Monday, 22 August 2016

The Wisdom of Pope St. Pius X - LAMENTABILI SANE





Pope St. Pius X was a prophet of his time, he foresaw the trials and tribulations of the Church in the  decades after his death. His teachings are, as pertinent today, as they were during his lifetime.

One great example is his condemnation of the errors of the modernists. It was issued on 3rd July 1917:-

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

LAMENTABILI SANE
Pius X July 3, 1907
With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed. 

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.
6. The "Church learning" and the "Church teaching" collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the "Church teaching" to sanction the opinions of the "Church learning."
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.
9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.
10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.
11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ....
14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.
16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word lncarnate.
18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.
19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.
20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.
21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .
25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities .
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.
27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.
28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.
29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.
30 In all the evangelical texts the name "Son of God'' is equivalent only to that of "Messias." It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.
31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.
32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
33 Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.
34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.
35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.
38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.
39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity .
40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.
41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man's mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.
42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.
43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.
44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.
45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23-25) is to be taken historically.
46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.
47. The words of the Lord, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'' (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.
48. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments.
49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.
50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.
51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.
52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.
56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.
57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.
61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.
62. The chief articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.
63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.

PETER PALOMBELLI, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition

Thursday, 11 August 2016

Young Catholic Adult Weekend @ Douai Abbey 28st -30th Oct 2016 - Price List

Please see the full price list for the forthcoming Young Catholic Adult Weekend @ Douai Abbey 28st -30th Oct 2016:-

Guest House - Fri night to Sunday lunchtime (full board Single) £130
Guest House - Fri night to Sunday lunchtime (full board Shared) £100 per person
Guest House - Sat night to Sunday lunchtime (full board Single) £65
Guest House - Sat night to Sunday lunchtime (full board Shared) £50 per person

Cottages - Fri Night to Sunday lunchtime (full board) £82 per person
Cottages - Sat night to Sunday lunchtime (full board) £41 per person
Cottages - Fri night to Sunday lunchtime (self catering) £37 per person
Cottages - Sat night to Sunday lunchtime (self-catering) £18.50 per person

 Or come for the day (bring a packed lunch) for £12.

Goto:- https://v1.bookwhen.com/yca-douai-2016.

Monday, 1 August 2016

Young Catholic Adults Douai Abbey Weekend 2016 - The Cottages Accomodation, What to Expect!


                    The Cottages


For Student and Youth Group & Family Retreats


  • The Cottages accommodate groups of up to 15 young persons in simple 'hostel' type rooms.
  • Self-catering facilities include a kitchen, dining room and scullery.
  • Two other rooms provide a lounge and chapel, and the whole building is centrally heated.
  • The facilities available include the Abbey Church which provides a peaceful, prayerful space for worship. Guests are free to join in all the community services and to enjoy the spacious Abbey grounds.
  • Special rate for families.
  • Lying deep in the Berkshire countryside overlooking the beautiful Kennet valley to the distant Hampshire downs, the Cottages provide an ideal place for a group retreat for all who seek the refreshment of peace and quiet.

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Do you want to Learn to Sing Gregorian Chant?

 Photo: Credit http://www.scholagregoriana.org/  
                                      
The Schola Gregoriana of Cambridge will be assisting with the 2016 Young Catholic Adults event at Douai Abbey in Berkshire, by  providing Gregorian Chant Workshops throughout the weekend. 
The Schola was "founded in 1975 by Dr Mary Berry, a Cambridge musician and musicologist, in order to ensure that the chant should continue to be taught, and that all those who wished to sing and study this profoundly spiritual and ancient music should be able to do so."
To book onto the YCA weekend please goto:- https://v1.bookwhen.com/yca-douai-2016.

Sunday, 24 July 2016

Booking for Young Catholic Adults Weekend 2016 (28-30 October) 2016- Now Open!


During the weekend of the 28-30 October 2016, Young Catholic Adults will be running a retreat at Douai Abbey, it will be led by Fr. Thomas Crean O.P. The weekend will be full-board.

There will also be a Marian Procession, Rosaries, Sung Masses, Confession and socials. All Masses will be celebrated in the Extraordinary form.

Please note to guarantee your place this year Douai Abbey have requested that everyone books in 3 weeks before the start of the weekend i.e. 7th Oct 2016.



Prices start from £18.50 per person. Self-catering and Full Board  accommodation available. For more details please see http://youngcatholicadults.co.uk/events.htm. Please note to guarantee your place this year Douai Abbey have requested that everyone books in 3 weeks before the start of the weekend i.e. 7th Oct 2016.

Saturday, 9 July 2016

Catholic Dating UK & Ireland



I've received this message from Neil McGee, founder of a new venture called www.CatholicOnlineDating.co.uk, he writes:-

Catholic Dating UK & Ireland (www.CatholicOnlineDating.co.uk) is a free online community for Catholic singles in the UK and Ireland.

"In 2013 I was a typical single Catholic living in London. Like many I originally moved to the city for work with no local Catholic connections, and it took over a year to get involved with a wonderful young adults group in my local parish in Ealing. Balancing difficult work commitments that involved lots of late nights and travel, it was hard to meet as many new people as I would have liked, so I started looking at Catholic online dating.

Probably the biggest problem with the existing Catholic dating sites I found was that they had very few members near where I was in the UK, and those they did have they publicly displayed their photos and basic info as marketing material to attract more members. Reading through online reviews I doubted if some of these sites had true Catholic intentions or were run primarily as profit-making enterprises.

Having left my full time IT job, I worked full time on creating a UK/Irish Catholic dating website. Doing all the development and programming myself kept costs low. It also let me build in extras that I haven’t seen elsewhere, like Daily Readings or writing prayers into the website code itself (I wrote about this on https://churchpop.com/2016/04/13/secret-catholic-prayers-hidden-website-code/).

In February 2015 we launched the website and started marketing it mainly through Facebook, Twitter and word of mouth via friends and family. A year later, we had about 500 active users, and as I write (July 2016) we have about 900 active members.

Now that the hardest technical challenges of the website have been overcome, our clear goal is to keep building the community for Catholics in the UK and Ireland and increasing the number of regular active users. I love to think that we can help open the door to future Catholic marriages and families. On the other hand, through opportunities that have opened for me to work on short term projects as a freelance IT consultant, I’ve also been blessed with a way to keep covering costs and developing the website for the long term.

As we don’t have a budget for advertising, we rely on people who share our website (https://www.CatholicOnlineDating.co.uk) with their friends, local parish or on Facebook. There’s a question on registration that asks how people first heard about us, and every time we’re mentioned in a parish bulletin or an article we get a good number of signups from that area! If you have any doubts or would like to know more, you can contact me directly via neil@catholiconlinedating.co.uk and I can give you a call or email back. If you have any ideas on how we can reach out to more people that would also be most welcome."

Sunday, 19 June 2016

Papal Comments on Cohabitation. What do They Mean?




 Ed Peters from the excellent  In the Light of the Law blog comments on the latest comments from Pope Francis on cohabitation.

Point One. Cohabitation is not marriage.

Largely overlooked amid the furor caused by Pope Francis’ rash claim that “the great part of our sacramental marriages are null”—an assertion reckless if false (which it is) and brimming with despair if true (which it is not), a claim followed not by an apology, an official retraction, or even a bureaucratic ‘clarification’ but instead by an Orwellian alteration of the pope’s words in Vatican records—overlooked, I say, in this greater mess was the pope’s later but equally problematic comment about his being “sure that cohabitating couples are in a true marriage having the grace of marriage”. Though multi-facetedly wrong (theologically, canonically, pastorally, socially) the pope’s equating cohabitation (‘faithful’, whatever that means) with Christian marriage did not, mirabile dictu, get edited down to a platitude or deleted completely: his words are still there, “in queste convivenze … sono sicuro che questo è un matrimonio vero, hanno la grazia del matrimonio…”

Let’s be clear: marriage is marriage but cohabitation (as that word is nearly universally understood in social discourse) is only cohabitation. Where to begin?
Everybody starts off single. One stays single unless one goes through a ceremony called a wedding, at which point, one is (presumptively, at least) married. People who are married get to do certain things that people who are not married don’t get to do, like, say, submit a married-filing-jointly tax return with a certain someone and have sex with that same certain someone if they both so choose. In addition, though, married couples who are baptized get something else at their wedding, they receive a sacrament called Matrimony, and with that sacrament come very powerful graces put there by Jesus to help Christian couples living the difficult and wonderful thing called marriage.
But, if one is not married, one does not get to submit a married-filing-jointly tax return with anyone and one does not get to have sex with a certain no-one or with anyone else. Moreover, even if one is baptized (and regardless of what other sacramental or actual graces might be wonderfully at work in one’s life) a single person does not get the specific graces of Matrimony. Why? Because cohabitation is NOT marriage, let alone is it “true marriage”, and cohabiting couples do NOT share in the graces of Matrimony.

Point Two. Civil-only marriage might, or might not, be marriage.

While asserting that couples cohabiting ‘faithfully’ (?) are in a real marriage (which they aren’t) the pope also said that merely civilly-married couples are in real marriages (which they might or might not be). To understand what is at stake here we need to distinguish more carefully.

Couples, neither of whom is Catholic (i.e., most of the world), even if both of them are baptized, can marry (the Church would say, “validly”) in a civil-only ceremony. To that extent, Francis would be right to say that civilly married couples have a true marriage. But if the pope thinks that merely civilly married Catholics—and given the context of his remarks this is likely whom he had in mind—are, just as much as cohabiting couples (supposedly) are, in real marriages and enjoying the graces of Matrimony, then I have to say No, that’s wrong—even though I wish he were right. Once again, the requirement of “canonical form” (a cure that has long out-lived the disease it was prescribed to treat) seriously complicates the Church’s message on the permanence of marriage.
Because Catholics (let’s just talk Romans here) are required for validity to marry in (still keepin’ it simple) a Catholic religious ceremony, those tens of thousands of Catholics who ‘marry’ civilly-only are (outside a few rare exceptions) no more married than are couples just cohabiting (‘faithfully’ or otherwise). Moreover, because of the inseparability of the marriage contract from the sacrament, if one is invalidly ‘married’ (and ‘marriages’ among Catholics who disregard canonical form are invalid) then one does not receive the sacrament of Matrimony either nor any of its graces. Why? Because, No marriage means no Matrimony.


In short, if the pope had in mind non-Catholics, he would be right to say that their civil-only wedding would count toward marriage (though why he would discuss such persons with cohabiting couples escapes me); but if he had in mind Catholics (as he probably did) then he is wrong to say that such persons are truly married and are drawing on the sacramental grace of Matrimony (though it would explain why he mentioned such persons in the same breath with cohabiting couples, as neither are married).

Now, these two points being addressed, and with the debacle of assertions of massive nullity supposedly plaguing Christian marriage still reverberating, something deeper may be emerging here. Consider,Marriage, like pregnancy, is one of those ‘either/or’ situations—either you are or you aren’t. Others’ opinions, even your own opinion, about whether you are or aren’t, are irrelevant to whether you are or aren’t. Marriage is an objective fact, not a subjective (however sincere) feeling or attitude. Continuing,
The pope’s most recent statements on marriage were not slips akin to getting the date of a meeting wrong, they are not hearsay shared by a prelate known for a flexible attitude toward accuracy or stories shared by relatives from Argentina, and they are not hints of his views left ambiguous by some obvious omission. Instead these latest assertions were calmly offered by the pope before a large and sympathetic audience, with expert advisors readily at hand, in an extended manner, all of which factors point, I think, in a consistent if disturbing direction.

And what direction is that?

This one: Pope Francis really—and I think, sincerely—believes:
(A) most marriages (at least, most Christian marriages) really aren’t, deep-down, marriages (and so the annulment process has to be sped up to dispatch of what are, after all, probably null marriages anyway, and the consequences of post-divorce marriages need to be softened because most people in those second marriages probably weren’t in true marriages the first time, and so on); and,
(B) lots of things that aren’t marriages (like cohabitation and civil-only weddings between Catholics) really are, deep-down, marriages (so we need to affirm them and assure them that they enjoy the same graces as married people, and so on).
That this is pope’s view can, I suggest, be directly determined from his own words (expunged and otherwise) and, if I am right, would explain many things, from his favoring Cdl. Kasper and side-lining Cdl. Burke, rolling out several problematic tribunal “reforms” in Mitis Iudex, and leaving ambiguous several crucial points that sorely needed clarity in Amoris laetitia. The irreducibly objective, ‘either/or’, nature of marriage would not sit well with someone who prefers subjective, flexible approaches that allow for ‘this and that’ responses, but, whatever problems the principle of non-contradiction poses here, a conviction that most marriages are not marriage but lots of non-marriages are marriage, would explain a lot.

That said, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that a crisis (in the Greek sense of that word) over marriage is unfolding in the Church, and it is a crisis that will, I suggest, come to a head over matrimonial discipline and law. If so, a key fact to keep in mind will be this: No sacrament owes so much of its theology to Church discipline as marriage owes to canon law.


To conclude, and prescinding from what other questions might face the Church under Francis, I think the marriage crisis that he is occasioning is going to come down to whether Church teaching on marriage, which everyone professes to honor, will be concretely and effectively protected in Church law, or, whether the canonical categories treating marriage doctrine become so distorted (or simply disregarded) as essentially to abandon marriage and married life to the realm of personal opinion and individual conscience. History has always favored the former; disaster lurks behind the latter.


Sts. Thomas More and Raymond Penyafort, pray for us.

For more details see:- In the Light of the Law blog

Saturday, 18 June 2016

The Humility of Pope Emeritus Benedict






 


Pope Benedict was received by one of the most prestigious seminaries of Germany during his pontificate from 22 to 25 September 2011.... (he stayed in) a bedroom with a single bed and furniture all....basic.



Friday, 17 June 2016

The great majority of Christian marriages are valid - Ed Peters

From Catholic World Report Ed Peters writes:-

"Last time a ranking prelate (Cdl. Kasper) opined that half of all marriages were null his attribution of such a reckless assertion to Pope Francis himself could be dismissed as hearsay, deflected as referring to marriage in general and not Christian marriage in particular, or at least minimized as describing merely ‘many’ or even ‘half’ of all marriages. But none of those qualifications can be applied to blunt the impact of the pope’s startling claim “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null”.

Pope also states, cohabiting Catholics being in “a real marriage [and having] the grace of a real marriage,” for commentary see here

See more at:- http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4852/the_great_majority_of_christian_marriages_are_valid.aspx




Thursday, 16 June 2016

Gregorian Masses - What are They?


Fr. Z at wdtprs is currently trying to recuit Priests to celebrate "Gregorian Masses;" see his explantion below tro find out more:-

"From a priest…
QUAERITUR:
I was in Fatima earlier this month and in the office to request Masses be offered for pilgrim’s intentions, I noticed a sign that said the stipend for a standard Mass stipend is 10 Euros but for “Trintario Gregoriano” Mass, it is 350 Euros.
I was told this is a month of Masses offered on consecutive days. Are you familiar with this?
Is this a European tradition?
You are asking about “Gregorian Masses”.

First, let’s make a couple distinction.  Sometimes Mass in the Extraordinary Form is called “Gregorian”, because the Roman Rite goes back at least as far as Pope St. Gregory I “the Great” (+604).

Next, “Gregorian Masses” can mean Masses said at a “Gregorian altar”, that is, a “privileged altar”, that is, an altar to which certain added benefits or indulgences were once attached such that when priests said Mass there the indulgence was gained.  These altars had the same privileges as the altar of the Roman basilica of San Gregorio in the Caelian Hill, where St. Gregory the Great had his monastery.  That original Gregorian altar had a plenary indulgence for a soul in Purgatory.  No Gregorian altars, called Gregorian altars ad instar, were so blessed after 1912.  Also, the entire treasury of indulgences has been revised.  Those privileges seem no more to apply.

Also, another way to understand “Gregorian Masses” refers to the custom in the Roman Church for Requiem Masses to be said on the third, seventh and thirtieth days after the death of a person.
That said… what are Gregorian Masses?

By this term we usually mean the celebration of thirty Masses for thirty consecutive days for the soul of someone who has died.
 
It is thought that Gregory the Great spread this practice, which was already a tradition by his day.  Pope Gregory had these Masses said for, at least, a fellow Roman monk named Justus. At the end of the thirty days the dead monk appeared to his brother to let him know he was free from Purgatory.  In any event, this became a widespread practice after Pope Gregory.  I believe that the Dominican’s even had special Mass prayers in their Rite for this practice. (Dialogorum 4,57: Vade itaque, et ab hodierna die diebus triginta continuis offerre pro eo sacrificium stude, ut nullus omnino praetermittatur dies, quo pro absolutione illius salutaris hostia non immoletur.)

Basic guidelines:

First, thirty Masses must be said on thirty consecutive days for the same intention.  If the priest can’t say one the Masses himself, for any reason, he must arrange for another priest to say the Mass for that same intention on that same day so that the series is not broken.  They are said only for the dead.
The Masses can be said anywhere, and they need not be Requiem Masses.

Because this is a heavy commitment, the stipend offered should usually be pretty generous.  Given that very few priests are able to take their own chosen intention every day for 30 days, that is fitting.  The stipend can be whatever is agreed on, of course.  How much should it be?  That can’t really be fixed down.  I have done Gregorian series three times.  On one occasion I was offered 450 euros, and the person who offered the stipend was very pleased to have found a priest who could do it.  On another occasion I took far less, because it was requested by an elderly woman on a limited income for her dead husband.  So, it depends on the circumstances.  Whatever is decided, if the stipend is accepted, in justice the priest is strictly bound to fulfill his part of the commitment.

Friends, have Masses said for the dead… and for the living as well!"