Category: Formation

Materials for the formation of the clergy

“O sacerdos! Tu quis es?” A pastoral epistle to the clergy for the New Year 2026

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment
Coat of arms featuring a heraldic design with a cross, fleur-de-lis, and decorative elements. Below the coat of arms, the Latin phrase 'DEUS CARITAS EST' is inscribed.

Carissimi Filii

Beloved Sons in Christ,

As we stand at the threshold of a new year of grace, I write to you not as an administrator issuing directives, nor as a supervisor evaluating outcomes, but as a father speaking to his sons in the priesthood—men marked by an indelible character, conformed sacramentally to Christ the Eternal High Priest, and entrusted with the care of souls in an age that scarcely remembers what a priest is meant to be.

The words of the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, which I place before you at the opening of this year, cut through all illusion and sentimentality:

O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

“O priest! What are you?
You do not come from yourself, for you come from nothing.
You do not belong to yourself, for you are ordered to God.
You do not live for yourself, for you must live for God alone.
You are not your own, for you are the servant of all.
You are not yourself, for you are another Christ.
What then are you? Nothing—and everything.”

This is not poetry for ornament’s sake. It is metaphysical truth. It expresses the very ontology of the priesthood. The priest does not possess his vocation as one might possess a skill or office; he is possessed by it. Holy Orders imprints a character that cannot be erased, a permanent configuration to Christ the High Priest, whether the world recognises it or not.² As I wrote to you last July, “the key to true discipleship and authentic spiritual progress lies not in being affirmed, promoted, or seen, but in the complete surrender of the possessive self.”³

In an age intoxicated with self-expression, self-definition, and self-sovereignty, the priest stands as a living contradiction. The modern world exhorts man to “be himself,” to assert his identity, to claim autonomy as a right. The priest, however, is commanded to do the opposite: to surrender selfhood, to disappear into Christ, to become transparent to Another.⁴

You were not ordained to affirm yourself, but to be consumed. You were not ordained to be affirmed by the age, but to be faithful to the Gospel. You were not ordained to speak your own word, but to hand on what you yourself received.⁵

This is why the priesthood has always been a sign of contradiction. It stands athwart the spirit of every age—not by political agitation, but by ontological witness. The priest is not his own property. He belongs to Christ, and therefore he belongs to the Church, and therefore he belongs to souls. And many of you—particularly the younger clergy—know what it is to “be treated as if you are irrelevant relics or even rebellious interlopers,” to be “ignored by chancelleries, snubbed by peers, questioned by family, and denied even the companionship of many once called brethren.”⁶

Such a vocation will never be comfortable.

You will be misunderstood. You will be ignored. At times you will be opposed—sometimes even by those within the household of faith. You may labour in obscurity, minister in small flocks, or carry burdens unseen and unacknowledged. Yet heaven measures differently than the world. A single faithful Mass offered in obscurity outweighs a thousand eloquent speeches. A single absolution pronounced in faith repairs more than a thousand editorials ever could. “The hiddenness you endure is not failure—it is purification.”⁷

Remember: the priesthood does not derive its dignity from visibility, numbers, or influence, but from sacrifice. The altar—not the platform—is its centre. The confessional—not the microphone—is its true tribunal. The tabernacle—not the crowd—is its true audience.⁸

You are not called to save the Church by strategy or reform. You are called to be holy. Holiness is the Church’s true reform. Every authentic renewal in the history of the Church has begun not with structures, but with saints.⁹

Therefore, I urge you, my sons: guard your interior life with vigilance. Be faithful to the daily offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Guard the silence of prayer. Love the sacred liturgy, not as a performance but as the action of Christ Himself. Teach sound doctrine without compromise, and do so with charity. Flee from the temptation to accommodate error for the sake of peace. Truth is never served by dilution.¹⁰

Above all, remain priests—priests of the altar, priests of the confessional, priests of the Cross. “The priest is not his own. He belongs to Christ. He is not here to be served, but to serve. Not to shine, but to burn.”¹¹

You are nothing.
And in Christ, you are everything.

With paternal affection and the assurance of my prayers,

Oremus pro invicem.

I.X.

A formal signature of Jerome Seleisi, featuring an ornate script.

Brichtelmestunensis
S. Silvestri Papæ et Confessoris MMXXV A.D.

Footnotes

  1. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), adapted from his meditation on the ontological identity of the priest. The Latin formulation is commonly attributed to Sheen’s paraphrase of traditional spiritual theology.
  2. Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Order, cap. 4: “In the sacrament of Order a character is impressed which can neither be effaced nor taken away.”
  3. Jerome of Selsey, “Humiliati et Absconditi: A Pastoral Epistle to the Clergy” (17 July 2025).
  4. Cf. Galatians 2:20; John 12:24–26.
  5. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 4:1–2.
  6. Jerome of Selsey, ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. St. John Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, Book III.
  9. Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii (1935), on the supernatural dignity of the priesthood.
  10. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass.
  11. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, Chapter 1.

    TAGALOG

    Minamahal kong mga anak kay Kristo,

    Habang tayo ay nakatayo sa bungad ng panibagong taon ng biyaya, sumusulat ako sa inyo hindi bilang isang tagapangasiwa na nagbibigay ng mga kautusan, ni bilang isang superbisor na sumusuri ng mga resulta, kundi bilang isang ama na nakikipag-usap sa kanyang mga anak sa pananampalataya at pagkasaserdote—mga lalaking may tandang hindi na mabubura, na sakramentong hinubog ayon kay Kristo na Walang Hanggang Kataas-taasang Saserdote, at pinagkatiwalaan ng mga kaluluwa sa panahong halos limot na kung ano ba talaga ang pari.

    Ang mga salita ng Kagalang-galang na si Fulton J. Sheen, na inilalagak ko sa inyong harapan sa pagsisimula ng taong ito, ay tumatagos sa lahat ng ilusyon at sentimentalismo:

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
    Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
    Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
    Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
    Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
    Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
    Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

    “O pari! Sino ka?
    Hindi ka nagmula sa iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay mula sa wala.
    Hindi ka para sa iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay itinakdang tunguhin ang Diyos.
    Hindi ka nabubuhay para sa iyong sarili, sapagkat dapat kang mamuhay para sa Diyos lamang.
    Hindi ikaw ang may-ari ng iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay lingkod ng lahat.
    Hindi ka ikaw, sapagkat ikaw ay isa pang Kristo.
    Ano ka nga ba? Wala—at lahat.”

    Hindi ito panulaan para lang sa palamuti. Ito ay isang pilosopikal at teolohikal na katotohanan. Ipinahahayag nito ang mismong ontolohiya ng pagkasaserdote. Ang pari ay hindi basta mayroong bokasyon gaya ng isang kasanayan o tungkulin; siya ay pagmamay-ari nito. Ang Banal na Orden ay nag-uukit ng isang tandang hindi na nabubura, isang permanenteng pagkakahubog kay Kristo bilang Kataas-taasang Saserdote, kahit hindi ito kilalanin ng mundo.² Gaya ng isinulat ko noong Hulyo, “ang susi ng tunay na pagsunod at tunay na paglago sa espiritu ay hindi ang makilala, maitaas, o makita, kundi ang ganap na pagsuko ng makasariling sarili.”³

    Sa isang panahon na lasing sa pagpapahayag ng sarili, sa pagbibigay-kahulugan sa sarili, at sa sariling pamumuno, ang pari ay isang buhay na kontradiksiyon. Tinuturuan ng modernong mundo ang tao na “maging siya mismo,” na igiit ang kanyang pagkakakilanlan, at angkinin ang awtonomiya bilang karapatan. Ngunit ang pari ay inuutusang gawin ang kabaligtaran: isuko ang sarili, maglaho kay Kristo, maging malinaw na salamin ng Isa pa.⁴

    Hindi kayo naordinahan upang pagtibayin ang inyong sarili, kundi upang magpakasayang buo. Hindi kayo naordinahan upang aprubahan ng daigdig, kundi upang maging tapat sa Ebanghelyo. Hindi kayo naordinahan upang magsalita ng sariling salita, kundi upang ipasa ang inyong natanggap.⁵

    Ito ang dahilan kung bakit ang pagkasaserdote ay laging naging isang tanda ng kontradiksiyon. Tumitindig ito laban sa espiritu ng bawat panahon—hindi sa pamamagitan ng pulitikal na pagkilos, kundi ng ontolohikal na saksi. Ang pari ay hindi sarili niyang ari-arian. Siya ay kay Kristo, at samakatuwid ay sa Simbahan, at samakatuwid ay para sa mga kaluluwa. At marami sa inyo—lalo na kayong mas nakababatang klero—ang nakararanas kung paano “itrato na tila kayo’y mga hindi mahalagang relikya o mapaghimagsik na banyaga,” na “hindi pinapansin ng mga opisina ng simbahan, kinukutya ng mga kapwa lingkod, kinikwestiyon ng sariling pamilya, at pinagtatabuyan ng dati’y mga kapatid sa pananampalataya.”⁶

    Hindi kailanman magiging maginhawa ang bokasyong ito.

    Kayo’y hindi maiintindihan. Kayo’y hindi papansinin. Minsan ay lalabanan pa kayo—maging ng mga nasa loob ng sambahayan ng pananampalataya. Maaaring kayo’y maglingkod sa kabila ng kawalang-kilala, magpastol ng maliliit na kawan, o magpasan ng mga pasaning di-nakikita at di-kilala. Subalit iba ang pamantayan ng langit kaysa mundo. Ang isang matapat na Misa na inaalay sa lihim ay higit na mahalaga kaysa sanlibong talumpati. Ang isang absolusyon na binigkas sa pananampalataya ay higit na nakapagpapagaling kaysa sanlibong artikulo. “Ang pagiging nakatago na inyong dinaranas ay hindi kabiguan—ito’y paglilinis.”⁷

    Alalahanin: ang dangal ng pagkasaserdote ay hindi nagmumula sa kasikatan, bilang, o impluwensiya, kundi sa sakripisyo. Ang altar—hindi ang entablado—ang sentro nito. Ang kumpisalan—hindi ang mikropono—ang tunay na tribunal. Ang tabernakulo—hindi ang madla—ang tunay na madla.⁸

    Hindi kayo tinawag upang iligtas ang Simbahan sa pamamagitan ng estratehiya o reporma. Kayo ay tinawag upang maging banal. Ang kabanalan ang tunay na reporma ng Simbahan. Bawat tunay na pagbabagong panloob sa kasaysayan ng Simbahan ay nagsimula hindi sa mga estruktura kundi sa mga santo.⁹

    Kaya’t hinihimok ko kayo, aking mga anak: bantayan ninyong mabuti ang inyong panloob na buhay. Maging tapat sa araw-araw na pag-aalay ng Banal na Sakripisyo. Bantayan ang katahimikan ng panalangin. Ibigin ang sagradong liturhiya, hindi bilang pagtatanghal kundi bilang kilos ni Kristo Mismo. Ituro ang tunay na doktrina nang walang kompromiso, at gawin ito nang may pag-ibig. Tumakas sa tukso ng pakikisama sa kamalian alang-alang sa katahimikan. Hindi kailanman napaglilingkuran ang katotohanan sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalabnaw nito.¹⁰

    Higit sa lahat, manatili kayong mga pari—mga pari ng altar, mga pari ng kumpisalan, mga pari ng Krus. “Ang pari ay hindi kanya. Siya ay kay Kristo. Siya ay narito hindi upang paglingkuran kundi upang maglingkod. Hindi upang magningning kundi upang magliyab.”¹¹

    Kayo ay wala.
    At kay Kristo, kayo ay lahat.

    Sa pagmamahal ng isang ama at sa katiyakan ng aking panalangin,

    ESPANOL

    Amados hijos en Cristo:

    Al encontrarnos al umbral de un nuevo año de gracia, os escribo no como un administrador que dicta directrices, ni como un supervisor que evalúa resultados, sino como un padre que habla a sus hijos en el sacerdocio—hombres marcados por un carácter indeleble, configurados sacramentalmente con Cristo, el Sumo Sacerdote Eterno, y encargados del cuidado de las almas en una época que apenas recuerda lo que verdaderamente debe ser un sacerdote.

    Las palabras del Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, que os presento al inicio de este año, cortan toda ilusión y sentimentalismo:

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
    Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
    Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
    Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
    Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
    Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
    **Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.**¹

    “¡Oh sacerdote! ¿Quién eres?
    No vienes de ti mismo, porque vienes de la nada.
    No llevas a ti mismo, porque eres mediador hacia Dios.
    No vives para ti, porque debes vivir solo para Dios.
    No eres tuyo, porque eres servidor de todos.
    No eres tú mismo, porque eres otro Cristo.
    ¿Entonces qué eres? Nada… y todo.”

    Esto no es poesía ornamental. Es verdad metafísica. Expresa la ontología misma del sacerdocio. El sacerdote no posee su vocación como quien tiene una habilidad o un cargo; él es poseído por ella. El Orden Sagrado imprime un carácter que no puede borrarse, una configuración permanente con Cristo Sumo Sacerdote, aunque el mundo no lo reconozca.² Como escribí el pasado julio, “la clave del verdadero discipulado y del progreso espiritual auténtico no está en ser afirmado, promovido o visto, sino en la entrega total del yo posesivo.”³

    En una era embriagada por la autoexpresión, la autodefinición y la autoafirmación, el sacerdote es una contradicción viviente. El mundo moderno exhorta al hombre a “ser él mismo”, a afirmar su identidad, a reclamar la autonomía como un derecho. El sacerdote, en cambio, recibe un mandato inverso: renunciar a sí mismo, desaparecer en Cristo, volverse transparente a Otro.⁴

    No habéis sido ordenados para afirmaros, sino para ser consumidos. No habéis sido ordenados para ser reconocidos por este siglo, sino para ser fieles al Evangelio. No habéis sido ordenados para hablar por vosotros mismos, sino para transmitir lo que habéis recibido.⁵

    Por eso el sacerdocio siempre ha sido señal de contradicción. Contradice el espíritu de cada época —no con agitación política, sino con un testimonio ontológico. El sacerdote no se pertenece. Pertenece a Cristo, por tanto a la Iglesia, y por tanto a las almas. Y muchos de vosotros —sobre todo los más jóvenes— sabéis bien lo que es “ser tratados como reliquias anticuadas o incluso como elementos perturbadores; ignorados por las cancillerías, rechazados por los compañeros, interrogados por los familiares, e incluso privados de la fraternidad de quienes alguna vez fueron llamados hermanos.”⁶

    Tales vocaciones nunca serán cómodas.

    Seréis incomprendidos. Seréis ignorados. A veces seréis resistidos —a veces incluso por quienes comparten la fe. Puede que sirváis en la sombra, que atendáis rebaños pequeños, o que carguéis cruces invisibles y no reconocidas. Pero el Cielo mide distinto que el mundo. Una sola Misa fiel celebrada en el anonimato vale más que mil discursos elocuentes. Una sola absolución dada con fe repara más que mil editoriales. “La invisibilidad que soportáis no es un fracaso —es una purificación.”⁷

    Recordad: la dignidad del sacerdocio no depende de la visibilidad, del número ni de la influencia, sino del sacrificio. El altar —no la plataforma— es su centro. El confesionario —no el micrófono— es su tribunal. El sagrario —no la multitud— es su verdadero auditorio.⁸

    No habéis sido llamados a salvar la Iglesia con estrategia o reformas. Estáis llamados a ser santos. La santidad es la verdadera reforma de la Iglesia. Toda renovación auténtica en la historia de la Iglesia ha comenzado no con estructuras, sino con santos.⁹

    Por eso os exhorto, hijos míos: cuidad con celo vuestra vida interior. Sed fieles a la ofrenda diaria del Santo Sacrificio. Preservad el silencio de la oración. Amad la santa liturgia, no como espectáculo, sino como la misma acción de Cristo. Enseñad la sana doctrina sin componendas, y hacedlo con caridad. Huid de la tentación de acomodar el error para conservar la paz. La verdad nunca se sirve aguada.¹⁰

    Y sobre todo, permaneced sacerdotes: sacerdotes del altar, sacerdotes del confesionario, sacerdotes de la Cruz. “El sacerdote no se pertenece. Pertenece a Cristo. No está para ser servido, sino para servir. No para brillar, sino para arder.”¹¹

    No sois nada.
    Y en Cristo, sois todo.

    Con afecto paternal y la seguridad de mis oraciones.

    FRANCAIS

    Bien-aimés Fils dans le Christ,

    Alors que nous nous tenons au seuil d’une nouvelle année de grâce, je vous écris non pas comme un administrateur émettant des directives, ni comme un superviseur évaluant des résultats, mais comme un père s’adressant à ses fils dans le sacerdoce — des hommes marqués par un caractère indélébile, configurés sacramentellement au Christ, Souverain Prêtre éternel, et chargés du soin des âmes en une époque qui a presque oublié ce qu’est réellement un prêtre.

    Les mots du Vénérable Fulton J. Sheen, que je vous offre en ce commencement d’année, tranchent dans l’illusion et le sentimentalisme :

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es? Non es a te, quia de nihilo. Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum. Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes. Non es tui, quia es omnium servus. Non es tu, quia alter Christus es. Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

    “Ô prêtre ! Qui es-tu ? Tu ne viens pas de toi-même, car tu viens du néant. Tu ne mènes pas à toi, car tu es médiateur vers Dieu. Tu ne vis pas pour toi-même, car tu dois vivre pour Dieu seul. Tu ne t’appartiens pas, car tu es serviteur de tous. Tu n’es pas toi-même, car tu es un autre Christ. Qu’es-tu donc ? Rien — et tout.”

    Ce n’est pas une poésie pour l’ornement. C’est une vérité métaphysique. Elle exprime l’ontologie même du sacerdoce. Le prêtre ne possède pas sa vocation comme on posséderait une compétence ou une fonction ; il en est possédé. L’Ordre sacré imprime un caractère qui ne s’efface pas, une configuration permanente au Christ Prêtre éternel, que le monde le reconnaisse ou non.² Comme je vous l’écrivais en juillet dernier, « la clé du véritable discipulat et du progrès spirituel authentique ne réside pas dans le fait d’être affirmé, promu ou reconnu, mais dans l’abandon total du moi possessif. »³

    En un temps enivré par l’expression de soi, la définition de soi et la souveraineté de soi, le prêtre est une contradiction vivante. Le monde moderne exhorte l’homme à “être lui-même”, à affirmer son identité, à revendiquer l’autonomie comme un droit. Le prêtre, quant à lui, reçoit un commandement inverse : renoncer à soi, disparaître dans le Christ, devenir transparent à un Autre.⁴

    Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour vous affirmer, mais pour être consumés. Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour être reconnus par ce siècle, mais pour être fidèles à l’Évangile. Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour parler en votre nom, mais pour transmettre ce que vous avez reçu.⁵

    C’est pourquoi le sacerdoce a toujours été un signe de contradiction. Il contredit l’esprit de chaque époque — non pas par l’agitation politique, mais par un témoignage ontologique. Le prêtre n’est pas sa propre propriété. Il appartient au Christ, donc à l’Église, donc aux âmes. Et beaucoup parmi vous — en particulier les jeunes clercs — savent ce que c’est que « d’être traités comme des reliques démodées ou même des perturbateurs indésirables », « ignorés par les chancelleries, rejetés par vos pairs, interrogés par vos proches, et privés même de la fraternité de ceux qu’on appelait autrefois vos frères. »⁶

    Une telle vocation ne sera jamais confortable.

    Vous serez incompris. Vous serez ignorés. Parfois vous serez opposés — parfois même par ceux qui partagent la foi. Vous pourrez œuvrer dans l’ombre, servir de petits troupeaux, ou porter des fardeaux invisibles et non reconnus. Mais le Ciel mesure autrement que le monde. Une seule Messe fidèle célébrée dans l’oubli vaut mieux que mille discours éloquents. Une seule absolution donnée avec foi répare plus que mille éditoriaux. « L’invisibilité que vous supportez n’est pas un échec — c’est une purification. »⁷

    Souvenez-vous : la dignité du sacerdoce ne dépend pas de la visibilité, du nombre ou de l’influence, mais du sacrifice. L’autel — non l’estrade — en est le centre. Le confessionnal — non le micro — en est le véritable tribunal. Le tabernacle — non la foule — en est le vrai auditoire.⁸

    Vous n’êtes pas appelés à sauver l’Église par stratégie ou réforme. Vous êtes appelés à être saints. La sainteté est la véritable réforme de l’Église. Chaque renouveau authentique dans l’histoire de l’Église a commencé non par des structures, mais par des saints.⁹

    Je vous exhorte donc, mes fils : gardez votre vie intérieure avec vigilance. Soyez fidèles à l’offrande quotidienne du Saint Sacrifice. Préservez le silence de la prière. Aimez la sainte liturgie, non comme une performance, mais comme l’action même du Christ. Enseignez la saine doctrine sans compromis, et faites-le avec charité. Fuyez la tentation d’accommoder l’erreur pour préserver la paix. La vérité n’est jamais servie par la dilution.¹⁰

    Par-dessus tout, demeurez prêtres : prêtres de l’autel, prêtres du confessionnal, prêtres de la Croix. « Le prêtre ne s’appartient pas. Il appartient au Christ. Il n’est pas là pour être servi, mais pour servir. Pas pour briller, mais pour brûler. »¹¹

    Vous n’êtes rien. Et dans le Christ, vous êtes tout.

    Avec affection paternelle et l’assurance de mes prières.

    From Heaven’s Yes to Rome’s Caution: Mary Between Doctrine and Diplomacy

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Titular Archbishop of Selsey

    From Co-Redemptrix to Mater Populi Fidelis: Pius XII and the New DDF Note
    When Pope Pius XII wrote Mediator Dei in 1947, his purpose was to safeguard the integrity of Christian worship by reaffirming that all liturgical and devotional life flows from Christ the one Redeemer. Yet in that same encyclical, and later in Mystici Corporis and Ad Caeli Reginam, he articulated a luminous vision of Mary’s participation in redemption. She is the New Eve who offers her Son to the Father, uniting her maternal compassion to His sacrifice, and who continues to distribute the graces of that sacrifice to humanity. The Church therefore honoured her under the titles Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix Omnium Gratiarum — not as rivals to Christ, but as signs of her unique cooperation with Him in the order of grace.⁶

    The new doctrinal note of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mater Populi Fidelis (4 November 2025), revisits these titles with a markedly different emphasis. It affirms Mary’s singular role in salvation history but declares the titles Corredentrice and Mediatrice di tutte le grazie “inopportune,” lest they “obscure the unique mediation of Christ.”⁷ Instead, it invites the faithful to contemplate her primarily as Mother of the Faithful People — a maternal symbol of accompaniment rather than a formal participant in redemption.

    Doctrinal Continuity and the Change of Accent
    Pius XII taught:

    Ipsa cum Filio suo patienti doluit, ac pro nobis se obtulit, ac pro salute humani generis sua materna iura ac maternum amorem immolavit. — Mystici Corporis Christi, §106
    “She suffered with her Son, offering Him for us and immolating her maternal rights and love for the salvation of mankind.”¹

    In this conception, Mary’s cooperation is real, causal, and meritorious by divine association: she cooperates in the act of redemption, though wholly dependent on the Redeemer. Likewise, Mediator Dei insists that “Christ is the one and only Mediator between God and men,” yet acknowledges that “Mary’s mediation shares in His and draws all its efficacy from it.”²

    By contrast, Mater Populi Fidelis states:

    L’uso del titolo di Corredentrice è teologicamente improprio, poiché rischia di oscurare la singolare mediazione del Redentore.
    “The use of the title Co-Redemptrix is theologically inappropriate, as it risks obscuring the unique mediation of the Redeemer.”³

    The Note does not deny Mary’s cooperation but recasts it as discipleship and maternal empathy — a “participation of faith and love” rather than of redemptive causality. Its emphasis is relational, not metaphysical; experiential, not ontological.

    From Participation to Accompaniment: A Disincarnate Shift
    Here the issue runs deeper than terminology. The Incarnation itself is the divine charter of participation: Deus homo factus est ut homo fieret Deus — God became man that man might become God.⁸ By assuming our nature, the Son did not merely draw near to humanity; He redeemed through humanity. Every act of grace therefore presupposes human cooperation elevated by grace — not human passivity.

    Mary’s role in the Incarnation reveals this mystery in its fullness. By freely giving her consent for God’s Son to take flesh in her womb, she became the living bridge between heaven and earth. Through her “yes,” the Word truly became man, and by sharing in His suffering and love, the human nature He took from her became the very instrument of our salvation.⁹ God chose not to save us apart from humanity, but through it — and Mary’s cooperation shows how human freedom, united with divine grace, becomes the means by which redemption enters the world.

    Mary’s fiat and her suffering at Calvary embody this incarnational realism. Through her consent, the humanity the Word assumed is offered back to the Father. Pius XII’s vocabulary of Co-Redemptrix safeguarded that truth: God’s redemptive will operates through a human will perfectly conformed to His own.

    Mater Populi Fidelis, by reducing cooperation to empathy, risks turning that mystery inside out. If Mary’s role is merely affective, then the human instrumentality of redemption is blurred. Grace becomes a gesture of divine proximity rather than a transformation of human nature. In place of metaphysical participation stands psychological association — Mary as companion, not co-operator. This subtle disincarnation endangers not only Mariology but Christology itself, for the whole meaning of the Incarnation is that the divine and human truly act together in one salvific economy.

    St Leo the Great expressed the principle: Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est.⁴ “Each nature performs what is proper to it, in communion with the other.” The Incarnation therefore enshrines cooperation as the structure of salvation itself. To diminish Mary’s participation is to obscure how God’s work continues through His creatures — and how the Church herself is the prolongation of the Word made flesh.

    Tradition and the Risk of Reduction
    The Note rightly warns against confusion or exaggeration, yet it risks overcorrection. The faithful have long understood that Co-Redemptrix implies dependence, not equality — the cooperation of the New Eve with the New Adam. To silence that language is to weaken the incarnational principle: that divine grace truly employs human freedom as its instrument. The faithful cease to see that their sufferings and prayers can be united to Christ’s redemptive act; the Marian model becomes sentiment rather than sacrament.

    The Church’s lex orandi has always proclaimed otherwise: Stabat Mater dolorosa, iuxta crucem lacrimosa, dum pendebat Filius. Devotion to Mary as Co-Redemptrix does not rival the Cross — it magnifies its fruit in the human heart.

    Mary Between Doctrine and Diplomacy
    The title Mater Populi Fidelis is pastorally tender but diplomatically safe. It mirrors the modern preference for inclusive imagery over metaphysical definition. Yet the Church cannot live by diplomacy alone. Doctrinal language is not a barrier to charity but its guardian. As Pius XII reminded the faithful, “The truths of faith are not obstacles to unity but its foundation.”⁵

    To obscure Mary’s co-redemptive office is, indirectly, to weaken the Church’s understanding of her own share in Christ’s saving work. For as the Fathers taught, quod Maria cooperata est in carne, Ecclesia cooperatur in Spiritu — what Mary accomplished in the flesh, the Church continues in the Spirit.¹² The Dicastery’s caution is understandable; its pastoral intent is genuine. Yet beneath every pastoral formula lies a doctrinal reality. The Mother of the Faithful People remains, in the deeper order of grace, the Co-Redemptrix of mankind — not because she redeems with Christ as equal, but because she uniquely, surrendering her body and will – cooperated and allowed His redemption to materialise and be affected through her.

    ¹ Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, §106 (29 June 1943).
    ² Pius XII, Mediator Dei, §84 (20 November 1947).
    ³ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mater Populi Fidelis (4 Nov 2025), §15 (Ital.).
    ⁴ Leo I, Sermo 28 De Nativitate Domini, §3.
    ⁵ Pius XII, Address to the Ecumenical Congress of Assisi (1955).
    ⁶ Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, §§34–39 (11 October 1954).
    ⁷ Vatican Press Office, “Nota Dottrinale Mater Populi Fidelis,” (4 November 2025), press.vatican.va.
    ⁸ Athanasius, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, §54.
    ⁹ Luke 1:38; cf. Lumen Gentium, §§56–57.
    ¹⁰ Pius XII, Allocution to the Marian Congress of Buenos Aires (1954).
    ¹¹ Sequence Stabat Mater, Missale Romanum (1570).
    ¹² Augustine, Sermo 25 de Sanctis, PL 46, 937.

    The Priest’s Prayers at the Ablution of the Chalice: A School of Reverence, a School of the Soul

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    The manner in which the priest purifies the chalice after Holy Communion in the traditional Roman Rite is no trifling detail, but a school of reverence and a daily examen of conscience. In the older form, the ablutions are solemn, careful, and doubled: the chalice is first washed with wine alone; then the thumb and forefinger that touched the Body of Christ are purified with wine and water. These actions are not performed in silence or haste but are accompanied by profound prayers, whispered by the celebrant as he consumes the ablutions.

    In the modern rite, by contrast, the ablutions have been reduced to the level of functional housekeeping. The prayers are gone. The gestures are abbreviated, often postponed until after Mass, sometimes delegated to a deacon or acolyte. The priest may rinse a chalice as he chats with servers, as though dealing with ordinary tableware. And yet, at this very moment, he has just touched the Holy of Holies. What once was a moment of trembling compunction has been stripped of its meaning. The chalice is clean, but the soul of the celebrant may remain untouched. This is no minor alteration: it is emblematic of the desacralisation of the priesthood itself.

    The First Ablution: A Dialogue with God
    After Communion, the priest pours wine into the chalice and consumes it, praying: Quod ore sumpsimus, Domine, pura mente capiamus: et de munere temporali fiat nobis remedium sempiternum — “Grant, O Lord, that what we have taken with our mouth we may receive with a pure mind, and that from a temporal gift it may become for us an eternal remedy.”¹

    This prayer is brief, but it pierces the conscience. The priest acknowledges that the Sacrament he has dared to consume is no mere food but a remedy against eternal death. He has touched Christ; he must beg that this not turn to his condemnation, but to his healing. Adrian Crogan, in his Liturgical Commentary on the Mass, explains that these hidden prayers of the priest are “an intimate dialogue with God, hidden from the congregation, which safeguards the reality of the Presence in every particle and deepens the priest’s own assimilation of the mystery.”² Even in purifying the chalice, the priest is being purified.

    The Second Ablution: A Fire that Clings
    The rite continues. The priest purifies the thumb and forefinger with wine and then water, saying: Corpus tuum, Domine, quod sumpsi, et Sanguis quem potavi, adhaereat visceribus meis: et praesta; ut in me non remaneat scelerum macula, quem pura et sancta refecerunt sacramenta — “May Thy Body, O Lord, which I have received, and Thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave to my inmost being; and grant that no stain of sin may remain in me, whom these pure and holy Sacraments have refreshed.”³

    The prayer does not deny the cleansing power of the Sacrament, for by Holy Communion the priest has been touched and sanctified in both soul and body. In an incarnational sense, he has been made whole: the divine Food heals, elevates, and divinises. And yet, the priest acknowledges that the mystery of sin is not simply a matter of external acts, but of internal dispositions. Sin lurks most insidiously in the heart — in the tangled motivations of pride, vainglory, or negligence. He has received Christ, yes; but has he received Him with singleness of purpose? Has he offered the Sacrifice for the glory of God, or with self in view?

    Peter Chaignon, SJ, in his The Sacrifice of the Mass Worthily Celebrated, warned that “every rite, every prayer is given to you that you may sanctify yourself even as you handle the Holy.”⁴ The ablutions are thus a merciful trap: the priest cannot pass them without being forced to ask whether his motives are pure.

    Doctrine Confirmed by Miracle
    The De defectibus in the Missal insists that every fragment, however small, must be treated with utmost care, for Christ whole and entire is present in every particle of the Host.⁵ The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano confirmed this doctrine. In the eighth century, the consecrated wine coagulated into five globules of blood, unequal in size yet equal in weight whether weighed singly or together.⁶ Later forensic study confirmed the Flesh as myocardium and the Blood as human type AB, remarkably preserved across twelve centuries.⁷ Laurence Hemming has argued that Catholic worship is “tangible theology, a live epiphany of God’s self-disclosure.”⁸ The miracle of Lanciano was precisely such an epiphany. The ablution prayers are another: outward acts that disclose divine truth.

    The Fathers: Medicine, Fire, Transformation
    The Fathers proclaimed the same truths. St Ignatius of Antioch called the Eucharist “the medicine of immortality.”⁹ St Augustine declared that unlike ordinary food, which the body assimilates, in the Eucharist it is we who are assimilated to God.¹⁰ St John Chrysostom urged that those who receive the Body of Christ should go forth “like lions breathing fire.”¹¹ The ablution prayers, whispered at the altar, echo these patristic themes. The priest begs that the medicine truly heal, that the fire truly burn, that the transformation be real.

    For the Modern Celebrant: A Severe Admonition
    The absence of these prayers in the reformed liturgy has had grave consequences. The chalice is rinsed, but the conscience is unexamined. The vessels are set aside, but the heart may remain unpurified. No prayer compels the modern celebrant to ask whether he has celebrated for the glory of God alone, or with pride, routine, or self-interest.

    The Fathers would not have been silent. Chrysostom warned: “If anyone unworthily draw near, he perishes.”¹² Ambrose declared that the impure celebrant “draws down not grace but judgment upon himself.”¹³ Durandus explained that the washing of fingers signified the need for purity of intention.¹⁴ Aquinas taught that although the sacrament itself cannot be corrupted by the minister’s unworthiness, it may bring his condemnation.¹⁵ The Council of Trent confirmed this with anathema: “If anyone says that it is not necessary for one receiving the holy Eucharist to confess his sins beforehand when he is conscious of mortal sin… let him be anathema.”¹⁶

    Here, then, is the tragedy: priests today who treat the Host as though it were a wafer, who neglect to genuflect, who chat idly while purifying vessels, who tolerate sacrilege in Communion lines. The chalice may be polished, but their motives remain tarnished. The outward act may be tidy, but the inward reality is neglected.

    If the modern celebrant would recover reverence, he must recover these prayers — not as antiquarian curiosities, but as the medicine of his soul. For it is not the rinsing of chalices that saves, but the cleansing of the heart; not the outward order of vessels, but the inward ordering of love. Without them, the priest risks standing at the altar with vessels purified but heart defiled, lips sanctified but motives corrupt. And what then has he gained? Only this: to have touched the Fire of God, and to have let it pass him by unheeded.

    Footnotes

    1. Missale Romanum (1962), Orationes post Communionem.
    2. Adrian Crogan, The Mass: A Liturgical Commentary (London, 1948), p. 219.
    3. Missale Romanum (1962), ibid.
    4. Peter Chaignon, SJ, The Sacrifice of the Mass Worthily Celebrated (Paris, 1859), p. 143.
    5. De defectibus in celebratione Missae, X.5.
    6. Inscription, Church of St Francis, Lanciano, 1574 investigation.
    7. Odoardo Linoli, Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori (1971).
    8. Laurence Hemming, Worship as Revelation (London: T&T Clark, 2008), p. 67.
    9. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Ephesios 20.
    10. St Augustine, Confessiones VII.10.
    11. St John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matthaeum 82.5.
    12. Ibid.
    13. St Ambrose, De Sacramentis IV.4.
    14. William Durandus, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum IV.54.
    15. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 82, a. 5.
    16. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon 11 (Denzinger 1661).

    “Though Unworthy…”: The Placeat tibi and the Priest’s Examination

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    It is a striking paradox that one of the most important prayers of the Roman Mass is never heard by the faithful. After the dismissal Ite, missa est and the final blessing, the celebrant bows low before the altar, hands joined, and silently whispers the words:

    “Placeat tibi, sancta Trinitas, obsequium servitutis meae; et praesta ut sacrificium quod oculis tuae maiestatis indignus obtuli, tibi sit acceptabile; mihique et omnibus pro quibus illud obtuli, sit, te miserante, propitiabile. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”

    The very positioning of this prayer is itself a lesson. It comes after all is completed, after the visible work has been done, after the blessing has been imparted. The priest remains bowed in silence, as if to say: “I have done what was commanded; yet I am nothing. May it please Thee, O Holy Trinity.”

    Here the Roman Rite exposes the heart of the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood and of sacrifice. What has been accomplished is objectively perfect, for it is Christ’s own Sacrifice made present upon the altar. But the minister is not perfect. He is unworthy. He has carried the chalice of salvation with trembling hands, and now he lays it down again, begging that the Trinity may accept the homage offered through him.

    The hidden examen of the altar
    The Placeat tibi functions as an unspoken examen for the priest. It confronts him with questions he dare not ignore:

    • Have I offered Mass for God’s glory, or have I sought my own?
    • Have I been solicitous for the salvation of souls, or careless, indifferent, distracted?
    • Have I remembered that I am an instrument in the hand of Christ, and not the centre of attention?

    The Missale Romanum itself underscores this perspective in its decrees De defectibus, printed at the front of the book. The priest is reminded that defects of matter, form, or intention gravely compromise the Sacrifice. Thus, “If any of the necessary words are omitted, or changed into others of different meaning, the consecration does not take place” (De defectibus in consecratione verborum, V.20)¹. And further: “If the priest does not intend to consecrate but only to perform a kind of show, he does not consecrate. If, however, he thinks falsely that the Host already present before him is consecrated and for that reason does not intend to consecrate, he does not consecrate” (V.24)².

    Even lesser defects are treated with gravity. For example, if the celebrant is not fasting, or is conscious of grave sin and dares to ascend the altar without confession, he sins mortally, even if the Mass itself is valid: “If anyone is a mortal sinner and dares to celebrate without confession, he sins mortally, yet he consecrates” (De defectibus in ministris, II.1)³.

    The severity of these warnings is not clerical scrupulosity but priestly realism. The Placeat tibi is, in a sense, the subjective mirror of De defectibus: where the rubrics give objective law, the prayer gives interior humility. Even if all has been done correctly, the minister confesses: “Though unworthy, may my sacrifice be acceptable.”

    The theology of propitiation
    The key word of this prayer—propitiabile—is the word most absent from the postconciliar liturgy. The Council of Trent solemnly teaches that the Mass is a true propitiatory sacrifice, offered not only in praise and thanksgiving, but “for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities” of the living and the dead⁴. Here the priest acknowledges it directly: “Grant, O Trinity, that this sacrifice may be propitiatory for me and for those for whom I have offered it.”

    What humility, and what comfort! Humility, for the priest admits that he, too, is in need of propitiation; comfort, because he knows that the Sacrifice he has offered is indeed sufficient for himself and for all. This is no empty self-examination, but a confession of faith in the propitiatory power of the Sacrifice of Calvary, renewed in an unbloody manner upon the altar.

    A rebuke to modern liturgy
    The disappearance of this prayer in the Novus Ordo is not accidental but symptomatic. It reflects the shift away from priestly humility, away from sacrificial language, away from propitiation. In its place we find a perfunctory dismissal—“Go forth, the Mass is ended”—which, while not false, lacks the depth of what came before. The priest is not invited to examine himself, nor to bow low before the Trinity, nor to beg mercy for himself and his flock.

    The Roman Rite had preserved this final bow for nearly a millennium. It was the last safeguard against clerical presumption: you are not the master of this Sacrifice, you are its unworthy minister. Its suppression weakens the fabric of liturgical catechesis. Priests and people alike are deprived of that whispered lesson.

    A lesson for every priest
    Yet the prayer can still teach. Even priests who celebrate the reformed liturgy can adopt the Placeat tibi as a private examen. They may ask: Was my celebration today truly for God’s glory? Did I diminish myself so that Christ might increase? Or did I seek the approval of men?

    The priest who takes the Placeat tibi to heart will never ascend the altar casually, nor depart it complacently. He will know that the Sacrifice is Christ’s, that his ministry is unworthy, and that mercy alone makes it fruitful. He will prepare with recollection, celebrate with reverence, and give thanks with humility.

    Conclusion
    The Roman Rite is wise to leave the Placeat tibi unspoken. Its silence teaches more than words could: the last word belongs not to the priest but to God. This prayer is the final bow of the servant who has done what was commanded. It is the whispered confession of unworthiness, the plea for mercy, the hope of propitiation.

    If we priests allow this prayer to frame our approach to the altar, we will be saved from negligence, presumption, and pride. And if even those unfamiliar with the ancient liturgy take its lesson to heart, the celebration of every Mass will be deepened. For at the end of all things, after all our labours, one question remains: Has the sacrifice been offered for the glory of God, or for ourselves?

    1. Missale Romanum (1962), De defectibus in consecratione materiae et formae, V.20.
    2. Missale Romanum (1962), De defectibus in consecratione verborum, V.24.
    3. Missale Romanum (1962), De defectibus in ministris, II.1.
    4. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 3; Denzinger-Hünermann 1753.
    5. St Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book III, ch. 10.
    6. Pius XII, Mediator Dei (1947), §§68–70.

    “Communis Est”: a pastoral epistle to the clergy

    Published on by TheOldRoman1 Comment

    Carissimi Filii

    It is quite common for Old Roman clergy to grapple with the affliction of doubt and moral scrupulosity regarding their ministry and ordination. This struggle often stems from the deeply held intention we all share to fulfill our vocations within the Church. We did not envision ourselves as being “outside” the traditional structure of the Church; rather, we sought to serve directly under the guidance and authority of the hierarchy and the Pope.

    It is precisely because of our profound sense of Romanitas and Catholicity that we may struggle internally to reconcile our status and situation with what we know to be the usual or proper context for our vocations. Our Roman heritage and Catholic identity are integral to our understanding of our roles and responsibilities within the Church. This deep-rooted connection makes it all the more challenging to accept our current position, which diverges from the conventional ecclesiastical framework we revere.

    However, our unwavering fidelity to Eternal Rome and its enduring traditions necessitates that we distance ourselves from certain contemporary practices and structures. Though this separation is difficult, it is a necessary step to preserve the sacraments and the perennial doctrine of the Church for future generations. We undertake this arduous path not out of defiance, but out of a sincere commitment to uphold the integrity and purity of the faith as it has been handed down through the ages.

    Our current irregular status and situation reflect the validity of our vocations, the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, and our identity through it with Christ. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen noted, “The priest is not his own”[1]. This echoes our reality that our calling transcends personal desires and aligns with a divine purpose. Although many of us experienced our vocation as a personal calling—arising from our own will and desire in response to God and the promptings of the Holy Ghost—and though it may seem to lack the formal affirmation of the Church, our calling remains valid. St. John Vianney reminds us, “The priest continues the work of redemption on earth… If we really understood the priest on earth, we would die not of fright but of love”[2]. It is, in fact, for the Church’s sake that God has called us to offer ourselves in this particular context. Just as Our Lord was simultaneously the essential essence and fulfilment of the Jewish religion, yet appeared outside the Jewish Church, so too does our situation reflect His.

    To our younger and newer clergy, I recognize that you face unique challenges, having known only the modernist contemporary Church and hierarchy before discovering the richness of Tradition. This transition is often accompanied by feelings of isolation and the pain of persecution from former friends, colleagues, fellow seminarians, and even family members. Your journey is not an easy one, and the adversity you face can be disheartening. Yet, it is in these trials that your faith is strengthened, and your vocation purified. St. John Eudes once said, “The greatest blessing God can confer on a soul is to give her a vocation to the priesthood”[3]. Your path, though fraught with challenges, is a testament to the profound blessing of your calling.

    As you navigate these challenging times, find solace and consolation in the example of Our Blessed Lord. Jesus Christ, Who, though divine, endured misunderstanding, rejection, and suffering from the religious authorities of His time. He remained steadfast in His mission, driven by love and obedience to the Father’s will. In His Passion and Crucifixion, He demonstrated the ultimate act of sacrificial love and fidelity to the truth. Jesus Himself reminded us, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19). By reflecting on His life and sacrifice, we can draw strength and courage to persevere in our vocations, knowing that we share in His sufferings for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. St. Francis of Assisi beautifully encapsulates this sentiment: “The deeds you do may be the only sermon some persons will hear today”[4]. Let us, therefore, preach through our steadfastness and fidelity, finding comfort in the fact that we follow in the footsteps of our Savior.

    You may also encounter faithful whose ignorance, influenced by modernism, leads them to believe that their amateur opinions about ecclesiology and the Church justify their persecution of us. This can be particularly challenging and disheartening. Our clergy should endeavour to educate themselves continually on what the Church actually teaches, in order to defend themselves apologetically. As St. Pius X urged, “The greatest obstacle in the apostolate of the Church is the ignorance of the faithful”[5]. By deepening your understanding of Church doctrine and history, you will be better equipped to gently correct misunderstandings, uphold the truth, and demonstrate the continuity of our faith with the teachings of the Church Fathers and Councils.

    It is natural for younger clergy to feel disaffection due to the deprived nature of our circumstances, especially when comparing themselves to their former peers in the seminary who enjoy the material trappings and security of the institutional Church. This comparison might make you feel somehow lesser than your counterparts under the hierarchy. However, remember that while this means the material context of our ministry is poorer, Christ and the Apostles likewise endured without the trappings of power and the advantages of societal approval. It is hard to reconcile this lonely path with the joy that is enjoyed by others whose cross seems lighter than ours. But though they may enjoy the liberty of institutionalism and the perks of establishment, they are not destined to heaven without themselves embracing a cross that will seem to them much harder to bear—the cross of their pride, their greed, their ease, and their lack of graces and sacrifice of self. When those crosses come, it will be more difficult for them than it is for us to endure and remain faithful.

    Think not that we are less because we are deprived—we are missionaries with all the freedom that comes with being freed from institutional corruption! We are the essence of all the Saints before us who struggled with little means but with great vocations! We too, like them, are being purified now on earth for a speedier entry into heaven! Gaudete, for we will be acclaimed “good and faithful” servants and bid to “enter into the joy of thy Lord” (cf St Matthew 25:23) when our sojourn through this vale of tears is ended! Did Our Lord not say, “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also” (John 15:20)? So have heart, dear son—wear His Heart, shared and entrusted to you by our hands—and you will rejoice in the heavenly places!

    This journey, marked by both challenges and a steadfast adherence to our beliefs, ultimately reaffirms our identity and mission as Catholics dedicated to preserving the essence of our religious heritage. St. Alphonsus Liguori stated, “When we see a beautiful soul, we must always remember that in the world there are many hidden saints”[6]. The tension we feel is a testament to the depth of our devotion and the seriousness with which we regard our spiritual responsibilities. It underscores the unique position we occupy within the broader context of the Church, balancing a deep respect for tradition with the necessity of navigating our vocations independently of the conventional ecclesiastical framework.

    In essence, the internal conflicts and uncertainties we experience are not anomalies but rather reflections of our profound dedication to maintaining the integrity of our faith. They highlight our commitment to the principles and practices that define our Roman Catholic identity. By remaining true to these principles, even in the face of difficult choices and significant sacrifices, we ensure that the sacraments and teachings of the Church continue to thrive, unaltered and undiminished, for future generations. As Pope Leo XIII emphasized, “Nothing is more dangerous than heretics who, while conserving the appearances of piety, pervert the sense of faith by their subtle errors”[7]. This enduring fidelity to Eternal Rome is both our challenge and our calling, driving us to preserve the sacred traditions and doctrinal truths that are the cornerstone of our faith.

    Our experience mirrors that of Christ, who fulfilled His divine mission outside the established religious authorities of His time yet was the very fulfilment of their prophecies and the essence of their faith. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre once said, “It is not we who are in schism but the modernists”[8]. In the same way, our vocations, though existing outside the current ecclesiastical affirmation, are valid and essential for the continuation and preservation of the Church’s true teachings and sacraments. St. Francis of Assisi advised, “Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society”[9]. This alignment with Christ’s own experience strengthens our resolve and confirms the righteousness of our path, underscoring our commitment to serve the Church with unwavering fidelity and devotion.

    By embracing our roles in this unique context, we embody the spirit of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, who said, “Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer”[10]. We continue to serve with the hope and conviction that our efforts contribute to the greater good of the Church, preserving its sacred legacy for the faithful of today and tomorrow.

    May God bless you and keep you steadfast in your holy vocation.

    Oremus pro invicem.

    I.X.

    Brichtelmestunensis
    S. Leonis Papæ et Confessoris MMXXIV A.D.

    [1] Sheen, Fulton J. The Priest Is Not His Own. Alba House, 2004

    [2] Gallagher, Patrick V. The Cure D’Ars Today: St. John Vianney. Ignatius Press, 1986).

    [3] Eudes, St. John. The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations. Loreto Publications, 2000

    [4] St. Francis of Assisi. The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi. Various editions

    [5] Pius X, St. Acerbo Nimis. Encyclical, 1905

    [6] Liguori, St. Alphonsus. The Glories of Mary. Translated by Eugene Grimm, Redemptorist Fathers, 1852

    [7] Leo XIII, Pope. Encyclical Letter Satis Cognitum. 1896

    [8] Lefebvre, Marcel. Open Letter to Confused Catholics. Angelus Press, 1986

    [9] St. Francis of Assisi. The Little Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi. Various editions

    [10] Ruffin, Bernard C. Padre Pio: The True Story. Our Sunday Visitor, 1991

    Communis-Est-03vii24Download
    Communis-Est-03vii24-Latin-2Download
    Communis-Est-03vii24-FilipinoDownload

    Fidem Servare: Worker Priests

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    The Vocational Crisis

    The ongoing crisis within the Church has underscored the imperative for groundbreaking approaches that can secure the Church’s endurance for future generations. It is evident that the decline in vocations within the institutional church is a clear indication of this pressing matter. Nevertheless, despite the issuance of “Traditionis Custodes”1 aiming to eradicate the Traditional Latin Mass, there has been a notable upsurge in vocations within the Traditional Catholic movement. Seminaries such as the Society of St Pius X, former Ecclesia Dei apostolates and communities, and sedevacantist groups are all experiencing a substantial demand from aspiring vocations. Some Traditionalists even discuss the revitalization of the “simplex” or “chantry” priest model2 to cater to the increasing demand for Masses and alleviate the scarcity of seminary-trained priests. To confront this challenge, it is crucial to explore innovative methods of attracting and engaging individuals who are eager to devote themselves to the Church’s mission and values.

    Prior to the Council of Trent and since the time of the apostles, an apprenticeship model for discerning and training priests was standard across the Church. A candidate might live near or with a priest and be trained by him, or be attached to the bishop’s household (domi episcoporum) and learn from the bishop or his delegate, the praepositus,3 or attend a Cathedral school. This latter model essentially became codified and expanded by Trent to create the seminary model we are familiar with today. However, in the current circumstances, the seminary model is unable to meet the demands of the Traditional Catholic movement due to insufficient resources and the exponentially rising costs of providing residential training for the number of vocations. Nevertheless, for more than a century, the Old Roman apostolate has effectively utilized an apprenticeship model despite limited means.

    The Worker Priest Movement

    The emergence of the Worker Priest Movement in France4 during the 1940s was a direct response to the profound changes brought about by World War II. This innovative concept involved Catholic priests residing and working alongside industrial laborers, with the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding of and providing support to the working class. The movement aimed to bridge the gap between the Church and the labour force, promoting unity and addressing the social and economic challenges faced by the working class. In practice, the worker priests took on manual labour jobs, resided in working-class communities, and actively engaged in social and political activism. Their objective was to bring the teachings of the Catholic Church directly to industrial workers and advocate for social justice in the context of their everyday lives.

    The progress of the movement was met with obstacles and ultimately experienced setbacks due to resistance from conservative factions within the Catholic Church hierarchy. The worker priests’ active participation in labour unions and left-wing political movements caused tensions with the Church leadership, which resulted in a crackdown on the movement. The Vatican’s determination to suppress the movement during the 1950s constituted a substantial setback for the worker priest ideology, leading to its decline and eventual extinction. However, during these prolonged periods of turmoil within the Church, the Old Roman apostolate through necessity has managed to cultivate a cohort of conservative and orthodox clergy, utilizing the finest components and initial noble aspirations of the worker priest concept.

    Sacred & Profane

    If one were to imagine a monastery, what would come to mind? Perhaps a sanctuary devoted to prayer? A secluded spiritual refuge detached from the limitations and preoccupations of the material realm? A dwelling where individuals who have forsaken worldly pursuits lead lives of dedication and service to God? Without a doubt, these qualities are often associated with monasteries. However, a fundamental aspect that is shared among all monasteries is their ability to sustain themselves materially. This involves the monastery, along with its monks and nuns, typically ensuring the financial and physical support required for their contemplative existence. Whether it be through cultivating crops, utilizing artistic talents, or engaging in scholarly pursuits to acquire the commodities they cannot provide for themselves, they are not completely disengaged from the world. Nevertheless, their lives and the environments they inhabit are commonly regarded as sacred. They harmoniously blend the sacred (religious life) and profane (worldly concerns).

    Similar to the monks and nuns residing within monasteries, as well as other Catholic clergy worldwide, some of our Old Roman priests also navigate the delicate balance between the sacred and the secular. Like their monastic counterparts, Old Roman clergy strive to attain sanctity by diligently adhering to the canonical requirements of praying the Divine Office, celebrating Mass, and administering sacraments to faithful Christians who, too, strive for holiness. However, many Old Roman priests also engage in secular occupations to sustain themselves materially. In various aspects, contrary to the prevailing perception of clericalism, our Old Roman clergy fully empathize with the daily struggles faced by the laity and are, therefore, better equipped to care for, understand, and guide them in their spiritual journey. Unlike those whose worldly concerns have been entirely relinquished, our priests do not take basic aspects of life for granted, such as housing, sustenance, and expenses. These ordinary matters hold equal significance for our priests as they do for any other individual.

    In the past, the seminary and rectory were considered suitable environments for the support and sustenance of sacred ministers. However, this practice is a relatively new development that emerged from the reformative endeavours of the Counter-reformation. Throughout the Church’s extensive history, clerics like religious monks and nuns, were self-sufficient in addition to their ecclesiastical appointments from skilled or scholarly employment, family wealth or dependent on the generosity of benefactors. The era of wealthy benefactors has significantly diminished, and in the current climate, marked by a multitude of scandals, setbacks, and a prevailing crisis of faith within the Church, it is unlikely that they will make a comeback anytime soon. Furthermore, there are only a limited number of wealthy benefactors who can adequately address this situation and meet the material needs of orthodox priests in sufficient numbers to tackle the crisis. As the rectors of the few Traditional yet oversubscribed seminaries can attest, fundraising is more difficult, not easier, in the present climate if only due to the surge in vocations and the commensurate increase in costs.

    Bivocation

    Every human being, regardless of their background or circumstances, will hopefully discern two distinct yet complementary vocations in their lifetime. The first is the universal spiritual calling to seek knowledge of, and cultivate a deep love for God. This profound connection with the Divine is ultimately fulfilled through the sacrament of baptism and the subsequent inclusion in the Church community. The nature of this undertaking is both individual and communal. The calling is personally acknowledged and fulfilled (baptism), but it is also embraced and expressed as a collective effort (membership of the Church).

    However, alongside this collective spiritual vocation to humanity, each individual is also bestowed with a unique and personal calling. This personal vocation is a reflection of God’s plan for their life and is intricately woven into their inherent predispositions, skills, and abilities. It is a divine invitation to serve God’s Will in a way that is distinct to them alone. This personal vocation is not a mere coincidence or happenstance, but rather a deliberate design by a loving Creator who has endowed every person with a specific set of talents and gifts. It is through the cultivation and refinement of these innate qualities that individuals can effectively contribute to the betterment of themselves and society as a whole.

    These dualistic vocations are clearly evident in the lives of individuals who have undergone Christian baptism. These individuals not only establish a profound and meaningful connection with God, but also find a deep sense of purpose and fulfillment in their chosen careers, which span across various fields such as healthcare, education, finance, business, and the arts, among others. The range of professional paths and pursuits is vast and diverse. Each of these fields necessitates specific skills, knowledge, and expertise for success. Whether it involves nurturing young minds, preparing delectable meals, maintaining a clean and orderly environment, or devising innovative solutions, the contributions made by individuals in these diverse disciplines are crucial to the functioning of society. Each profession plays a distinctive role in shaping the world we inhabit.

    St. Irenaeus said, “The glory of God is a living man5… the life of a man is the vision of God.”6 In essence, every human being is called to embrace both the universal spiritual vocation and their personal vocation. These two vocations are intertwined, complementing and enriching one another to realise the whole person. While the spiritual vocation provides a foundation of faith and a connection to the Divine, the personal vocation empowers individuals to actively participate in God’s plan for the world. Therefore, it is essential for individuals to recognize the significance of their personal vocation and to nurture it with care and intentionality. By doing so, they not only fulfill their own purpose but also contribute to the greater tapestry of humanity, playing their part in the grand symphony of the restoration of God’s creation through Jesus Christ.

    Bivocational Clergy

    Since the inception of the Church, individuals have dutifully answered God’s summons to fulfill their spiritual and personal vocations in service to Him. Throughout history, we have witnessed the remarkable dedication of monks and nuns within the sphere of monastic existence. These individuals collectively embrace a shared devotion to the religious life, finding solace and purpose in their commitment to God. However, what sets them apart is their ability to simultaneously utilize their distinctive skills and capabilities to contribute to the overall welfare, sustenance and maintenance of the community.

    In exploring the multifaceted nature of the clergy’s calling, we can find numerous examples of individuals who have exemplified this duality, i.e. spiritual and personal vocations. Renowned composers such as Victoria, Allegri, and Vivaldi, all of whom were priests, serve as prime examples. Their musical genius not only enriched the spiritual lives of those within the Church but also left an indelible mark on the world of music. Similarly, esteemed scientists like Copernicus, Mendel, and Lemaître, who were also priests, made groundbreaking contributions to their respective fields. Copernicus’s revolutionary work on Heliocentrism challenged prevailing beliefs about the universe, while Mendel’s advancements in Genetics laid the foundation for modern understanding of heredity. Lemaître’s work on the Big Bang Theory fundamentally reshaped our understanding of the origins of the universe.

    Even in the present day, we continue to witness priests undertaking various roles alongside their religious responsibilities. These individuals serve as educators, imparting knowledge and wisdom to the next generation. They are scientists, pushing the boundaries of human understanding and unraveling the mysteries of the natural world. They are scholars, delving deep into the annals of history and preserving knowledge for future generations. They are medical professionals, providing care and healing to those in need. They are musicians, using their talents to uplift and inspire. They are artists, capturing the beauty of creation through their creative expressions. They are historians, uncovering the past and shedding light on our shared heritage.

    It is important to note that many of these individuals successfully pursue notable professions in their specific areas, separate from their duties and obligations as priests. They are able to balance their religious calling with their personal gifts and talents, finding fulfillment in both vocations. In some cases, these individuals even receive compensation for their non-religious endeavors, either alongside their stipend or as a substitute for it. This allows them to support themselves financially while continuing to serve their communities and fulfill their spiritual vocations.

    Various examples throughout history and in the present day demonstrate the incredible versatility and dedication of priests who embrace their sacred calling while also making significant contributions in various fields. They embody the idea that one’s spiritual and personal vocations need not be mutually exclusive, but rather can be harmoniously integrated to create a more enriched and fulfilling life. From Pope Benedict XVI, who as Joseph Ratzinger was an accomplished academic and theologian as well as a cleric, to Fr David Brown, S.J., who is an astronomer working as a research astronomer specializing in stellar evolution. Many priests have gifts and talents to share beyond sacramental, pastoral, and administrative roles.

    Tentmaker Ministry

    “Tentmaker” ministry is sometimes used to describe the bi-vocational or worker priest vocation after the Apostle Paul who supported himself by utilising the skills he learned from his own father’s tentmaking trade while living and preaching in Corinth7. Unlike the other apostles in the early Christian Church, who devoted themselves entirely to their religious ministry and lived off the money donated by church members8, St Paul frequently performed outside work, not desiring to be a financial burden to the young churches he founded. In Thessaloniki, St Paul states that he and his companions “worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you.”9

    St Paul’s purpose in working was to set an example for the faithful, “You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”10 He also hoped that his refusal to accept financial support would build his credibility among non-Christians, thus giving him the chance to win over more of them “If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.”11

    Many of the clericalist attitudes that have been significantly criticized by some within the contemporary Church can be attributed to the adverse consequences of attempting to create a rigid separation between the sacred and the profane. The now conventional seminary system providing full-time residential formation and subsequently diocesan board and lodging, stipend, and expenses for regular clergy, or even the comparably high standard of living provided to many religious priests by their religious congregations and orders, has produced expectations and standards that have influenced the perceptions and clericalist behaviors of many clergy members within the contemporary Church. This has led to a dependent and elitist culture within the Church, and fostered a lack of accountability, transparency, and humility.

    Old Roman Formation Houses

    In response to the query regarding formation, it is acknowledged that traditional seminary formation, though highly desirable, may not always be financially feasible. Consequently, the Old Roman apostolate is actively exploring the foundation of Formation Houses, which follow the time-tested model of the domus ecclesiae or episcopi providing practical training and moral formation. Saints Eusebius of Vercelli, Augustine of Hippo, and Isidore of Seville each set up small communities of young men who lived and studied with their bishop. We have a missionary precedence for such institutions in the example of St Gregory the Great who instructed St Augustine of Canterbury regarding his mission to the Angles, to set up separate places where men could study, live, and pray together.12 It is worth noting that Formation Houses are not a novel concept even today; numerous religious orders and priestly societies still utilise this model, wherein aspiring individuals, be they postulants, novices, or seminarians, reside alongside experienced mentors, engaging in comprehensive learning and study under their guidance.

    The Old Roman apostolate being essentially a missionary endeavour, seeks to utilise this model of formation to answer the crisis in seminary formation and the Church. In the UK13 and Philippine territories of the Old Roman apostolate, the process is already underway to find suitable premises for aspiring candidates to be mentored primarily by the episcopal-administrator and by supporting experienced chaplains and qualified professors.

    However, what will set these Formation Houses apart from others will be the requirement for candidates to contribute financially to the upkeep of the residence and community experience by being gainfully employed or apprenticed to a secular occupation. This means that candidates will not only be responsible for their own financial well-being but will also have the opportunity to gain practical skills and experience in a real-world setting. By being gainfully employed or apprenticed, candidates will not only be able to support themselves but also contribute to the overall functioning and sustainability of the Formation House.

    Furthermore, rather than being separated from the local community, candidates will be expected to actively participate in the life of the local church. This involvement goes beyond attending regular worship services; candidates will have the opportunity to host study groups and fellowship events, thereby fostering a sense of community and connection within the Formation House and the local church. Additionally, candidates may even engage in outreach activities, reaching out to those in need and making a positive impact on the wider community.

    In terms of academic qualifications, candidates are expected either to have previously acquired academic credentials in philosophy and theology or be actively pursuing such qualifications14. However, in addition to these traditional academic pursuits, candidates will also be required to accept training in domestic sciences and other practical skills. This emphasis on practical skills is aimed at equipping candidates with the necessary tools to live independently or in a community setting. By acquiring these skills, candidates will be better prepared to serve others practically in outreach efforts, further enhancing their ability to make a meaningful difference in the lives of those they encounter.

    In summary, the Formation Houses will not only provide a residence and community experience for candidates, but they will also offer opportunities for personal and professional growth. Through gainful employment or apprenticeships, candidates will contribute financially to the Formation House while gaining valuable skills and experience. By actively participating in the local church, candidates will foster a sense of community and connection. Additionally, the emphasis on practical skills will enable candidates to live independently, in a community, or serve others practically in outreach.

    Though the atmosphere of the Formation Houses will be overtly spiritual and educational, the rarified context will be balanced with a practical and interactive experience. Overall, with exposure to the sciences and discipline of the sacred ministry, liturgy, spiritual direction and daily routine, these Formation Houses will aim to provide a holistic and enriching experience for candidates, equipping them with the necessary tools to thrive in their priestly and personal lives suited to their mission-oriented context.

    Old Roman Worker Priests

    Many priests in communities worldwide take on additional ministries to help local churches that have limited resources and personnel. In addition, there may be cultural norms that place expectations upon priests to provide for their parents and siblings. Similarly, numerous Old Roman priests adopt a “bi-vocational” approach, wherein they have identified and developed skills and talents that extend beyond religious pursuits and align with complementary professions. This enables them to seamlessly integrate their priestly duties with regular, secular employment, though avoiding jobs and associations that “cannot be reconciled with the obligations proper to the clerical state.”15 The primary benefit of this arrangement is that it empowers them to achieve financial independence and, in some cases, provide for their families. Additionally, they actively contribute to the local church and community outreach initiatives, assuming an active role and patronage akin to fellow congregants within the areas they reside and operate.

    Old Roman clergy have discovered straddling as it were both worlds, they have the opportunity to interact with individuals who would not typically encounter an orthodox Catholic priest. In doing so, they can offer guidance to colleagues who are on a spiritual quest, and when appropriate, shed light on how a Catholic perspective might approach certain situations or issues. By sowing seeds of faith and fostering awareness, our clergy are actively spreading the teachings of our religion. It is often appreciated that some of our clergy do not rely on donations or stipends; this positively influences those who view the Church as a profit-driven institution rather than a sanctuary for salvation. While it is evident in Scripture that ministers deserve remuneration for their labour, historical instances of individuals exploiting this privilege have marred the reputation of the priesthood. One need only recall the Vatileaks Scandal16, the degradation of the former cardinal, Theodore McCarrick17 and the recent trial of Giovanni, Cardinal Becciu18.

    Old Roman clergy in their pursuit of the growth and success of our missions, recognize the inherent conflict often between accepting financial support and growing the sanctity of the faithful. They firmly believe that compromising their teachings or preaching to appease donors is unnecessary. As worker priests, their principles and the sanctity of their office are invaluable and cannot be influenced by monetary means. Their dedication and commitment to the salvation of souls, including their own, are the only factors that should be taken into account. Similar to holy monks and nuns who sustain themselves through their temporal labours, the clergy of the Old Roman apostolate also enjoy the freedom of being supported by their own efforts and utilising the skills and abilities bestowed upon them by God, so they are free to fulfil their calling.

    Among the worker priests in the Old Roman apostolates, there is a diverse array of backgrounds and experiences. Some received their formation in residential seminaries, while others attended university or pursued theology part-time. Remarkably, one individual managed to balance a demanding job and daily commute while studying for a theology degree for five years. Our priests possess a wealth of experience in various sectors including hospitality, catering, public service, small business, education, corporate roles, chaplaincy, nursing and even qualified counseling in psychotherapy. Additionally, many of them have lived, worked, and studied abroad, enabling them to communicate in multiple languages. We consider ourselves truly fortunate to have such a wide array of talents and skills to contribute to our mission. Engaging in a bi-vocational ministry entails numerous stresses and challenges, with competing obligations and occasional frustrations. In such circumstances, we all rely on God’s grace and assistance.

    Certainly, we aim to foster the support of individuals with the financial means to contribute to the mission work of the Old Roman apostolate. We express our sincere gratitude to those individuals who already provide support enough to enable some of our priests to dedicate their time fully to pastoral duties and meet the liturgical needs of the faithful they serve. We do ask that those with means prayerfully consider supporting our Old Roman priests and perhaps establishing mission societies to help our clergy, so that they can dedicate more time to the work of God and pastoral care. Though currently, we find that the status of being bi-vocational is a fortunate aspect for our clergy and our mission. They demonstrate an equivalent level of dedication as full-time pastors voluntarily and by vocation, while adhering to the limitations imposed by time and circumstances, all the while avoiding any temptations or aspirations associated with clericalism. However, above all it is essential to acknowledge that our clergy require the support of your prayers.

    Conclusion

    While Formation Houses and worker priests may offer a response to the current challenges faced by the Church, it is crucial to acknowledge that the optimal resolution rests in leveraging the profound wisdom and extensive experience accumulated and developed by the Church over two millennia. These alternative models should not supplant the conventional seminary approach and the presence of dedicated pastors, for despite contemporary concerns, these well-established models have otherwise demonstrated their efficacy in delivering a comprehensive theological education and priestly preparation.

    However, it is also essential to acknowledge that the Church is a living entity that must adapt to the changing times and needs of its followers. The emergence of Formation Houses and worker priests as alternative paths for formation and ministry reflects this need for flexibility and innovation. While the traditional seminary model provides a comprehensive and structured education, it may not always be accessible or suitable for everyone. Formation Houses, on the other hand, offer a more flexible and localized approach to formation, allowing individuals to receive training and guidance within their own communities. This can be particularly beneficial in areas where access to traditional seminaries is limited or where the needs of the local community require a more tailored approach to ministry.

    Worker priests emphasise the integration of faith and work, allowing individuals to serve as both pastors and workers in their respective fields examples to the faithful how to live a wholly integrated spiritual and material life. This approach recognizes that ministry is not confined to the walls of a church but extends into the everyday lives, homes and workplaces of individuals. By engaging with the world in this way, worker priests can also bring the teachings of the Church to a wider audience and address the spiritual needs of those who may not otherwise interact with nor have experience of the Church and the Catholic religion.

    In conclusion, while Formation Houses and worker priests provide innovative approaches to formation and ministry, they should be seen as complementary to, rather than replacements for, the traditional seminary model and full-time pastors. The ideal solution lies in embracing the wisdom and experience of the Church’s rich history while also adapting to the changing needs and realities of the Church in the modern world, and particularly during this critical and extended time of crisis of faith and doctrine in the Church.

    1. “Traditiones Custodes” On the Use of the Roman Liturgy Prior to the Reform of 1970 ↩︎
    2. Simplex Priests Now! from the ‘Homiletic and Pastoral Review’, June/July 2011 ↩︎
    3. Lateran IV required bishops to prepare and instruct ordinandi, either personally or through a delegate, ‘‘in the divine services and the sacraments of the church.’’ ↩︎
    4. worker-priest Roman Catholicism, Brittanica ↩︎
    5. “Gloria Dei est vivens homo.” Adversus Haereses Liber IV Capit.20 A Treatise Against the Heresies ↩︎
    6. “Vita hominis visio Dei,” Adversus Haereses Liber IV Capit.20 A Treatise Against the Heresies ↩︎
    7. Acts 18:3 ↩︎
    8. Cf Acts 4:34-37 ↩︎
    9. 2 Thessalonians 3:8 ↩︎
    10. Cf Acts 18:1-3; 20:33-35; Philippians 4:14-16 ↩︎
    11. Cf 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 ↩︎
    12. Medieval Education, Chapter 3 Revisiting Ancient Practices: Priestly Training before Trent Christopher M. Bellitto, Fordham University Press 2009 ↩︎
    13. Establishing a new Formaton House ↩︎
    14. The Constitution “Cum ex eo” of Boniface VIII: Education of Parochial Clergy, Leonard E. Boyle ↩︎
    15. CIC1917 Canon 139, CIC1983 Canon 285 §1 ↩︎
    16. Vatileaks scandal: Vatican properties ‘used as brothels and massage parlours where priests pay for sex,’ claims report ↩︎
    17. Theodore McCarrick: Defrocked US cardinal charged with assault and battery ↩︎
    18. Vatican’s Cardinal Becciu on trial in $412m fraud case ↩︎

    Holy Days 2024

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    Holy Days of Obligation

    Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The Faithful are reminded that the following Feasts are Holy Days of Obligation upon which it is binding of the Faithful to hear Mass.

    DATEDAYAll Sundays are of obligation
    01 JanMonThe Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ 2024AD
    06 JanSatThe Epiphany of Our Lord Jesus Christ
    02 FebFriThe Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    14 FebWedAsh Wednesday*
    24 MarSunThe Triumphant Entry of Our Lord into Jerusalem
    28 MarThuMaundy Thursday
    29 MarFriGood Friday
    30 MarSatHoly Saturday
    31 MarSunThe Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ
    09 MayThuThe Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ
    19 MaySunPentecost Sunday
    26 MaySunThe Most Holy & Blessed Trinity
    30 MayThuFestum Sanctissimi Corporis Christi
    29 JunSatThe holy Apostles SS Peter & Paul
    15 AugThuThe Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos
    01 NovFriAll Saints’ Day
    02 NovSatAll Souls’ Day
    01 DecSunThe First Sunday of Advent
    08 DecSunThe Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary*
    25 DecWedThe Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ
    01 JanWedThe Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ 2025AD
    [*not of strict obligation but of serious devotion]

    ON THESE DAYS, every Catholic is obliged, under pain of mortal sin, to hear Mass, just as he is on Sundays. Since Our Lord suffered death in order to institute Holy Mass, it requires a very serious inconvenience such as sickness or notable damage to one’s health or property, to excuse one from this obligation. When a Holy Day falls on Sunday, the hearing of Mass once satisfies both obligations.

    Days of Devotion

    On which it is earnestly recommended to hear Mass… The days in red text are of particular importance to the faithful of the Oratory communities in the South East of England commemorating local Saints and Patrons…

    February 8thSt Cuthman of Steyning, Confessor
     February 24th St Matthias, Apostle
     March 1st St David, Patron of Wales
     March 17th St Patrick, Patron of Ireland
     March 19th St Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary
     March 21st St Benedict, Abbot, Patron of Europe
     March 25th Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
    April 3rdSt Richard of Chichester, Bishop & Confessor
     April 23rd St George, Patron of England
     April 25th St Mark, Evangelist
     May 1st SS Philip & James, Apostles
     May 3rd The Finding of the Holy Cross
    May 19thSt Dunstan of Canterbury, Bishop & Confessor
     June 5thSt Boniface, Patron of Utrecht
     June 6th St John before the Latin Gate
     June 11th St Barnabas, Apostle
     June 24th Nativity of St John the Baptist
     July 2nd The Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
     July 3rd St Thomas, Apostle
    July 24thSt Lewinna, Virgin Martyr of Sussex
     July 25th St James the Greater, Apostle
     July 26th St Ann, Mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary
     August 6th The Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ
     August 10th St Laurence, Martyr
     August 16th St Joachim, Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary
     August 24th St Bartholomew, Apostle
     August 29th The Beheading of St John the Baptist
     September 8th Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
     September 14th The Exaltation of the Holy Cross
     September 21st St Matthew, Apostle & Evangelist
    September 24thOur Lady of Walsingham
    October 12thSt Wilfrid of York, Apostle to the South Saxons
     September 29th Michaelmass Day
     October 18th St Luke, Evangelist
     October 28th SS Simon & Jude, Apostles
     November 7thSt Willibrord of the Netherlands 
     November 30th St Andrew, Apostle & Patron of Scotland
     December 21st St Thomas, Apostle
     December 26th St Stephen, Protomartyr
     December 27th St John, Apostle & Evangelist
     December 28th Holy Innocents
    December 29thSt Thomas of Canterbury, Bishop & Martyr

    Fasting Days

    In keeping with the obligation of doing penance in reparation for our many sins, the Church also obliges us to fast on certain days throughout the year. All persons over eighteen [it used to be twenty-one] and under fifty-nine years of age must fast, unless their health prevents them from doing so. This means that on a fast day, they may have only one principal or full meal, and two smaller snacks. They may eat meat at this principal meal, except on days of abstinence. At the two smaller snacks, they may not have meat, but they may take sufficient food to maintain their strength. However, these two smaller snacks together should be less than a full meal. Eating between meals is not permitted; but liquids, including milk and fruit juices, may be taken at any time on a fast day. The Traditional days of fast are:

    The Forty Days of Lent
    The Ember Days, which are the Wednesday, Friday and Saturday in the:

    • First Week of Lent
    • Whitsun Week
    • Third Week in September
    • Third Week in Advent

    The Vigils or Eves of:

    • Whitsunday
    • SS Peter & Paul
    • The Assumption
    • All Saints
    • The Conception
    • Christmass

    All Wednesdays and Fridays in Advent

    THE COMMUNION FAST is obligatory for one hour before receiving Holy Communion. We are, however, urged to fast from midnight, or at least three hours before receiving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

    Abstinence Days

    To refrain from eating meat or poultry, which includes sauces and soups made from their juices. It does not, however, affect the quantity of food we may take on days of abstinence. All Catholics who have attained the use of reason, which is commonly seven years of age, are bound by the law of abstinence, unless otherwise dispensed. The law of abstinence is abrogated whenever a Holy Day of Obligation falls on a day of abstinence.

    The Sundays in Lent, unless dispensation be given (usual for England & Wales)
    Every Friday, unless it be Christmas Day

    According to the law of the Church “the substantial observance” of Fridays as days of penance, whether by abstinence from meat or other penance is “a grave obligation.” [Pope Paul VI, Paentemini, 1966, Norm II, 2 – this obligation has not been altered or remitted by the Holy See.]