The Cassock Is Not “A Detail” Aborting Vocations. Cyril Farret d'Astiès has commented on the decision of Toulouse Archbishop de Kérimel to ban the cassock in his seminary. Kérimel alleged that the …More
The Cassock Is Not “A Detail”
Aborting Vocations. Cyril Farret d'Astiès has commented on the decision of Toulouse Archbishop de Kérimel to ban the cassock in his seminary. Kérimel alleged that the cassock would give too much of a clerical image and would create a distance with the faithful. But Farret notices that – quote - “asking seminarians not to aspire to the clerical state and forcing them to mix with lay people is really doing everything possible to abort vocations.”
Details. Farret takes up the argument that legislating about the cassock regards only a detail. He stresses, that other things may also be considered only a detail such as abolishing the offertory in the Novus Ordo, communion on the tongue, the introduction of lay readers. However, Farret explains that such an accumulation of details, which all point in the same direction, leads to another small detail which is secularisation and the loss of faith.
The Tactic. One of the first measures taken by the diabolic French Revolution against the Church was to prohibit wearing the clerical habit. In 1962 – when Vatican II started – Paris Diocese authorised to replace the cassock by the clergyman. This was the occasion for all kinds of excesses, which quickly led to the absence of the cassock and the outward secularisation of the clergy. Now, even the Vatican is against the cassock. One of the first acts of the Amazonia Synod was to tell the participants to abandon the cassock.
Transformation. The cassock is more than a working garment, Farret writes. It is the livery of Christ. The years in seminary are for the future priest an occasion to put on this livery, from the tonsure and vesture of the cassock to the yoke of the chasuble on the day of priestly ordination. It accustoms him and the world of the beginning of a transformation that will lead to the birth of a new priest for eternity according to the order of Melchisedec. Farret stresses that De Kérimel’s decision can be compared to allowing grabbing communion with the hand which gradually led to forbidding receiving Communion the way it was for centuries the Church’s practice.
Aborting Vocations. Cyril Farret d'Astiès has commented on the decision of Toulouse Archbishop de Kérimel to ban the cassock in his seminary. Kérimel alleged that the cassock would give too much of a clerical image and would create a distance with the faithful. But Farret notices that – quote - “asking seminarians not to aspire to the clerical state and forcing them to mix with lay people is really doing everything possible to abort vocations.”
Details. Farret takes up the argument that legislating about the cassock regards only a detail. He stresses, that other things may also be considered only a detail such as abolishing the offertory in the Novus Ordo, communion on the tongue, the introduction of lay readers. However, Farret explains that such an accumulation of details, which all point in the same direction, leads to another small detail which is secularisation and the loss of faith.
The Tactic. One of the first measures taken by the diabolic French Revolution against the Church was to prohibit wearing the clerical habit. In 1962 – when Vatican II started – Paris Diocese authorised to replace the cassock by the clergyman. This was the occasion for all kinds of excesses, which quickly led to the absence of the cassock and the outward secularisation of the clergy. Now, even the Vatican is against the cassock. One of the first acts of the Amazonia Synod was to tell the participants to abandon the cassock.
Transformation. The cassock is more than a working garment, Farret writes. It is the livery of Christ. The years in seminary are for the future priest an occasion to put on this livery, from the tonsure and vesture of the cassock to the yoke of the chasuble on the day of priestly ordination. It accustoms him and the world of the beginning of a transformation that will lead to the birth of a new priest for eternity according to the order of Melchisedec. Farret stresses that De Kérimel’s decision can be compared to allowing grabbing communion with the hand which gradually led to forbidding receiving Communion the way it was for centuries the Church’s practice.
la verdad prevalece
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
APOSTASY AB ORDINE
This, according to the present discipline of the Church, is the abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders.
This, according to the present discipline of the Church, is the abandonment of the clerical dress and state by clerics who have received major orders.
occasnltrvlr
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
May God bless and defend anyone and everyone who is zealous for His true Church, the Catholic Church under the valid Bishop of Rome.
Please understand I do not mean this as any defense of any person, neither do I mean to incite division.
In my layperson's point of view, it makes perfect sense to prohibit seminarians from wearing cassocks anywhere where the seminarian may become engaged with laypeople …More
May God bless and defend anyone and everyone who is zealous for His true Church, the Catholic Church under the valid Bishop of Rome.
Please understand I do not mean this as any defense of any person, neither do I mean to incite division.
In my layperson's point of view, it makes perfect sense to prohibit seminarians from wearing cassocks anywhere where the seminarian may become engaged with laypeople, such as myself. As a layman, seeing a man wearing a cassock, I may naturally assume the wearer is a Priest, which, of course, a seminarian is not. This could, quite easily, lead to my revealing confidences which an un-ordained man is unprepared to hear, as well as leading me, the layman, to gain invalid confidences from my interaction with the cassock-wearing man.
To me it seems that that alone is a valid reason to prohibit seminarians from wearing cassocks in any public place.
May God, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, bless, protect, and defend each and every person who reads these words.
Please understand I do not mean this as any defense of any person, neither do I mean to incite division.
In my layperson's point of view, it makes perfect sense to prohibit seminarians from wearing cassocks anywhere where the seminarian may become engaged with laypeople, such as myself. As a layman, seeing a man wearing a cassock, I may naturally assume the wearer is a Priest, which, of course, a seminarian is not. This could, quite easily, lead to my revealing confidences which an un-ordained man is unprepared to hear, as well as leading me, the layman, to gain invalid confidences from my interaction with the cassock-wearing man.
To me it seems that that alone is a valid reason to prohibit seminarians from wearing cassocks in any public place.
May God, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, bless, protect, and defend each and every person who reads these words.