‘marriage’ thing has been predictably pathetic. 

    I feel the whole problem is they ‘educated’ themselves out of a belief in the supernatural. I have doubts deep down many of them believe in eschatological things.
    If they still believe in a hereafter? If they believe in Heaven do they still believe in Hell?

    If they are more than Deists, do they believe in a God that is just so merciful they have lost belief that it’s possible to be damned according to our life choices?

    Despite banging on negatively, I do have hope, and I will try to keep praying. I have grown up kids that our Bishops have contributed in failing, so I have to keep praying.

  • Charles Martel

    I really think you just don’t understand what is going on in the talks between the Vatican and the SSPX. Bishop Fellay SIGNED the Doctrinal Preamble, and everything seemed to be moving toward a solution, but then Levada went away and cooked up a breathtakingly sneaky plot: rewind the talks to a version of the preamble that had been rejected already.
    There are some words for this: bad faith. It’s bad faith to go back and dig up something to throw into talks as a spanner in the works. It means that you simply have no intention of reaching an agreement, and that you were engaged in talks only because you had been ordered to. The whole point of good faith negotiations is that you enter them with a view to reaching agreement. Levada is the one you should be scandalised by, not Fellay.
    So what do we have here? We have a SSPX not excommunicated, but not accepted. We have an SSPX that has signed up to a Doctrinal Preamble but is told that this still isn’t enough. How many more ridiculous hoops are they going to make us jump through while the auto-demolition of the church goes on? The last time I checked, my parish priest was making up the words of the Eucharistic prayer, not wearing a chasuble at Mass, preaching that angels don’t really exist (they are just aspects of the divinity), saying that the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ; only the Vicar of St. Peter. And when has this man EVER been called to account by his bishop or the CDF, despite numerous complaints being made about him? Give me a break, paulpriest!

  • padraig

    The vernacular?If you can understand it that is, depending on what language is being used.Latin was the universal language of the Catholic Church and could be simply followed in any country in the world with the assistance of ones missal regardless of the vernacular.Makes sense to me.

  • padraig

    Delusional, thoughtless ingrates,my my,doesent say much for all that went before V2 does it?The SSPX as far as I can see are  in total continuity with the Catholic religion as it was for many centuries.Now what are these delusions pray tell,being faithful to what has been passed down to them from the Apostles?Maybe if Bishop Fellay had joined the Holy Father and his predecessor JP2 in their forays in Assisi or partook in a few clown Masses I’m sure he would receive a warm welcome from yourself and Bishop Arthur into the Church as it now is.

  • daclamat

    The good news: he’s going. The bad news: he’s in charge of the liturgy.  He’s have condemned the last supper! A wise man said the camel is a horse desigmed by a committee. And the English liturgy?

  • Nat_ons

    Actually the Roman Rite – even in the New Order of Paul VI – retains Hebrew and Greek elements with the Latin, although not of that chronology. Extending the Hebrew and Greek would not, therefore, be so great a wrench – if duly maintaining the original Roman formulas: faithfully rather than dynamically. ‘Dick and Dora have a cat called Fluff’ English may well flow and avoid Latinisms in term and style, that alone does not make suitable for a elevating poetry of a divine liturgy .. even if so a vulgar form may be perfectly appropriate for scriptural translation (as with Jerome’s Latin, if not a late 16th century English or some refined early 21st century taste).