A few humourous memes I found looking through my FB Timeline photos.
Friday, 23 July 2021
Fr Thomas Reese on Traditionis Custodes: Fisked
Fr Reese is a 'James Martin, LGBTQXYZ∞ Lite'. Dr Shaw analyses his article on Traditionis Custodes at the Fishwrap.
From the Chairman's Blog
By Joseph Shaw, DPhil (Oxon.)
(Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli)
Fr Reese's column is here. My comments in red.
Despite the recent decision of Pope Francis to curtail celebration of the Latin Mass, we are not going to see it disappear anytime soon for a simple reason: Local bishops can and will still permit it.
This is true
Francis' new rules on the old liturgy were laid out in Traditionis Custodes on July 16.
Unlike his predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Francis is no fan of the pre-Vatican II liturgy. Like Pope Paul VI and most people in the church, Francis welcomed the liturgical reforms enacted by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and believed the old liturgy would gradually fade away as Catholics who were raised with it died off.
Would ‘most people in the Church’ include the 50% or so who stopped going to church? Statistics of church attendance are unreliable but here’s something easy to count: marriage.
(Graph, in the linked article, of Catholic Marriages as a % of All Marriages in England and Wales 1913-2010, showing the precipitous drop since the Council)
In 1981, a survey of bishops by the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship found that only 1.5% of the bishops said their priests and people were in favor of making greater allowance for the Tridentine rite, as the old, pre-conciliar Latin Mass is called. (The post-conciliar version approved by Paul VI was written in Latin but then translated into the vernacular for common use around the world.)
What does this show? That only 1.5% of bishops thought seriously about the pastoral care of the Catholics attached to the Traditional Mass in their dioceses. Not quite as flattering to Fr Reese’s case as he imagines.
Benedict, though, had experienced great spiritual nourishment in the old liturgy and hoped that allowing its greater use would foster church unity, especially with those who found change difficult. But he also wanted to provide the old liturgy to those young people who were attracted to it.
I hope all the prelates of Pope Benedict’s generation experienced this nourishment, otherwise they would hardly have become priests in the first place.
When local bishops were reluctant to allow widespread use of the old liturgy, Benedict sidelined them, giving every priest the right to celebrate the old Latin rite even if his bishop opposed it.
Benedict also went a step further. He declared that the new and old liturgies were of equal standing in the church. Thus, there was no need for the old liturgy to fade away as anticipated by Paul VI.
Benedict's hope to foster unity failed. Those who went into schism because of the council, like the Society of St. Pius X, would not come back simply because they were allowed to say the old Mass. They are still in schism despite the efforts of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.
This is not true: a significant number of priests returned to unity under the Pope, having been in or associated with the SSPX until 2007. In the UK we have the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer; in Germany the Institute of St Philip Neri in Berlin; in France the Institute of the Good Shepherd, all from the Summorum Pontificum era. A previous set of priests were reconciled under Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, notably the Fraternity of St Peter and a number of French religious communities. The ‘sunshine policy’ worked.
There are others who remain in the church but who champion the Latin Mass as a symbol of their rejection of all the reforms that came from the Second Vatican Council. These ideologues argue that the new Mass is an abomination, that ecumenism is a betrayal of tradition and interreligious dialogue is satanic. They believe that only they are the true church and everyone else is in error.
I challenge Fr Reese to give one single example of a figure of any significance associated with the Traditional Mass under Summorum Pontificum who uses this language. On the contrary, it should be obvious that ecumenism and interreligious dialogue will be impossible under Tradionis Custodes. How’s it going to work? ‘We really appreciate and respect your (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Orthodox) use of sacred languages not understood by the worshipper, your tradition of chant, your penitential practices: we just fear and loath our own! Oh, and you Protestants: the Pope doesn’t exercise despotic power, that’s a misunderstanding. Just give me a moment while I crush these trads under my booted heel…’
By bolstering these dissidents, Benedict's efforts for church unity backfired. This view was confirmed by a detailed consultation with the world's bishops by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Except that it wasn’t. Everyone who has actually seen the results confirms that they were mixed, with many bishops pleased with the results of Summorum Pontificum. The one piece of direct evidence in the public domain, the French bishops’ summary, is quite negative but still accepts the Traditional Mass as a fact of life. Their response to Traditionis Custodes has been to reassure Traditional Catholics of their ‘esteem’. They are perfectly aware of where the threat to the unity of the Church comes from.
Those who went into schism because of the council, like the Society of St. Pius X, would not come back simply because they were allowed to say the old Mass. They are still in schism despite the efforts of Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis.
You’ve done this bit. Don’t they have editors at NCR?
Congregations that celebrate the old Mass today have become rallying centers for those fomenting opposition not only to the council reforms but to Francis' papacy. Not only do they oppose the reforms, they also spread their dissent to those who simply come to find spiritual nourishment in the old liturgy.
No, they have become decompression chambers for people traumatised by the crisis in the Church, where they can calm down, remain in the unity of the Church, and receive pastoral care and the sacraments.
The challenge that Francis now faces is how to separate the pious faithful with traditional devotion to the old liturgy from the ideologues who reject the reforms of the council.
His solution is to empower local bishops with the authority to separate the sheep from the goats. He has returned to bishops their traditional authority over the liturgy that is celebrated in their dioceses, the same authority they had under John Paul II. The bishops can still allow the celebration of the old Mass where they judge there is a pastoral need, but they can deny it to dissenters who oppose the reforms of Vatican II.
Since, on Reese’s view, they are mixed together like the tares and the wheat, how exactly is that going to work? Are they going to be interrogated? Is a diocesan official going to take screen-shots of their social media postings?
The bishop can also control which priests are celebrating the old Mass to make sure that they are fostering unity with the church rather than dissent. According to Francis, these priests should be "animated by a lively pastoral charity and a sense of ecclesial communion."
However, Francis does reserve to the Vatican permission for newly ordained priests to celebrate the old liturgy. He worries about young priests and seminarians who only want to celebrate the old liturgy. He wants to make sure that they understand that they are being ordained for the whole church, not just a small faction within it.
Here is an interesting admission that of the many vocations prompted by the Traditional Mass, a goodly portion do not go to the exclusively Traditional Institutes and communities. If Reese wants priests who celebrate both Forms, he should rejoice that these young men are joining their diocesan seminaries to learn how to celebrate the Novus Ordo.
Likewise, he has told bishops not to authorize new parishes or new groups for the sole use of the old Mass.
Francis has also reversed Benedict's decision to give equal standing in the church to the pre- and post-Vatican II liturgies. According to Francis, the new liturgy is the only liturgy of the church, and the old liturgy is only allowed temporarily for pastoral reasons.
But that’s a contradiction, isn’t it? How can the Novus Ordo be the ‘only liturgy’ and at the same time there is another one, albeit allowed only temporarily? If it’s being said with the permission of the Pope and the Bishops, it is legitimate. And what about all the other Rites and Usages? Are the Carthusians going into schism? And the Greek Catholics?
Francis has also mandated that the Scriptures at these Masses be read in the vernacular, not Latin. Perhaps he hopes to gradually introduce the vernacular into these liturgies in the future.
What he has mandated has commonly been done for a century or more: the reading of the lections in the vernacular after their proclamation in Latin.
In any case, once again, it is the official position of the church that the old liturgy should fade away.
Will it fade away? Not quickly.
Many bishops have already announced that there will be no immediate change in their dioceses. This is smart. Pastoral practice demands that the bishop have a dialogue with their communities before making any decision. Those who are spiritually attached to the old liturgy should be treated with compassionate sensitivity and separated from those who foment rebellion.
If they examined Catholics attending the Novus Ordo on their orthodoxy, they'd have to decide what to do with the 70% (yes you read that correctly) who don't believe in the Real Presence. I'd be fascinated to know what Novus Ordo Catholics believe about the authority of the Pope, or the binding nature of Vatican II.
Those who are young must be educated to the deeper meaning of the Eucharistic reforms and encouraged to go to the new liturgy. They need to understand the communal and participatory aspects of liturgy. We come together not simply for our individual devotion but to worship as a community of disciples who are called to help establish God's kingdom on earth.
Whereas in the Traditional Mass we come together with the saints of all the ages and Catholics all over the world to offer to the Father one and the same sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, using the very same words. Even Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the Novus Ordo, conceded that those who objected to his reforms did so, in part, precisely because of the lack of unity it presented. Pope John Paul II made the same point. Dominicae Cenae (1980) 80:
Nevertheless, there are also those people who, having been educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, experience the lack of this “one language,” which in all the world was an expression of the unity of the Church and through its dignified character elicited a profound sense of the Eucharistic Mystery
Local bishops can also point out that saying the Mass in Latin is not a problem if it is the Latin version of the new rite. It is the old liturgy that is used to breed disunion.
But we all know that priests who have tried to offer the Novus Ordo in Latin have been subject to official disapproval and even persecution, sometimes more severe than that meted out to Traditionalists. The Latin Novus Ordo has been effectively banned from St Peter’s, even while the EF was given a tiny space in which to continue. In many places no Latin is taught in seminaries, and now we’ve been told that the Latin edition of the Novus Ordo Missal will not be reprinted. How are these Masses going to be celebrated, Fr Reese, without a Missal?
The need for pastoral sensitivity means that it will take time for old liturgy to fade away, but this ultimately is the goal.
When my mother was alive, she used to go to the Saturday evening Mass at her parish. One Saturday she showed up and the Mass was in Spanish. She kept going to that Mass even though she did not know a word of Spanish. When I asked her why, she responded, "It is wonderful, just like the old Latin Mass. I don't understand a word they are saying." Then she added, "It is even better, I don't understand the homily."
Fr Reese would do well to reflect on the meaning of this anecdote, and not just use it as a gag-line. It tells us something about the suffering of Catholics under liturgical abuses and the preaching of novelties and nonsense from the pulpit, and the possibility of spiritual participation in the Mass.
Thomas Reese
Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese's column for Religion News Service, "Signs of the Times," appears regularly at National Catholic Reporter.
I Want To Ask Pope Francis if It Matters That I'm Catholic
This has occurred to me as well. Why did I bother to become a Catholic those 40 years ago if I could as easily have been saved without the Faith?
From Daffey Thoughts
By David Griffey
Years ago Pope Francis sent shock waves through our little hobbit hole when he met with a pack of Protestant leaders and more or less told them to get to God where they're at. After all, we had lost almost everything we had to become Catholic, and set ourselves on a future path in which my main retirement plans rest on doing a Fred Sanford after my last day on the job.It doesn't sound like much of a problematic statement I know. It sounds pretty darn nice of him, not to throw fire and brimstone down on a bunch of non-Catholic Christians. It seems completely ecumenical and the type of outreach I remember from Pope John Paul II that made Catholicism seem approachable to my Protestant eyes back in the day.
And yet there was something bothersome the way Pope Francis said it. Whenever I mused on Pope John Paul II's outreach to us "Separated Brethren", it always seemed in the broader context of wanting us to come back to full communion with the Catholic Church. He - and others at that time - may have praised us Protestants and affirmed us and celebrated us and, heck, even said Catholics could learn from us. But it was always done around the greater point that for all we have, we don't have it all until we have it in communion with Catholicism.
When Pope Francis said that to those Protestant leaders, however, and when he has made similar statements about Islam, Atheism, or just about any particular religious belief system, I never feel it is in such context. It sounds to me, and certainly sounded to us then, that he is more or less saying Catholicism is a right fine option; but it's merely one of many fine options out there in the world where the topic or religion is concerned.
What really seems to matter when Pope Francis speaks is not so much being a fine Catholic, or even a fine Christian, but being a fine citizen of the world. To that end, he seems most concerned about people being too rigid about their religion, especially their Catholic religion, while he demands nothing but rigidity when it comes to a host of sociopolitical movements and agendas sweeping the modern world, such as Global Warming, or Immigration, or Covid lockdowns, or economic justice.
Let him talk about those things and Pope Francis comes across as having all the tolerance of a Jack Chick tract. Rigid doesn't even begin to describe it. Same with judgmentalism. He may not judge when it comes to things like abortion or gay sex, but let someone even question a dominant global narrative about police brutality, Global Warming or Covid restrictions, and Pope Francis is Johnny-on-the-spot for those advancing those agendas with not only condemning the lack of obedience of dissenters, but even suggesting how wretched and evil they are in their very hearts. I'm not sure the 700 Club went that far.
But again, none of it is ever for Catholicism, or believing in Jesus, or caring about the Holy Spirit, or even caring about Heaven or Hell. He may speak to the evils of abortion or that sex is best served between a man and woman in marriage. Those topics and other Catholic teachings he speaks on, and even affirms them at different times as well as their importance. But if you disagree, I get the impression he wouldn't lose sleep over the fact. He might even welcome you with open arms if your problems are only with a Triune God or the Real Presence.
But question the dominant leftwing narrative about Global Warming, or suggest that perhaps tightening border security is a valid way to handle an immigration crisis, or question the latest narratives about Covid, then it's like watching Jerry Falwell in a mitre. Which brings me back to my original question for Pope Francis.
If I had only one choice, which would be more important: that I be a devout and practicing Catholic, even if I question various (predominantly liberal) political and social narratives, or that I dismiss the Gospel and the Catholic tradition while cleaving unto the various socioeconomic policy proposals and agendas of global secular liberalism. Which one would Pope Francis want? I know what I should assume he would want. But whether it's me or him, I'd be lying if I said I know for sure.
Senior Bureaucrat's Farewell
'Old men like (Francis) may try to resist. We should not damn, but mock them. For against them is the genius of the Catholic religion'.
From Essays in Idleness
By Dr David Warren
The remarkable thing, about the pope’s new Motu Proprio, strangely entitled Traditionis Custodes, is its degree of ignorance. Its entire argument is based on the fantasy that the liturgical changes of the 1960s were somehow made necessary by the commands of Vatican II, and that trying to resist them is the cause of divisions throughout the whole Church. This is obviously false, indeed laughable. The documents of Vatican II called for no such thing.A great deal of brutality and cruelty towards faithful Catholics is hardly concealed within this. It is more than a falsehood. It glares through the “synodality,” “accompaniment,” “listening,” “dialogue,” “outreach to the margins,” which are methodically overlooked in the text, and the clericalism, rigidity, and force that replaces them.
Most explicitly, the very carefully expressed ruling of a former pope (still alive and in local residence), is contradicted, and the man insulted. This is among the unprecedented acts which mark this as an untypical action of the papacy, and a warning to Christians to ignore it. It is ultra vires.
The Catholic Liturgy had heretofore developed “organically.” It was not the plaything of clerics, as it became under Paul VI and Bugnini — by which new features of vulgarity and vileness were brought into it.
Of the Catholic Church generally, it could be said, that it is not a bureaucratic entity. Wise and necessary decisions (such as Summorum Pontificum) are favoured by the ages; foolish and arbitrary decisions are forgotten in the course of time. Popes may count for very much power, or for none. Saints count most of all. (A pope becomes interesting and important only when he is a Saint.)
We have passed through three generations. The first, the “baby boomers,” was the one the Novus Ordo was marketed to, and who responded by leaving the Church in their bulk. The “gen-X” generated few priests and the older ones began dying out. But in “generation alpha,” thanks to the rekindling of the traditional, Latin Mass, the seminaries and many churches were beginning to fill again, and life was returning.
Old men like Bergoglio — the ageing “liberation theologians,” Marxists, relics, sex perverts and others — may try to resist. We should not damn, but mock them. For against them is the genius of the Catholic religion.
Mass Last Saturday
Fr H, like many Anglo-Papalists, celebrated the TLM in Latin whilst still an Anglican. Here he reflects on its history in the Church of England.
From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
As I finished saying Mass last Saturday, the morning after Traditionis custodes, the thought struck me: That is the Mass, those were the words, for which our Anglo-Catholic Fathers were persecuted ... in some cases, imprisoned ... An Argentinian pope may be very different from an English former Public School head master, Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, but how like they both are in their hatred of the Old Mass, and of those who celebrate it.
But then a different and less unworthy thought took over: Those Anglo-Catholic clergy, at worst, spent but a few weeks in prison ... I should be thinking rather of the English Seminary Martyrs ... the rack, the rope, the knife ... the heads on the spikes over the City Gates, the carrion birds, the smell on the wind ...
Then, familiar words of Gregory Dix ... I've quoted them before: "This very morning I did this with a set of texts which has not changed by more than a few syllables since Augustine used those very words at Canterbury on the third Sunday of Easter in the summer after he landed."
Then ... all those Masses during all those Persecutions in all those blood-stained Enlightenments. So many holy priests ... so many gaolers bribed to smuggle in the necessities for a last Mass ... Te igitur for the last time ... blinking, as they took you out into the sunlight ...
There swept over me an enormous sense of privilege; a sense (this is not sarcasm) of gratitude to our Holy Father for reminding me of the wonder of those words which I say every morning. Words so ancient, yet, every morning, so radiant, so new. Words that remake one's inmost being.
Things rarely seem as precious as they do when there are attempts to rob you of them.
God be praised, now and forever, in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
CONTRA GENTILES: BOOK FOUR: SALVATION - Chapter 40 OBJECTIONS AGAINST FAITH IN THE INCARNATION
[1] But against this statement of the Catholic faith many difficulties come together, and by reason of these the adversaries of the faith attack the Incarnation.
[2] We showed in Book I that God is neither a body nor a power in a body. But, if He assumed flesh, it follows either that He was changed into a body or that He was a power in a body after the Incarnation. It seems, then, impossible that God was incarnate.
[3] Again, whatever acquires a new nature is subject to substantial change; for in this is a thing generated, that it acquires a nature. Then, if the hypostasis of the Son of God becomes a subsistent anew in human nature, it appears that it was substantially changed.
[4] Furthermore, no hypostasis of a nature extends outside that nature; rather, indeed, the nature is found outside the hypostasis, since there are many hypostases under the nature. If, then, the hypostasis of the Son of God becomes by the Incarnation the hypostasis of a human nature, the Son of God—one must conclude—is not everywhere after the Incarnation, since the human nature is not everywhere.
[5] Once again; one and the same thing has only one what-it-is, for by this one means a thing’s substance and of one there is but one. But the nature of any thing at all is its what-it-is, “for the nature of a thing is what the definition signifies.” It seems impossible, then, that one hypostasis subsist in two natures.
[6] Furthermore, in things which are without matter, the quiddity of a thing is not other than the thing, as was shown above. And this is especially the case in God, who is not only His own quiddity, but also His own act of being. But human nature cannot be identified with a divine hypostasis. There, fore, it seems impossible that a divine hypostasis subsist in human nature.
[7] Once again; a nature is more simple and more formal than the hypostasis which subsists therein, for it is by the addition of something material that the common nature is individuated to this hypostasis. If, then, a divine hypostasis subsists in human nature, it seems to follow that human nature is more simple and more formal than a divine hypostasis. And this is altogether impossible.
[8] It is, furthermore, only in matter and form composites that one finds a difference between the singular thing and its quiddity. This is because the singular is individuated by designated matter, and in the quiddity and nature of the species the latter is not included. For, in marking off Socrates, one includes this matter, but one does not in his account of human nature. Therefore, every hypostasis subsisting in human nature is constituted by signate matter. This cannot be said of the divine hypostasis. So, it does not seem possible that the hypostasis of God’s Word subsist in human nature.
[9] Furthermore, the soul and body in Christ were not less in power than in other men. But in other men their union constitutes a supposit an hypostasis, and a person. Therefore, in Christ the union of soul and body constitutes a supposit, hypostasis, and person of the Word of God; this is eternal. Therefore in Christ there is another supposit, hypostasis, and person beside the supposit, hypostasis, and person of the Word of God. Or so it seems.
[10] There is more. Just as soul and body constitute human nature in common, so this soul and this body constitute this man, and this is the hypostasis of a man. But this soul and this body were in Christ. Therefore, their union constitutes an hypostasis, it seems. And we conclude exactly as before.
[11] Again, this man who is Christ, considered as consisting of soul alone and body, is a certain substance; not, of course, a universal one; therefore, a particular one. Therefore, it is an hypostasis.
[12] Moreover, if the supposit of the human and the divine nature in Christ is identified, then in one’s understanding of the man who is Christ there ought to be a divine hypostasis. Of course, this is not in one’s understanding of other men. Therefore, man will be said equivocally of Christ and others. Hence, He will not belong to the same species with us.
[13] In Christ, what is more, one finds three things, as is clear from what was said: a body, a soul, and divinity. The soul, of course, since it is nobler than the body, is not the supposit of the body, but its form. Neither, then, is what is divine the supposit of the human nature; it is, rather, formally related to that nature.
[14] Furthermore, whatever accrues to something after its being is complete accrues to it accidentally. But, since the Word is from eternity, plainly the flesh assumed accrues to Him after His being is complete. Therefore, it accrues to Him accidentally.
Next - CONTRA GENTILES: BOOK FOUR: SALVATION - Chapter 41 HOW ONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD
[2] We showed in Book I that God is neither a body nor a power in a body. But, if He assumed flesh, it follows either that He was changed into a body or that He was a power in a body after the Incarnation. It seems, then, impossible that God was incarnate.
[3] Again, whatever acquires a new nature is subject to substantial change; for in this is a thing generated, that it acquires a nature. Then, if the hypostasis of the Son of God becomes a subsistent anew in human nature, it appears that it was substantially changed.
[4] Furthermore, no hypostasis of a nature extends outside that nature; rather, indeed, the nature is found outside the hypostasis, since there are many hypostases under the nature. If, then, the hypostasis of the Son of God becomes by the Incarnation the hypostasis of a human nature, the Son of God—one must conclude—is not everywhere after the Incarnation, since the human nature is not everywhere.
[5] Once again; one and the same thing has only one what-it-is, for by this one means a thing’s substance and of one there is but one. But the nature of any thing at all is its what-it-is, “for the nature of a thing is what the definition signifies.” It seems impossible, then, that one hypostasis subsist in two natures.
[6] Furthermore, in things which are without matter, the quiddity of a thing is not other than the thing, as was shown above. And this is especially the case in God, who is not only His own quiddity, but also His own act of being. But human nature cannot be identified with a divine hypostasis. There, fore, it seems impossible that a divine hypostasis subsist in human nature.
[7] Once again; a nature is more simple and more formal than the hypostasis which subsists therein, for it is by the addition of something material that the common nature is individuated to this hypostasis. If, then, a divine hypostasis subsists in human nature, it seems to follow that human nature is more simple and more formal than a divine hypostasis. And this is altogether impossible.
[8] It is, furthermore, only in matter and form composites that one finds a difference between the singular thing and its quiddity. This is because the singular is individuated by designated matter, and in the quiddity and nature of the species the latter is not included. For, in marking off Socrates, one includes this matter, but one does not in his account of human nature. Therefore, every hypostasis subsisting in human nature is constituted by signate matter. This cannot be said of the divine hypostasis. So, it does not seem possible that the hypostasis of God’s Word subsist in human nature.
[9] Furthermore, the soul and body in Christ were not less in power than in other men. But in other men their union constitutes a supposit an hypostasis, and a person. Therefore, in Christ the union of soul and body constitutes a supposit, hypostasis, and person of the Word of God; this is eternal. Therefore in Christ there is another supposit, hypostasis, and person beside the supposit, hypostasis, and person of the Word of God. Or so it seems.
[10] There is more. Just as soul and body constitute human nature in common, so this soul and this body constitute this man, and this is the hypostasis of a man. But this soul and this body were in Christ. Therefore, their union constitutes an hypostasis, it seems. And we conclude exactly as before.
[11] Again, this man who is Christ, considered as consisting of soul alone and body, is a certain substance; not, of course, a universal one; therefore, a particular one. Therefore, it is an hypostasis.
[12] Moreover, if the supposit of the human and the divine nature in Christ is identified, then in one’s understanding of the man who is Christ there ought to be a divine hypostasis. Of course, this is not in one’s understanding of other men. Therefore, man will be said equivocally of Christ and others. Hence, He will not belong to the same species with us.
[13] In Christ, what is more, one finds three things, as is clear from what was said: a body, a soul, and divinity. The soul, of course, since it is nobler than the body, is not the supposit of the body, but its form. Neither, then, is what is divine the supposit of the human nature; it is, rather, formally related to that nature.
[14] Furthermore, whatever accrues to something after its being is complete accrues to it accidentally. But, since the Word is from eternity, plainly the flesh assumed accrues to Him after His being is complete. Therefore, it accrues to Him accidentally.
Next - CONTRA GENTILES: BOOK FOUR: SALVATION - Chapter 41 HOW ONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD
A List of Articles on Traditionis Custodes
I can't catch them all!😀 Dr Kwasniewski is compiling a list of them and publishing it at the New Liturgical Movement. If you have the time and the inclination, here are the links to the list as it stands a week after the decree was issued.
Roundup of Major Reactions to Traditionis Custodes [UPDATE #4]
Do We Have a Latin Mass? US Bishops Continue to Respond to ‘Traditionis Custodes’
ManyBishops are warning that the permissions granted are not permanent. But not my bishop! Bishop Conley, July 21: "In light of Pope Francis' motu proprio Traditiones custodes, I have spoken to the priests of the Diocese of Lincoln who celebrate Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal and I authorize them to continue to do so. Many Catholics are drawn close to Jesus through the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and so I desire for it to remain present in the diocese."
From the National Catholic Register
By Christine Rousselle/CNA
Bishops throughout the United States address the impact the motu proprio will have on their respective dioceses.Bishops throughout the United States have continued to respond to Pope Francis’ motu proprio on traditional liturgies, addressing the impact the directive will have on their respective dioceses.
Pope Francis’ July 16 motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes (Guardians of the Tradition), concerning liturgies prior to the 1970 reform, restricted the use of the traditional Latin Mass. It states that it is a bishop’s “exclusive competence” to authorize the use of the Latin Mass according to the 1962 Missal in his diocese.
For many episcopal sees of the United States, nothing will change in the near future regarding celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. These jurisdictions include the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA and Archdiocese of Milwaukee, as well as the Dioceses of Cleveland, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Knoxville, Tennessee; and Lincoln, Nebraska.
The bishops of those dioceses have all issued statements granting temporary permission for priests who offer Latin Masses according to the 1962 Missal to continue doing so. The bishops said they would be reviewing the motu proprio and consulting with advisers on the document in the meantime.
Bishop Edward Malesic of Cleveland wrote on July 19, “I will be consulting with my advisors and those currently responsible for the celebration of the Eucharist according to what has been termed the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.”
“At this time, I grant temporary permission for those priests competent in celebrating the Eucharist according to the 1962 Missal to continue to do so in private and in churches that, as of July 16, 2021, have publicly scheduled these Masses,” he stated.
Traditionis Custodes revoked the previous faculty granted to priests to offer the traditional Latin Mass without the permission of their local ordinaries; rather, it stated the bishops’ authority to authorize the traditional liturgies in their respective dioceses.
Furthermore, for bishops who authorize the celebration of the traditional Mass, they are to designate locations for the liturgies but may not designate a “parochial church.”
In Milwaukee, Archbishop Jerome Listecki has announced that the Latin Mass will continue as scheduled at St. Stanislaus, a church administered by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest; the institute is a society of apostolic life with an emphasis on the traditional Latin Mass.
Archbishop Listecki said that any other priest who celebrates the Latin Mass will have to inform him that they will continue to do so and “explain the circumstances under which they will celebrate.”
Archbishop Alexander Sample from the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, has yet to reveal his plans regarding the motu proprio. On Twitter, following the release of Traditionis Custodes on Friday, Archbishop Sample said that he did not have a comment yet.
“I know that many of you will want me to comment on the Holy Father’s new legislation regarding the traditional Latin Mass,” he said on July 16. “I never respond precipitously to things like this. I need time to pray, reflect and study this new law so that I can respond in mercy, charity and truth.”
I know that many of you will want me to comment on the Holy Father’s new legislation regarding the traditional Latin Mass. I never respond precipitously to things like this. I need time to pray, reflect and study this new law so that I can respond in mercy, charity and truth.
Archbishop Sample is a proponent of the Latin Mass, and in 2013 he said that, in his view, “the 2007 motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, is one of the greatest gifts that could be given to the Church in the service of liturgical renewal and reform.”
The Archdiocese of Cincinnati announced that a priest had been selected as a “delegate” to assist with the implementation of the motu proprio. The archbishop did not elaborate on any of the changes that would be coming to his territory.
The traditional Latin Mass will continue to be available at two churches in the Cincinnati area, as well as at one church in Dayton, Ohio, and a to-be-determined location in the northern part of the diocese.
“Priests assigned to these designated locations — as well as other priests who have the requisite faculty along with the permission of the pastor, rector, or chaplain of the respective place — may celebrate Mass ad libitum according to the Missal of 1962 at these locations for the satisfaction of the needs of the faithful,” said a document from the archdiocese.
Priests are permitted to celebrate “non-scheduled and non-publicized Masses in a sacred place, or at least a decent place, with the Archbishop’s permission,” the document said. “These Masses may admit a minister to make the necessary responses and otherwise assist the celebrant during Mass.”
In New Orleans, Archbishop Gregory Aymond said on July 16 that he is “in consultation” with the priests of his archdiocese who celebrate the Latin Mass, as well as the director of the Office of Worship and “canonists whose opinion I respect.”
Archbishop Aymond said that his “first priority is the spiritual welfare of the people of the Archdiocese, particularly, in this case, those who find sustenance in this form of the Mass.”
The Archdiocese of New Orleans says it intends to release more information “in the upcoming weeks.” People in the archdiocese “who have some connection” to the Latin Mass, said Archbishop Aymond, will continue to have their spiritual needs met.
The Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, updated its initial statement on the motu proprio from July 16, saying on July 19 that while priests in the diocese who celebrate the Latin Mass will be given permission to do so, the authorization is not permanent.
“However, at some point in the future we will need to begin the implementation of the requirements of the new instruction,” said Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence.
“We will strive to do so with patience and prudence, and with sensitivity to the legitimate spiritual needs of the faithful. Clergy and lay faithful who are accustomed to the usus antiquior form of the liturgy should be prepared — spiritually, personally and pastorally — to accept and implement any changes that may be required.”
The Pugin Pontificate
Father Hunwicke allows his thoughts to run into flights of fancy, but I like where they run!
From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
Liberation!
I have long been uneasy about the arbitrary provision in Summorum Pontificum that the normative form of the Authentic Version of the Roman Rite should be that of 1962. I suppose Benedict XVI was being kind to Archbishop Lefebvre, who, after some variations, settled, in the mid-seventies, for 1962.
But now! ... marvellous!! ... PF, with his generously reiterated abrogations, has liberated us from all the Ratzinger provisions!!!
We are now in a happy period of freedom. Broad Sunlit Uplands territory! Bound no longer to '1962', we are at liberty to use ... for example ... the 1939 rite as provided in the St Lawrence Press Ordo.
Or any other ...
Readers will remember the provisions of S Pius V in Quo primum. This is often misquoted ... indeed, it was by PF ... as if S Pius permitted the continuation of rites with more than 200 years' prescription.
He did nothing of the sort.
He ordered, he mandated the continued use of such rites; unless the Bishop and the unanimous Chapter of a diocese should agree to adopt instead his own edition of the Roman Rite.
The fall-back position bequeathed by Quo primum was and is: that those old rites stay firmly in place.
I think it is fairly safe to, despite the difficulties of asserting and proving historical negatives, state that in no English diocese, in the years after 1559, did the Bishop, with his unanimous, rejoicing, Chapter, agree to abrogate the old rites of Sarum, York, Hereford, Lincoln, Bangor ... or do I mean Bognor ...
Ergo ...
I think Sarum is the rite with which (in our new-found loyalty to PF) we should begin our restorations. Within the last year, an admirable and learned priest has edited and published an Altar Edition of the Sarum Missal [the "unique expression" of the Sarum Rite]. And Mr Urquhart has done a fine and painstaking O'Connell to go with it (Ceremonies of the Sarum Missal). I expect the poor fellow will be nagged to edit an annual Ordo recitandi Officii Divini Sacrique peragendi secundum usum insignis et praeclarae Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis so as to help us through the nombre and hardnes of the rules called the pie.
Sarum is, as our Mr Johnson would cry, Oven Ready and Awaiting Lift Off.
Whereabouts to begin?
In Puginopolis, clearly (Ramsgate, as hoi polloi call it). Just think how it will rejoice the heart of dear Augustus Welby. There is evidence that Dr Wiseman celebrated 'according to the rite of Sarum' there.
Historians will undoubtedly come to call this the Pugin Pontificate.
Then, perhaps, the ruins of Glastonbury ... in honour of the Blessed Abbot Richard Whiting, and his martyred Companions; on Tower Hill, honouring the Cardinal Bishop of Rochester ...
What glorious events those Pontifical High Masses will be! We must pray for fine weather!
Viva il Papa!
"Democratic Memory."
As their mentor, Karl Marx wrote 'Keep people from their history, and they are easily controlled'. And A.I. Solzhenitsyn, a victim of Marxism said 'To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots'.
From Dyspeptic Mutterings
By Dale Price
Spain's left passed its whitewashing of Republic atrocities and free speech suppression law yesterday. Spaniards who, like one of my high school's exchange students, were glad that their grandparents fought for their faith and nation are now in legal danger for expressing that.
Exaggeration? Not in the slightest, as Stanley Payne, America's foremost historian on Spain, carefully explains.
The proposed law is highly punitive. Symbols, meetings, or statements judged to approve of the Franco regime and the victors in the civil war are deemed infractions against “historical and democratic memory.” Proposed penalties include an elaborate schedule of fines ranging from two hundred to a hundred thousand euros, the closing for a period of six months to two years of any entity found in violation, and the confiscation of the means or goods involved in any such activities. That this law will dramatically restrict freedom of expression and thus violate the Spanish Constitution is apparently irrelevant to the Sánchez government.
The Law of Historical and Democratic Memory is the most dramatic, arbitrary, and punitive proposal concerning discussions of history anywhere in the Western world. Yet the attitude it reflects is fairly common on the left, which increasingly uses governmental or nongovernmental means to restrict and punish speech that defends rightwing views, movements, and figures past or present. Politicized interpretations of history are, of course, not new. But Spain’s proposed law is a stark sign of the way the contemporary left seeks to weaponize history to achieve its goals and silence all dissent.
. . .
The very opposite characterized the Democratic Transition of the late 1970s, which had been grounded in a keen awareness of the failures and crimes of the past and a determination that they not be repeated. As Paloma Aguilar, the leading researcher on the role of collective memory in these years, has written, “Few processes of political change have drawn such inspiration from the memory of the past, and from the lessons associated with it, as the Spanish case.” It would be difficult to find another instance in which awareness was greater. What was agreed upon was not “silence,” but an understanding that historical conflicts should be left to historians, and that politicians should not revive old grievances in their jostling for power.
Far from being “silent,” during the Democratic Transition historians and journalists were active in the extreme in all media, flooding the country with studies and accounts of the civil war and the Franco years that did not disguise the most atrocious aspects. The formerly defeated Republican army veterans were granted full recognition and pensions, with attendant honors. The Spanish state-sponsored official ceremonies of homage to fallen Republicans and former revolutionary leaders who were responsible for many atrocities returned to Spain amid public applause. Later, detailed and objective scholarly studies appeared which, though incomplete, for the first time placed accounts of the repressions by both sides on a more precise footing. All this was the opposite of “forgetting,” and it was much more careful and exact than the current agitation about historical memory, which is allergic to fact or serious research.
Communism is to historical study what strokes are to neurological function. Spain's opposition party has promised to repeal the law when they return to power.
May it be soon.
The Best Government According to Aquinas & Bellarmine
What did Ss Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine think was the best form of government, and what did they specifically say on the matter?
George Weigel on 'Traditionis Custodes': "Summorum Pontificum…. Hope Was Being Vindicated…."
Weigel is a solid NO 'conservative Catholic'. Even they are upset at the heavy-handed, dictatorial tone of Traditionis Custodes. I think Francis poked the bear!
From Fr Z's Blog
At Catholic World Report George Weigel reacts to the 2021 Plessy v. Ferguson move Traditionis custodes.
First, let it be said that in his writings about what the Church needs today viz. “new evangelization” and the like has not included the Traditional Latin Mass. He is solidly in the Novus Ordo camp and he repeats that in this new piece.
Having expressed his preference, he goes on (with my emphases):
That being said, I also think that the recent apostolic letter Traditionis Custodes [Custodians of the Tradition], which attempts to repeal Pope Benedict XVI’s generous permission for easier use of the Traditional Latin Mass in the 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, was theologically incoherent, pastorally divisive, unnecessary, cruel — and a sorry example of the liberal bullying that has become all too familiar in Rome recently.
Summorum Pontificum was an act of pastoral solicitude for those Catholics who find it more efficacious to worship according to the 1962 Missal, in what Benedict XVI described as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite. It was also hoped that the Church’s broader experience of that Extraordinary Form would lead to a re-sacralizing and ennobling of the Church’s worship according to the “Ordinary Form” of the liturgy, the post-Vatican II missal of Pope Paul VI as revised by Pope John Paul II. In my experience, that hope was being vindicated, as the silly season in liturgy was mercifully drawing to an end.
[…]
In many American parishes where the Extraordinary Form has been offered as well as the more common Ordinary Form, the unity of the Church has not been impaired. That some proponents of the Extraordinary Form think themselves the sole faithful remnant of a decaying Church is certainly true, and their presence online is depressingly familiar. But it is an empirically unsustainable slander to suggest, as Traditionis Custodes does, that that divisive superiority complex (coupled with an ideologically-driven rejection of Vatican II) is the new normal for those who wish to worship at Masses celebrated with the Missal of 1962. Roman judgments should not be based on the hysteria and antics of the Catholic blogosphere. [This perhaps overstates the influences in this terrible decision. It seems to me that “Roman judgments” in this case were altogether predetermined. Then came the “consultation”, which turns out to have been rather selective, of bishops. That “consultation” was intended to give cover to what was already decided. I sense that “Roman judgments” were driven less by “antics” (of which I suspect they were mostly unaware) but of the reports of the rapid growth of the TLM and rapid expansion of the number of priests celebrating with it. Morever, as I understand it, it could be that Summorum was about, perhaps, to get some traction in Italy.]
Progressive Catholicism has typically been characterized by an authoritarian streak — a tendency to bullying and intimidation that certainly bespeaks impatience and may suggest a lack of confidence in its proposals and arguments. In the present pontificate, that has led to an extreme notion of papal authority that might make Pope Pius IX blush. This has not gone over well throughout the world Church, and that fact will have a marked effect on the next papal election.
EVERYONE…
…please consider becoming a Custos Tradionis. HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)