enhanced by
Bookmark:
When the traditional mass in Latin was canceled to be spoken in the language of the area, thousands of Catholics left the church.
Traditions are something you don't play games with.
I have conferred with many people and went to a service someone complained about, the music was a loud discordant street noise with a great deal of shouting. I couldn't understand the sermon in street jazzed up language. I with my friends, left in the middle of the service. Anything would be better than that. There were a handful of people in attendance to a church that held several hundred on a normal service years ago.
People have gone to other churches such as the Episcopal for tradition.
Years ago, it didn't matter where in the world you traveled, you were always at home when you went to mass, you understood what was being said because it was the same everywhere. Today, you haven't a clue.
In my humble opinion, the Pope is very wise to restore the Church to it's original beliefs and practices.
#1: When the Pope removes the filioque from the creed, repudiates papal monarchy and infallibility, and states that the communion bread is to be artos (proper leavened bread) instead of azymos (unleavened wafers) then, and only then, will he have begun to 'restore the [RC] Church to it's original beliefs and practices.'
Gerald as ever is a joy to read on a Sunday, agree or disagree his output is truly catholic.
The Old Indian Diehard makes much in his poetic polemic of Pope Bendict's decision to re-introduce the Tridentine Mass? Seeking solace in the past has always been an affliction of the old and dogmatic, whether it be Popes or journalists, who still cling to the nostalgic past and are unable to face up to the realpolitik of the future. I suppose this ridiculous decision, taken in clonclave by dozens of deaf octogenarians, will please those Latin scholars everywhere who have always believed that celebrating the Mass in their 'second tongue' was somehow beneath their intellectual capacity? The 'local' mass is for the peasants! Yet, this same group of R.P. dinosaurs sniffily look down their noses on the rural dialects of Lombardy, and Sicily? Too far away from West Latium?Will young Catholics be able to download a translation on their MP3 players? It would be truly ironic, if after the re-introduction of the Latin Mass, that this fossil language became popular amongst the Catholic masses? Now that would be really worrying for the bishops!As for political analogies? The last thing Flaky Cameron needs is advice from an Old Tridentine Tory when an opinion poll in today's Daily Telegraph gives the Son of the Manse a lead of 7 percentage points! Lachie Todd
#4 Being a relative newcomer, why Old Indian Diehard
Mass of All Time? The four centuries, after 1570 hardly constitute all time. Those, roughly, were the years when the counter-reformation’s Tridendine rite was the norm. As for Latin, let Warner direct his mind to the obsequies of the late John Paul II. Towards their end was a mini-service conducted by “Eastern Rite” bishops. The language was Greek –the original liturgical tongue of Rome’s Christians (or the Gentile element among them, possibly with allegiance to Paul). That is surely why the ????e ???s?? (Kyrie eleison –Lord have Mercy) is preserved in the Tridentine Mass in recognition of its own and Latin’s parvenu status but ancient lineage. Would the Greek liturgy not be a better candidate for the title, “Mass of All Time? “
Sorry about the ???? etc. above. The Greek script for "Kyrie Eleison" is displayed in preview but is lost is final post. Perhaps this technical fault should be reported to the Webmaster.
Anyhow just as the modernisers of the Anglican Communion have replaced the beauty of The King James version of the Bible with happy claptrap, to the sorrow and consternation of many of their numbers, likewise the Tridentine Mass is remembered by many with great affection.Orate pro nobis
#4: Is this what is meant by the 'West Latium Question?'
What's the Latin for "blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit?"
#10 asks:'What's the Latin for "blasphemous fable and dangerous deceit?"'.
That's easy: Georgius Bush et Antonius Blair
Bravo,Bravo on your article,once again we are seeing the hand of God protecting his Church.All Glory and Honor To God All Mighty.
#6
What happened in 1570 was the standardisation of the Roman Rite. Basically the liturgy as said in the city of Rome itself was made standard for the whole church and this itself had barely changed in over a century at this point. The Mass, while important revisions were made over time, had (and has) remained in basic structure unchanged since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century, when the Roman Canon assumed its final shape, which it retains to this day. Indeed the Roman Rite is often referred to as "The Holy Mass of St. Gregory the Great"
The Tridentine revision of 1570 simply represented one of several revisions of the Mass since Patristic times. Its basic form has remained unchanged.
With regard to the language issue, the same argument could be made about Church Slavonic which postdates both Greek and Latin as a liturgical language. Indeed the same argument could be made against Greek in favour of Aramaic. Time and geography has determined what have become accepted as sacred liturgical languages and the arguments in favour of such languages generally tend to outweigh those against.
#13 My gratitude for this erudite exposition by one who obviously does know. A few quibbles-which may approach scholastic hair -splitting dimensions.
1) Even the 14 Centuries since Gregorius Magnus do not constitute "all time" especially when..2) There were developments and revisions in the Roman liturgy itself in that time -as you concede;3) There were, also from patristic times and arguably before, non -Latin liturgies in use and which continue (possibly with revisions of their own -I don't know and don't have the brass neck to guess) to this day. This gives them a greater claim, arguably, to the rhetorical title of "Mass of All Time";
4) Even purely Latin liturgies from Gregorian times evolved different practices and variant prayers and pronunciations (Trivial example: Pilate's words, "Ecce Homo" pronounce "Ecky Homo" in rites close to the classical Latin, "Ecksie Homo" in pre-Reformation Scotland's Sarum Rite but "Etchy Homo" in Rome which imposed this, its own Italianised or Mori Romano pronunciation after Trent.
5) You ignore older and non -Gregorian Latin liturgies, most spectacularly on your own doorstep: those of the Celtic Church, with elements preceding Gregory possibly by two centuries varied locally, developed over time but continued in Scotland until the Norman church reforms of the 12th and 13th centuries when the Sarum rite gradually took over throughout the realm. In other words, a non-Gregorian Latin liturgy, developed from PRE-GREGORIAN roots has a history here as long as the Gregorian family of liturgies, including the Tridentine (1570-1970). These too, certainly have a stronger claim than Trent's -and possibly even St Gregory's- to the rhetorical title of "Mass of All Time".
On the language issue (in addition to 3, above) your argument about Church Slavonic is baffling. I was initially arguing about a liturgical language -Greek- that
#5 That's a question that has puzzled the rest of the posters for some time (you won't get an answer).
Basically I think it's - let's call him Edward's (his real name's not Lachie that's for sure) attempt to belittle GW as he does every week usually not even bothering to address the piece in question, though he has in this case.
I suspect from reading his tiresome rubbish that he's a Labour activist, solidly middle class aged English leftie who pretends to be Scottish (probably because he moved there and wants to fit in).
Anyone who dismisses Latin because it's not a spoken language anymore is a fool. In "lachie's" case that goes without saying.
#14
Sorry I think I missed your emphasis on critiquing the title "Mass of all Time". I was simply addressing the historical roots of the TLM and its continuity within the Roman Rite from early times. With regard to the title in question, it really is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish, a poetic description, just like how the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is referred to as "The Queen of Liturgies". It's not an official church description (despite what certain ultra-trad schismatics may hope). I wasn't dismissing or ignoring the other Rites of the Church, they simply weren't relevant to the point I was trying to make. I wasn't arguing one way or the other.
Basically it reflected and reflects a position held by many that the Mass of Pius V (the TLM) represents the pinnacle of liturgical form in the Western Church. It's a position that I am deeply sympathetic to given the fact that it was celebrated uniformly all over the world in a universal language that connect believers of all tongues and races (though the same is true of the Eastern liturgies) and the legacy of the Novus Ordo.
However I firmly believe that liturgy cannot be frozen in stasis, over time it naturally, organically evolves in order to adequately reflect lex orandi, lex credendi in different eras. And this can be seen in the fact that the Old Rite has seen several revisions since 1570, indeed the 1962 Revision of Blessed John XXIII being the subject of the motu proprio. Of course there are certain limits which I unfortunately do feel were pushed to breaking point by the Novus Ordo. That said, on a positive note, momentum does seem to be gathering for the "reform of the reform" - all in all we are living in exciting times in church history.
P.S. I'm not sure the East is particularly perturbed by the TLM being described as the "Mass of all Time" because, as I'm sure they will point out, they don't use the word "mass
"There is a revived spirit infusing the Church, a spirit once defined by GK Chesterton: "I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity)... I am very proud of being orthodox about the mysteries of the Trinity or the Mass; I am proud of believing in the Confessional; I am proud of believing in the Papacy"
Chesterton is proud of the fact that he doesn't think for himself and takes things on faith.
What a waste of time and life.
Don't think it's '60s liberalism' that has done for the catholic church so much as paedophile priests and the subsequent cover up.
#17,
GK Chesterton didn't think for himself?! I've read some stupendous posts on this site, but that one will take some beating.
#18,
With over 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I don't think the Church will be "done for" any time soon. Still, at least you managed to get that wee dig in.
As someone who has been attending the traditional rite for a few years and also recently endured a mass in the diocese of Arundel and Brighton, there is no doubt which I think inspires the more profound sense of mystery. However, the idea that we can spend 'generations' clawing back lost tradition 'inch by inch' is not one I can sign up to - it's as hopeless a task as trying to fill the Usher Hall classical concerts with audiences of under 25s. Let both Old and New run their natural courses. Each Catholic soul to its own.Loved the GK. Chesterson quote. Resonates too close for comfort!
#16 Conori:
Sorry, I have been occupied in family matters since my last post 7+ hours ago.
I would not like you to think that I, in turn, was in any way disparaging TLM in general or the Tridentine Mass in particular. As a music lover, I am deeply conscious of the debt that our civilisation owes to both. Indeed, I am sorry GW did not expound this argument which could well have appealed to civilised Protestants, agnostics and even atheists. Many of these will have been moved to tears, as I was some years ago, by hearing a very moving account of Schubert's Mass in D, or some other setting by another composer. Recipients of a Catholic education, of a certain age, have the advantage that they already "know the words." They do not, as in the case of an opera or even an oratorio have to mug up a libretto in advance. It is a pity that more than a generation of Catholic children have been robbed of that treasure and good news that it will again become more freely available. Who knows, some of us long lost to the Church, may at least try to recapture the sensation of what faith once meant.
Thank you Gerald, for your, as usual, good Sunday read!
As a person who was, and still am, ennobled by Gregorian Chant; it is, in my opinion, one of the best forms of music.
To respond to the previous posters:
Warner is an apologist for Paulianity, not Christianity.
Long live the religon of Constantine!!!!!!
Sorry, were you attempting to make a point James?
#24 writes: 'Long live the religon of Constantine!!!!!!'
Er...which one?
I encourage all the readers not to take lightly the words written by Gerard Warner about the Freemason Annibale Bugnini.
An article at Inside the Vatican dated July 11, 2007 entitled, “A Bishop Weeps” by Orazio La Rocca is a must read for anyone who has taken Mr. Warner’s words seriously about the Freemasonic connection and the New Mass. In this article (link below), progressive Italian bishop Luca Brandolini is asked, “Why are you so touched by the decision taken by Pope Ratzinger?” He answers, “The episcopal ring which I carry on my finger belonged to archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the father of the Conciliar liturgical reform. I was, at the time of the Council, a disciple of his and a close co-worker. I was close to him when he worked in that reform and I always recall with how much passion he worked for liturgical renewal. Now, his work has been canceled." The link to the article is here: http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-...
My question is this…why does this man think Bugnini’s work is CANCELLED??? Obviously, he must be afraid of something, but what? The power of the Tridentine Mass, perhaps? It was always said that the KGB was quite afraid of the Fatima Message as they understood the great power the Virgin Mary of Fatima had to crush the head of of the Red Dragon (Communism). Quite possibly the Freemasons are very upset over this Motu Proprio for similar reasons. The great spiritual power of this Mass has now been “unleashed,” and they realize it is only a matter of time for the spiritual battle to take place and the Old Mass to reign triumphant as before. Remember, a great deal of deceit was used for many years after Vatican II to say the Old Mass had been “suppressed.” It was not until Pope John Paul II called a consistory of Cardinals in 1986 under Cardinal Alfons Maria Stickler that it was determined this
Perhaps the Prophecy of St Malachy should be considered for the reign of this present Pontiff who is keen to revive old traditions.
Is he the penultimate Pope?
(If you believe all that stuff!)
Sorry Richardinho, I should have known you would have needed it spelling out.
Amidst all the intelligent discussion on the issue of the Tridentine Mass, on you come like Beavis or Butthead (I'll let you decide which), with a totally irrelevant and snide comment which adds nothing to the discussion.
Hope that helps.
"#17,
GK Chesterton didn't think for himself?! I've read some stupendous posts on this site, but that one will take some beating."
He's proud of superstition, dogma and dead creeds. What is that but a refusal to think for oneself?
That is what faith is.
It's been a wonderful week for people who care pasionately about the Catholic Church. I'm delighted that the Mass of St Gregory (dating back in much of its form and prayers to about the 4th Century) is being allowed once more to fill the hearts of the Faithful with the love of God in the Eucharist.
In a few years people will look back at the liturgical revolution of the late 1960's with astonishment and disbelief and ask themselves how was it ever possible that the Catholic Church could turn so viciously on its own traditions in this way?
Thank you, Holy Father.
"He's proud of superstition, dogma and dead creeds. What is that but a refusal to think for oneself?"
What is that but a wilful misrepresentation of a quotation, and a subjective opinion of that misrepresentation?
"That is what faith is."
How simplistic!
"31. THE James, Lincoln / 12:38pm 16 Jul 2007 "He's proud of superstition, dogma and dead creeds. What is that but a refusal to think for oneself?"
What is that but a wilful misrepresentation of a quotation, and a subjective opinion of that misrepresentation?"
What is that but goalpost shifting?
""That is what faith is."
How simplistic!"
How retarded. Faith is refusal to think.
#32,
"How retarded. Faith is refusal to think."
Insult; do I detect a hint of annoyance there?
Here is the relevant passage from the article:
"There is a revived spirit infusing the Church, a spirit once defined by GK Chesterton: "I am very proud of my religion; I am especially proud of those parts of it that are most commonly called superstition. I am proud of being fettered by antiquated dogmas and enslaved by dead creeds (as my journalistic friends repeat with so much pertinacity)... I am very proud of being orthodox about the mysteries of the Trinity or the Mass; I am proud of believing in the Confessional; I am proud of believing in the Papacy."
You said:
You have deliberately misrepresented what was said. YOU have labelled the faith of Chesterton, "superstition, dogma and dead creeds." Then labelled THOSE a refusal to think for oneself.
So one of Britain's greatest writers did not think for himself!
How sad that you feel able to reduce Faith to such a trite soundbite.
"When this appalling confection was presented to the 1967 Synod of Bishops it was indignantly rejected". Hardly. When, after Mass celebrated according to the draft Novus Ordo, the bishops voted, 71 voted in favour, 62 voted in favour with proposed amendments and 43 voted for rejection. In other words two thirds voted in favour. Further changes were made in the light of the bishops' suggestions before the Ordo was promulgated two years later.
Will the latin mass fill the empty churches? The church as we knew it is dying,because the children of today are smarter than the peasants who were gullible and easily led.
#35
"Will the latin mass fill the empty churches? The church as we knew it is dying,because the children of today are smarter than the peasants who were gullible and easily led."
Well, the traditional orders of Catholic priests such as the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are attracting huge numbers of vocations from young men. The FSSP doesn't have the capacity to accept all of the applications that they have been receiving.
Besides, I am not entirely sure that we are smarter than our grandparents who seemed to have far more common sense and moral conscience than we have. Look at the world around you and what is on the front covers of magazines and newspapers - it doesn't take much to realise that we have gone seriously wrong in our priorities and our attitude to good and evil.
Sorry, James, I think you've misunderstood-the discussion is actually about the current status of the catholic church.
To suggest as Warner does, that all the catholic church has to do to reinvigorate itself is reintroduce some obscure latin mass is delusional in the extreme.
There are a host of issues which it must address. You are clearly of the camp which wishes to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away. As we have seen with recent events in California, that isn't going to happen.
#33 "So one of Britain's greatest writers did not think for himself!
How sad that you feel able to reduce Faith to such a trite soundbite."
What's great about him?
The passage you quote is brain-rotting drivel.
Faith is also mind-rotting. It is the polar opposite of reason, which is man's means of survival.
"What's great about him?"
"Faith is also mind-rotting"
This attitude betrays a profound cultural and historical illiteracy.
"Benedict XVI is not the awaited pope of tradition"
We'll see, Papa Ratzi has good amount of time left to work wonders.
#3-40: How interesting. Not one of you has addressed the issues I raised in comment #2, in answer to the suggestion in #1 that the Pope is restoring the [RC] Church 'to it's original beliefs and practices'.
I see Rome's blinkers remain firmly fixed.
"By their fruits you shall know them" The reason the freemasonic infulence sought to, and achieved, a change in the form of the mass is simple, abundant supernatural graces flow from The Tridentine Rite of the mass, and the reinactment of Our Lord's sacrifice on the cross, these graces do not flow from the protestantised Novus Ordo misse. Here's hoping this is the start of the restoration of the Catholic church!
Deo gratias!
41 - I suspect that the idea that liberating the '62 use constitutes a 'return to original beliefs and practices' was being used rather loosely; in any case, the idea that faithfulness to tradition involves 'archaeologism' (or whatever the usual form of the word is!) is generally recognised as untrue. In the Catholic tradition, it is recognised that practice and doctrine develop while their nature remains unchanged, just as a person grows from infancy to adulthood while remaining the same individual. It is rather a Protestant thing to imagine that Christians should be aiming at historical recreation of the Apostolic era.
14, similarly, is being a wee bit archaeological in suggesting that a consistent approach to liturgical tradition would impel the recovery of Celtic rites/uses. From a purely practical point of view, anyhow, we couldn't - if I remember rightly, there are no complete manuscripts of these liturgies, nor sufficient evidence to reconstruct them. It would certainly be false to tradition to try to make up a Celtic rite/use now!
This is not "Traditionalism," but rather it amounts to the reactionary (and probably penultimate) gasps of a dying sect. "Pope" Ratzinger is driving the Roman Catholic Church into further decline by these reactionary policies. While "Modernism" (how dated is *that* term!) was not the answer that the naïve idealists espousing it wished to believe, neither is this reactionary perspective of Ratzinger a solution.
Instead, the Church should look to thinking that functions outside the box of the false dilemmata which have afflicted Western society for some 1500 years (for which, it must be admitted, the Church is itself largely responsible).
43: Far from being 'archaelogism[s]', the four issues I cited are live to this very day - being the principal disagreements separating the Roman and Orthodox Churches.
The first three (filioque, papal monarchy and papal infallibility) are doctrinal. They are Roman innovations which are not found in the early Church, and which the Orthodox Communion rejects.
The fourth issue (artos/azymos), though not doctrinal, furnished the pretext which Cardinal Humbert (legate of a dead pope - who, therefore had no valid credentials) exploited when he instigated the schism of 1054 by laying a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople during the divine liturgy.
The schism was, of course, confirmed when a later pope took advantage of the Fourth Crusade sack of Constantinople to try to destroy the Orthodox Church by evicting and replacing with Latin priests all the Orthodox clergy that refused to accept Roman supremacy.
The fact is at every Tridentine Mass I have attended most of the people are young - at least below 50. Half are families with many children. At least a third are Asian, and men usually outnumber women. As stats in the US indicate the young are flocking to the Latin rite. They are looking for majesty, reverence, modesty, --- God. Their search isn't about joining one more social club enduring one more lecture -- about how to be a good kumbaya pablum saltfree substitute Catholic. The order that provides the priests to say the Latin Rite have no shortage of priests or candidates for the priesthood. Kindly men one and all, they do not pull punches about preaching the WHOLE Gospel not JUST the warm fuzzy stuff. STuff that gives everyone a pass, asks nothing, requires little, and leaves one feeling they have just been to a PTA meeting at the local elementary school, donuts and coffee following, bad music and worse dancing and crappy art work to fill in the blanks.
If people think the Latin Rite is drawing ONLY old crones and reactionaries who want to burn heretics at some point - think again. I believe those attracted to the Latin Rite are hungry for worship of the Divine first before offering your shirt to the neighbor. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter who are doing most of the Latin Rite are an unusual wonderful bunch. My fav is our French priest, about 35. He is hard to understand sometimes but no one questions his dedication. He shocked shocked my fallen away son by hearing a private confession. These priests put souls before meetings or running hither and yon doing "important" things. What sealed it for me was when the French Consulate in Atlanta told him he shouldn't wear his priest collar or black suit when he voted in the French primary. Father made a stink and when the real election came he voted in his priestly garb, plus the stink raised by journalist friends in the US and France made it likely the bureaucrats will think twice before a
The Mass has been being done in Latin for several years, in the Novus Ordo. If it's Latin you want, fine, go to a Novus Ordo Latin Mass.
The Tridentine Mass, however, returns to the Laity kneeling before the Officiating Priest, receiving the wafer only (not the wine, which, as "the blood of Christ," is viewed as "too sacred" to be "spilled" by accident --- never mind that crucifixion would naturally result in the victim's blood *not* coagulating on the cross, but flowing into the Earth, which, after all, is *also* supposedly redeemed by Jesus' Atonement), has the Priest with his back to the Congregation "interceding" for them, involves the beating of the breast during the "Mea Culpa" exclamation, etc, etc, etc. The only reasons for a return to the Tridentine mass are sadomasochistic tendencies and an elitist desire to dominate. Mind you, I don't buy into the whole "everyone is completely and totally equal in every way" nonsense, and I accept that there *are* elite persons, in every field of endeavour, but I did choose the word "dominate" with reason, and included it in the same sentence as the word "sadomasochistic" with reason. It's a pathological condition which has taken over the Vatican, and is a reaction to things having, in some people's opinions, gone too far away from the way things used to be. Well, I'll grant that Tradition has value. It is after all, in Roman Catholic context, the authority for faith and practice. But it is needful for Tradition, Scripture, and the Spirtually-Illuminated Individual Conscience all three to work *together* (i.e., the different "Authority" in Apostolic, Protestant, and Radical streams of Christianity); focusing on any one alone to the detriment of the others only leads to imbalance, as we have seen with Ratzinger. Progress, where it is genuine progress and not simply some naïve idealism, is to be welcomed, even when it
I returned to the traditional Mass last year after coming to the conclusion that the N.O. Mass (interesting abbreviation of the Novus Ordo!) was doing nothing but raise my temper. The difference now, is incredible. Apart from the sheer peace of the Mass itself (notwithstanding the noisy children - lots of young families and babies galore) we get the best of sermons; all the things I've not heard in N.O. Masses, ranging from Hell, Purgatory and infallibility to devotions to the Sacred Heart and Our Lady to sacramentals and their place in our spiritual life (medals and the brown scapular). My simple reply now to anyone who asks me why I travel to go to the traditional Mass when I can attend the local parish/N.O. Mass is: why would anybody want mince when they can have steak?
Hello, 43. Boeciana:
"14 [i.e. Teemackell the Scribe], similarly, is being a wee bit archaeological in suggesting that a consistent approach to liturgical tradition would impel the recovery of Celtic rites/uses."
I suggested no such thing. The example was brought forth (among others) to illustrate how GW's "Mass of all time" assertion was essentially rhetorical and arguably vacuous. My interlocutor Conori (See his/her 16: "it really is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish") accepted this argument as I now accept his/hers that the term "Mass" is essentially a Roman Rite one (Ite missa est). However, I was not arguing about a linguistic term but about sacramental liturgies; not about the word but the thing (Those with even more than a half-baked grasp of Schoolmen theology should be particularly on their guard against the trap of confusing the two). The eucharistic liturgies to which I referred would, I think, be accepted as valid celebrations of the sacrifice of Calvary by Rome.
You are, I suspect, correct to argue that "there are no complete manuscripts of these liturgies." I would be careful, though, before dismissing them as being un-reconstructable. However, that problem is irrelevamt since I do not argue that case you think I do. I state it, but don't make it.
The author says something disturbing, namely: "It is important, however, to keep this development in perspective. Benedict XVI is not the awaited Pope of Tradition who will fully restore the Church; but he is a holy man of deeply orthodox convictions who is paving the way."
First, it seems like a lack of faith. After all, faithful Catholics believe that each pope is chosen by the Holy Spirit.
Second, it insults the Holy Spirit.
Third, it defies true logic because no pope can "fully restore the Church," whatever he means by that. In fact, it would take every single member of the Church to fully restore it--because full restoration requires every single member being in the state of grace.
