Tradition?

[Cam42]

Your attempt to hijack another thread is thwarted!!!!!

[quote]Obedience only entered the equation because someone asserted that kneeling for communion is disobedient, which is absurd. Kneeling for communion is a centuries old tradition. Both kneeling, and now, standing are accepted by the church so obedience is not an issue here.[/quote]

Actually, James, I don't see why you are caught up in such a snit with me on this, I have been supporting this position this whole thread. Again, if you'd have read this thread rather than entering in the last minute you'd know that.

[quote]It is your attempt to associate traditionalist Catholics with schism and disobedience[/quote]

Some are. Actually, any who support the Tridentine as normative are being disobedient, not necessarily in schism though. Although any who do not recognize the Holy Father (CMRI and SSPV) or who are outwardly disobedient (SSPX) are in schism. The Tridentine is an indult. (I have no problem with the FSSP, or any other recognized indult organization, which is in full agreement and union with Rome.) It is not normative. The Normative Mass is the Missa Normativa promulgated in 1970. But that is best left for another thread.

[quote]Progressive Catholic's tendency is away from reverence by standing for communion rather than kneeling. This is a fact.[/quote]

This is where we depart. You cannot make that assertion as fact, because Rome has stated that either is acceptable. We cannot judge what is in one's heart. While the universal norm is to kneel, the indult granted the US is to stand. Therefore Rome has determined that as long as one shows a sign of reverence, then standing is acceptable.

[quote]I disagree with your assertion that progressives don't recognize this.[/quote]

Everyone has the right to come to an understanding of the Truth based upon his free will illumined by the Holy Spirit and the Church. While they may have a different vision than you, that doesn't mean that they don't understand the Church. There have always been progressives. Before the Council, Pius IX was a very liberal cardinal, it wasn't until he became pope that he shifted. And even then, he wasn't exactly the most conservative Pope ever to sit upon the chair of Peter.

[quote]I would suggest that your concern is misdirected and recommend that you focus your concern not on me, but on the church which is in a very grave state.[/quote]

That statement is illogical. The Church which is Jesus Christ, He is the head and we are the mystical body, cannot be in a grave state. To assert this is to assert that Jesus Christ is somehow in a grave state. Unless of course you don't think that the Church is Jesus Christ.

Cam42

[p0lar_bear]

Not to be contradictory, but...

Standing to receive Holy Communion is not actual an indult. The universal GIRM stated that the posture for receiving Communion is to be "standing or kneeling as set out by the episcopal conference" (or words to that effect...I can't remember the exact wording off-hand). The USCCB chose standing. It was a legitimate option offered in the universal GIRM, not a special exception granted upon request.

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

The Tridentine Masswas never taken away, ask Cardinal Estevez or Stickler and go look up Ecclesia Dei Protocal Number 500/90 where they confirm that a bishop has no right whatsoever to forbide a priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunitely, that is far from a reality since so many priests have been unjustly suspended for saying the Tridentine Mass. It has been unlawfully surpressed by the Vatican and the bishops and the brave folks at the SSPX have been fighting for it to be released and for the Vatican as a whole to finally admit this.

Edited February 27, 2005 by StPiusVPrayForUs

[Oik]

Polar, that's not true.

How did is come about that standing was permitted? An indult. Now, Rome has affirmed as much, so why would they need to repeat themselves exactly? They don't, hence, no mention of an indult, though it still is an indult.

Todd, where are you?

[Apotheoun]

The time immemorial custom of the Roman Rite (but not of the Eastern Rites) is to receive communion kneeling, because kneeling is a sign of adoration within the Latin Church. But the Holy See has allowed people to stand to receive communion (so long as they make some sign of reverence prior to reception) in those countries where the bishops have requested this posture.

It should be noted that since the approval of the American adaptations to the GIRM various authoritative interventions issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that touch upon this issue have insisted that the lay faithful may still kneel to receive communion and they are not to be sanctioned in any way for doing so, nor are they to be accused of disobedience.

[Oik]

The Norvus Ordo mass is the normative mass, not the tridentine mass. I love the tridentine mass, I attend one in Pittsburgh. It has been made abundantly clear that the Tridentine Mass is only available as an indult to be permitted by the Bishop of the diocese in which the Tridentine Mass is in request to be said.

We cannot push an agenda in the Church, we must align ourselves with Her Traditions.

Futhermore, schism and heresy is never Brave. Disobidence is not laudable.
Finally, no one has a right to the tridentine Mass, only a right to the sacraments.

[Cam42]

[quote]The Tridentine Masswas never taken away, ask Cardinal Estevez or Stickler and go look up Ecclesia Dei Protocal Number 500/90 where they confirm that a bishop has no right whatsoever to forbide a priest from saying the Tridentine Mass.[/quote]

You are quite right, in a private setting. However, he must have an indult to do so in public. This has been taken to the extent that a celebrit must be obtained in order to do so from the priest's Ordinary. The other way for a priest to gain the celebrit is to gain a universal one from the Coalition Ecclesia Dei.

Earlier on another thread, I have mentioned that I am friends with Fr. John Zuhsldorf. He is a priest of the diocese of Velletri-Segni in Italy. He also worked in the Coalition Ecclesia Dei. I have a very great understanding of this issue. I think that if it remains civil, it can be a productive one....

[quote]On Oct. 3, 1984, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued Quattuor Abhinc Annos, in which the Holy Father granted to diocesan bishops "the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful . . . may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition."

The following conditions were stipulated: a)that those requesting the permission do not "call into question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970"; b)that such celebrations take place only for groups requesting them, not in parish churches (except with the bishop's permission in extraordinary cases) and under conditions laid down by the bishop; c)that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 missal and in Latin"; d)that there "be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two missals" and e)that each bishop had to inform the congregation "of the concessions granted by him and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.  (Paul Agustine Mayer, OSB President Commission Ecclesia Dei)[/quote]

[quote]As you well know, responses to the illicit ordination of bishops at Econe on June 30, 1988, and wishing to uphold the principles which had been established in the previous and unfortunately unfruitful dialogue with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Holy Father issued Ecclesia Dei motu proprio on July 2, 1988.

While insisting that the root of the schismatic act of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in an "incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition" which fails to "take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition", he also maintained with equal firmness that it is necessary that all the pastors and other faithful have a new awareness not only of the lawfulness, but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate."

Consequently, addressing himself "to all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition" and not just to former adherents of Archbishop Lefebvre, he expressed his will "to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations." In order to provide for these legitimate desires of the faithful he established this pontifical commission and indicated his mind with regard to its primary task by stating:

"Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition." (Paul Agustine Mayer, OSB President Commission Ecclesia Dei)[/quote]

[quote]The Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei recognized that in itself the desire to celebrate and participate in the traditional liturgy of the Catholic Church as embodied in the liturgical books in force 1962 represents a legitimate desire on the part of the faithful. (Msgr. Camile Perl Secretary Commission Ecclesia Dei)[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/395"]Quattuor Abhinc Annos[/url]

Notice that throughout the document the assertation that a petition should be made and also that in order to even celebrate the Tridentine Mass, one must accept and acknowledge the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970, by Pope Paul VI. Also, it must be done according to the Roman Missal of 1962, only.

[quote]The Pope, who is the father of the entire Church, grants this indult as a sign of his concern for all his children. The indult is to be used without prejudice to the liturgical reform that is to be observed in the life of each ecclesial community. (QAA no. 5)[/quote]

Notice the language....it is in fact an indult for public celebration of said Mass.

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 27 2005, 08:57 AM']




Some (traditionalists) are (disobedient).  Actually, any who support the Tridentine as normative are being disobedient, not necessarily in schism though.  Although any who do not recognize the Holy Father (CMRI and SSPV) or who are outwardly disobedient (SSPX) are in schism. 

[/quote]
...And many progressives are disobedient and in schism. Some progressive priests say "mass" in clown outfits. Many "priests" sexually abuse clergy members. Many "bishops" offer cover to these predator "priests." Some "bishops" who make public statements which betray their lack of faith in the divinity of Christ are promoted to the position of "cardinal." And some people have the chutzpah to call a person who receives communion while kneeling "disobedient."

The double standard has officially reached the level of insanity.

The apostasy which was foretold in scripture; by too many saints to list, and by the Blessed Mother is under way.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']Progressive Catholic's tendency is away from reverence by standing for communion rather than kneeling. This is a fact.[/quote]

This is where we depart. You cannot make that assertion as fact, because Rome has stated that either is acceptable. [/quote]

I'm not speaking about what's acceptable. I'm speaking about what's more reverent.

And yes, I can make that assertion. Progressives have the option to either stand or kneel for communion. Most all progressives choose the less reverent option: standing. Therefore, the progressive tendency in this matter is away from, not towards reverence.

[quote name='Cam42']Everyone has the right to come to an understanding of the Truth based upon his free will illumined by the Holy Spirit and the Church.  While they may have a different vision than you, that doesn't mean that they don't understand the Church.[/quote]

This statement is dangerously close to postmodern ...gnosticism.

Truth exists as it is regardless of how it may be perceived or understood by individual persons.

Kneeling is more reverent than standing. This is a truth that exists outside of and independent of us. No personal feeling or perception can change this. To state otherwise is postmodernism, not Catholicism. And any "illumination" that contradicts this truth is not from the Holy Spirit.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']I would suggest that your concern is misdirected and recommend that you focus your concern not on me, but on the church which is in a very grave state.[/quote]

That statement is illogical. The Church which is Jesus Christ, He is the head and we are the mystical body, cannot be in a grave state. To assert this is to assert that Jesus Christ is somehow in a grave state. Unless of course you don't think that the Church is Jesus Christ.[/quote]

I'm no more illogical than our Blessed Mother who pleads for Catholics to pray for the church.

Here's that insane double standard again. In the midst of a plague of pedophile "priests," "cardinals" who have no faith, clown masses and other perversions of the liturgy--which you apparently see as no threat to the church--you seek to discredit a traditional Catholic who is concerned by these abuses with a word trap about the mystical body of Christ. How do you think that those who stand by as the church is being ravaged while attempting to discredit others who oppose these wrongs will be judged?

Thank God Saints Athanasius, Irenaeus, and so many others recognized threats to the church as they existed and fought against those threats. I suppose that according to your logic, the few who fought the Arian heresy wasted their effort for even though the church appeared to be (in fact, it was) overtaken by heretics, it wasn't really a grave situation.

Let's, at least, try to be reasonable.

Edited February 28, 2005 by james

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 28 2005, 07:20 AM'] ...And many progressives are disobedient and in schism. Some progressive priests say "mass" in clown outfits. Many "priests" sexually abuse clergy members. Many "bishops" offer cover to these predator "priests." Some "bishops" who make public statements which betray their lack of faith in the divinity of Christ are promoted to the position of "cardinal." And some people have the chutzpah to call a person who receives communion while kneeling "disobedient."

[/quote]

And you act like sin and disobedience are something new? You think this is the first time clergy have sinned?
Wearing a clown outfit and sex abuse are hardly in the same category.


And yes laity who kneel when asked to stand are disobeying their bishops.

[Cam42]

[quote]Let's, at least, try to be reasonable.[/quote]
Yes, let's do for a change.

[quote]And many progressives are disobedient and in schism.[/quote]
How so?

[quote]Some progressive priests say "mass" in clown outfits.[/quote]
This makes the Mass illicit, not invalid. While it is wrong, this disobedience is not on the same level as an obstinant action that is contrary to the Holy Father. Which is exactly what Archbishop Lefevbre did.

[quote]Many "priests" sexually abuse clergy members. Many "bishops" offer cover to these predator "priests."[/quote]
This has no bearing on this conversation.

[quote]Some "bishops" who make public statements which betray their lack of faith in the divinity of Christ are promoted to the position of "cardinal."[/quote]
And some people who think themselves holier than the Church claim sedevanctism.

[quote] And some people have the chutzpah to call a person who receives communion while kneeling "disobedient."[/quote]
And thus the catechesis....that is why the conversation was going on.

[quote]The double standard has officially reached the level of insanity.[/quote]
If you are comparing the SSPX with those who are liberals, you are flat out wrong. At most the progressives may be incredulous, but in schism, only Rome can do that....and he did in regard to the SSPX.

[quote]I'm not speaking about what's acceptable. I'm speaking about what's more reverent.[/quote]
You then miss the point. We are discussing both. Reverence is an important action, but one must not make themselves more holy than the Church.

[quote]And yes, I can make that assertion......[/quote]
Simply your opinion.....you are entitled to it. I just hope that you start assenting your will to that of the Church soon.

[quote]This statement is dangerously close to postmodern ...gnosticism.[/quote]
Easy Sparky.....that is most certainly not the case.....

Aquinas:
[quote]Those words of the Apostle are not to be taken as though man does not wish or does not run of his free-will, but because the free-will is not sufficient thereto unless it be moved and helped by God.

Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.  (Summa Theologica I-I, 83, 2)[/quote]

Cam:
[quote]Everyone has the right to come to an understanding of the Truth based upon his free will illumined by the Holy Spirit and the Church.[/quote]
That is quite possibly the exact same statement, unless of course you think that St. Thomas Aquinas was a gnostic too?

[quote]....you seek to discredit a traditional Catholic who is concerned by these abuses with a word trap about the mystical body of Christ.[/quote]
Actually, no. Actually, I support traditional Catholicism. I have a great love of the Tridentine Mass. I have a great love of the Church. The two are not mutually exclusive, unless one ascribes to a schismatic priniciple like that of the SSPX.

I view myself to be a traditional Catholic, according to the norms laid forth by the Commission Ecclesia Dei. Which, incidentally, is the only way to be a faithful "traditional" Catholic.

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']And many progressives are disobedient and in schism.[/quote]

How so?[/quote]


Through their actions. A statement from Rome is not a necessary condition for a person to be disobedient or in active schism. When a priest sexually abuses his clergy he is most definitely in a grave state of disobedience. If a Catholic speaks against the divine presence in the Eucharist or against the divinity of Christ, as many progressives do, that person is in schism.

You assert that pedophile priests, "have no bearing on" this conversation but insist that obedience be addressed. Please choose a clear position.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']Some "bishops" who make public statements which betray their lack of faith in the divinity of Christ are promoted to the position of "cardinal."[/quote]

And some people who think themselves holier than the Church claim sedevanctism.[/quote]

I've made a valid point. You answer it with a remark that's only purpose is to shift the focus away from my point. When a bishop who has no faith in the divinity of Christ is promoted to yet a higher position of authority: cardinal, this is a clear sign that Rome is in a grave state. How else could this be interpreted? No wonder you avoid the point.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']The double standard has officially reached the level of insanity.[/quote]

If you are comparing the SSPX with those who are liberals, you are flat out wrong. At most the progressives may be incredulous, but in schism, only Rome can do that....and he did in regard to the SSPX.[/quote]

No, I am comparing progressives, many who are disobedient and in schism, with those who are faithful to church tradition.

Once again, it is a person's actions which places them in a state of schism not a statement from Rome. Your statement "only Rome can do that" is false. Rome can issue statements of excommunication but a person's actions are the cause of the excommunication. Any person can actively excommunicate themselves through their actions.

You're playing a not-so-clever game here when you blur the distinctions between active and passive schism in defense of progressives. Since Rome is stacked with progressives it's unreasonable to expect that Rome will be issuing many excommunications of fellow progressives. And given the progressive's objection to traditionalists, it is reasonable to expect that Rome will instead focus it's negative attention on the traditionalist community, and that is precisely what is happening.

Your allegation that liberals, many who have no faith in the divine presence, are incredulous at worst reveals a serious misunderstanding. Loss of faith is a far more grave condition of the soul than is a state of disagreement with the hierarchy of Rome over an issue unrelated to the basic tenets of Catholic faith. Traditional Catholics are able make these distinctions.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']I'm not speaking about what's acceptable. I'm speaking about what's more reverent.[/quote]
You then miss the point. We are discussing both. Reverence is an important action, but one must not make themselves more holy than the Church.[/quote]

You are blurring reverence with acceptability and combining it with that old "holier than the pope" chestnut. Just because the church accepts both kneeling and standing does not make both equally reverent. There is no connection to be made here.

And if striving for exceptional holiness were not virtuous there would be no saints or martyrs. Many people in places of high authority today in Rome publicly embrace errors which Christian martyrs gave their lives fighting against. If St. Anathasius bought into your argument that one "should not make themselves holier than the church" he would not have fought against the Arian heresy.

Using your logic an argument could be made that we should not believe in the divinity of Christ because some who are above us in the hierarchy in Rome don't believe it, and we certainly should not strive to be more holy than they are. Is that the point you are trying to make? If so, that's horrible advice.

[quote name='Cam42'][quote name='James']Progressives have the option to either stand or kneel for communion. Most all progressives choose the less reverent option: standing. Therefore, the progressive tendency in this matter is away from, not towards reverence.[/quote]
Simply your opinion.....you are entitled to it. [/quote]

Kneeling is more reverent than standing. Those who kneel display more reverence than those who stand. This is not opinion. It's fact.

[quote name='Cam42']Everyone has the right to come to an understanding of the Truth based upon his free will illumined by the Holy Spirit and the Church. While they may have a different vision than you, that doesn't mean that they don't understand the Church.[/quote]

I'm surprised that you would attempt to associate St. Thomas with this nonsense. Your quote from the angelic doctor does not apply here because I am not challenging the concept of free will. I am challenging your assertion that truth changes with our "understanding" of it. Two diametrically opposed views of the church cannot both be correct. Christ cannot be both divine and non-divine. The concepts that there is no salvation outside the church and that there are many paths to salvation cannot both be correct.

So yes, everyone has the right to exercise their free will and come up with their own "understanding" of the truth no matter how bizarre that "understanding" may be, but if that "understanding" does not coincide with truth it most definitely does indicate a misunderstanding of the church. And beliefs that do not coincide with truth need not be respected. There is no right to be wrong.

[quote name='Cam42']Easy Sparky.....[/quote]

Sparky... that name is commonly associated with pet dogs, isn't it?

You've must be hanging out with too many Talmudists. I'll have to assume that's where you learned how to dehumanize Christians with comments like that.

You know, in the Judaic Kabballah it's claimed that our Lord is a "dead dog." I suppose I should be honored to receive the same treatment as He.

"Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." John 15:20

"The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the good man of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?" Matthew 10:24-25

Edited February 28, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 28 2005, 07:24 AM']

Wearing a clown outfit and sex abuse are hardly in the same category.


[/quote]
Both of these atrocities and many more have taken place on the progressive's watch.

These things did not take place during the pontificate of pope St. Pius X, Leo XIII or any of the other great anti-modernist popes.

That's the connection.

Edited March 1, 2005 by james

[cmotherofpirl]

Bull.

Don't know much about the history of clown costumes, but sex crimes have been around as long as there has been sex. You think its something new??

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 28 2005, 07:12 PM'] Bull.

Don't know much about the history of clown costumes, but sex crimes have been around as long as there has been sex. You think its something new?? [/quote]
As the old saying goes, "There is nothing new under the sun."

[james]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 28 2005, 09:12 PM']
Don't know much about the history of clown costumes... [/quote]
Clown masses don't have much of a history in the church. This problem seems to coincide with the rise of progressives in the church heirarchy as I've stated.


[quote name='cmotherofpirl']...but sex crimes have been around as long as there has been sex. You think its something new?? [/quote]

Sex crimes may be nothing new, but rampant homosexuality and sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy which is covered up by bishops [i]is[/i] something new. Again, this problem seems to coincide with the rise of progressives in the church, just as clown masses have.

These are only two examples of the many problems which have occured on the progressive's watch. There are many, many more.

"Ordinations: In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

"Seminarians: Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 — a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2000.

"Sisters: 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000 — and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers. From 1965 to 2002, per capita, the number of sisters fell from 39.43 per 10,000 to 11.56 — a decline of 71 percent.

"Brothers: The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 predicted for 2020.

"High Schools: Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

"Parochial Grade Schools: There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

"Marriage: [b]In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.[/b]

"Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that [b]65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.[/b]

"The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact — fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. [b]And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus. [/b]

"Religious orders: I'm not being chicken little here, but the religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics."

[url="http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html"]http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html[/url]

Edited March 1, 2005 by james