31 July 2021

Traditionis Custodes and "Reception Theory" – or – When a Law Is No Law at All.

The document by Walter, Cardinal Brandmüller that Fr Zed cites is here.

From Fr Z's Blog

Have you ever heard of “reception theory”?

Reception theory states that a law, in order to be a law, a binding law, must be received by the community for which it is intended.  If the community does not receive it, that is, they reject it outright or it fails to have any effect on how they live, the presumed law is non-binding and is really no law at all.

This doesn’t apply to moral law, because it flows from above reception or rejection by mere human beings.   In the late 1960’s and after, dissidents from Humanae vitae infamously tried to apply “reception theory” to the Church’s teaching on contraception.  Fail.

Reception theory does not apply to moral teaching, but it can apply to certain of the Church’s disciplinary law, which includes liturgical law.

Examples of non-reception of law are when in 1535 Paul III published a new Breviary which departed from tradition.  It was criticized and ignored and in 1568 Pius V withdrew it.

Let’s have a mind exercise and think about reception theory in view of Traditionis custodes, 

Popes make mistakes.  The faithful can see that they make mistakes.  The faithful have the right to express themselves about those mistakes, even when they have to do with disciplinary laws.  Sometimes the faithful respectfully and quietly vote with their feet.  Sometimes they organize and take action.  Sometimes they organize and quietly resist.  But Popes make mistakes.

Fr. James Coriden, who has written on reception theory, uses John XXIII’s ill-fated Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientia (on the preservation and promotion of Latin, especially in seminaries) as a example of norms which were not received.  That was an Apostolic Constitution signed on the main altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.  BTW…  Veterum sapientia was decidedly NOT a mistake, but it was subject to wholesale neglect.

Moving forward, get your mind around this.

The Modern Roman Rite, the Novus Ordo, was clearly not received with universal acceptance.

Yes, it was pretty much brutally imposed universally, in one form of experimentation after another, through the 70’s and 80’s.  However, it was not universally received.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you papalotrous Rahnerians are whimpering, “That’s not true!  If it were you could prove it but you can’t.  Besides, deep down inside every one really wants the Novus Ordo without all that Latin … or they would if they truly had the Spirit.  The Spirit of Vatican II has engendered so many fruits! But YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

I agree completely.  The Spirit of Vatican II has produced a great many fruits.

Almost 5 years after the imposition of the Novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI, on 28 October 1974, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Notification Conferentiarium Episcopalium which insisted that bishops “should …endeavor to secure the acceptance of the Order of the Mass of the New Roman Missal by priests and laity.”

“…endeavor to secure the acceptance…”?!?

The Novus Ordo had not been universally received.

In 1980, another document was issued, Inaestimabile donum, outlined the many abuses which had arisen over the decade.   Where there are abuses there is non-reception, ironically by those who say they accept it – and only it – and then twist it into something that it is not.  When you receive, you “Say The Black – Do The Red”.

In 1984, John Paul II issed Quattuor abhinc annos which gave an (as we now know unnecessary) “indult” for the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum.   Apparently the Novus Ordo Missae wasn’t universally received, if enough people wanted the old ways that even John Paul II acquiesced.

In 1988, John Paul II issued the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta opening up greater use of the traditional Missal and even commanding “generosity” on the part of bishops.  How you command generosity from bishops is a good question.

In 2001, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, which, as various document before, had to deal with manifestations of non-reception of the Novus Ordo, that is, abuses.  Remember: liturgical abuses are manifestations of non-reception.

In 2007 Benedict XVI issued the Traditional Roman Rite’s “Emancipation Proclamation” with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.

In 2021, Francis issued his landmark decision about the growing desire for the Traditional Roman Rite in his “Plessy v. Ferguson” called Traditionis custodes.   The fact that he is trying to suppress the TLM is more proof that, far from being universally received, the Novus Ordo Missae is being rejected.  Some reject it because of what they see as doctrinal deficiencies.  The majority of those who want Tradition reject it, not out of disdain but simply because they prefer the older form.

That’s some background and data about “reception theory” applied to the liturgical disciplinary issues we see today.

Moving on, I note with great interest today that Marco Tosatti, cites “dubia” Card. Brandmüller at Kath.net. “To be valid, a law must be accepted”.

Also, at NLM, my friend Nancy Llewellyn, a fine Latinist, brings up the issue of Veterum sapientia in the light of Traditionis.  She points out that Pope John died before the regulations he commanded were able to go into effect.  Hence, it went the way of all flesh.  She also says that those norms, hard to find, are now available in translation, which should be pretty interesting.  I suspect that reading them will be like one of those movies in which the other side won… except the other side is, in this case, the good guys.   BTW… Veterum sapientia was never abrogated.   It was, however, obviously not received by the community for which it was intended (especially seminaries).

My prediction is that Traditionis custodes is not going to be received in the long run.  It will prove to be no law at all. 

Sure, there will be some zealous bishops who turn on the faithful who want Tradition.  It is inevitable, considering.  However, my sense is that there are so many young priests and young people who now know and love the TLM that they will find a way simply to keep going.  It might be as simple as Father leaving the doors open when he says Mass privately (that is, not on the schedule) and people happen to wander in for some time in church.   It might be that the bishop will strike down that young priest.  A couple others will spring up.

I don’t think this can be stopped.

Mind you, there are going to be a lot of tears and anguish because of these bishops.  But in the end, they are only bishops.

Friends, when your bishops do something good and generous regarding the Traditional Roman Rite, thank them.  When they do something stingy, work on them with spiritual bouquets, fasting, sincere requests.  Be the woman at the door of the judge before you turn to more drastic measures.

/Satire/ Latindr App Used To Catch Priests in Compromising Situations /satire/

Eccles has a bit of fun with the Pillar/ Burrill/Grindr affair. Hilarious, as usual!

From Eccles is Saved

As reported by journalists from the Bitter Pillar (formerly the Tablet), data from the popular social networking Latindr app, used by people of a certain inclination who want to get together for a bit of TLM (nudge, nudge), has been used to trap priests and bishops in compromising situations.


Not suitable for Catholics.

As many commentators have pointed out, Pope Francis's attempt to restrict the traditional Mass is not simply a change in forms of worship, but a piece of deep moral teaching, on a par with the edict that homosexual priests should keep their trousers on (except possibly if they are Jesuits). All right, it contradicts all the ideas of previous popes, but then so does practically everything that oozes from the papal pen.

So the big moral debate this week was: which is worse, using Latindr to get together with like-minded Catholics, or getting hold of such personal data and "outing" rogue clergy? Well, we on this blog are in no doubt. These nasty wicked people should be exposed for what they are, even if it involves tracking their movements.



The Latin Given By Tradition (LGBT) movement is very powerful these days, and even non-LGBT commentators were shocked to see Pope Francis's Romaphobic condemnation of the practice. But hacking into Latindr may be the best way to purify the Church.

As a bonus, we have the results of this week's Eccles "horror art" competition. The theme was "families" and competitors were to imagine a dysfunctional family where the parents had three eyes between them, wicked Uncle Arthur was an alcoholic who liked to surround himself with Yorkshire puddings, and the ghosts of the dead grandparents looked on in dismay.

rotten picture

The winning entrant from Marko Ivan Rupnik (age 6).

To read more of this post, please confirm that you are not a robot by solving the folloiwing Captcha.

Catholic captcha

Why Was This Catholic Congregation Sheltering A Laicized Serial Sexual Abuser?

A good question. Why is ANY Catholic organisation sheltering this perverted layman? 

From Complicit Clergy

By Peter

Media reports announcing criminal charges brought against Theodore McCarrick have revealed that he has been living at Vianney Renewal Center  in Ditmer, Missouri which is owned and operated by the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete (CSP).

Although some have reported that McCarrick is paying his own way at the center, the question remains why McCarrick is being allowed to reside at a facility owned by the Catholic Church?  McCarrick is now officially a lay person, not a cleric.  CSP’s mission is to serve troubled priests, not lay persons.

Some have speculated that the powerful U.S. prelates are trying to effectively keep McCarrick under house arrest because he knows too much about sexual depravity in the hierarchy.  Faithful Catholics deserve answers, especially given the fact they have financed most of the payouts due to clerical abuse over the past 40 years.

TAKE ACTION: Contact the head of the Servants of the Paraclete, Fr. David Fitzgerald, at servantgeneral@aol.com or 636.274.5226 to express your concern about them harboring Theodore McCarrick.

Background on the Servants of the Paraclete

CSP is a religious congregation dedicated to ministering to Catholic clergy with personal difficulties. The organization was founded in 1947 by Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald in Jemez Springs, New Mexico.

Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald

Fr. Fitzgerald started CSP to assist priests who were struggling with alcohol and substance abuse problems, but soon began receiving priests who had sexually abused minors. Initially, Fr. Fitzgerald attempted to treat such priests using the same spiritual methods that he used with others. But by 1948, Fr. Fitzgerald established a policy whereby he refused to take priests who were sexually attracted to children. The policy was changed after Fitzgerald’s death in 1969.

In a 1964 letter to Bishop Joseph Durick of Nashville, Tennessee, Fr. Fitzgerald expressed “growing concern” about the dramatic change in the nature of problems that were being referred to his order:

May I take this occasion to bring to your attention what is a growing concern to many of us here in the States. When I was ordained, forty three years ago, homosexuality was a practically unknown rarity. Today it is rampant among men. And whereas seventeen years ago eight out of ten problems here [at the Paraclete facility, Via Coeli] would represent the alcoholic, now in the last year or so our admission ratio would be approximately 5-2-3: five being alcoholic, two would be what we call “heart cases” (natural affection towards women) and three representing aberrations involving homosexuality. More alarming still is that among these of the 3 out of 10 class, 2 out of 3 have been young priests.

Fr. Fitzgerald became increasingly convinced that such priests could not be cured, could not be trusted to maintain celibacy and should be laicized. He vehemently opposed returning sexual abusers to duties as parish priests. Some bishops chose to ignore Fr. Fitzgerald’s recommendations, preferring instead to rely on the advice of medical and psychological experts who asserted that treatment was feasible.

CSP was forced to consolidate its operation in Dittmer, Missouri after a series of lawsuits related to sexually abusive priests that had been treated at its facilities. It has been subject of numerous news reports accusing it of essentially becoming a ‘dumping ground’ for sexually abusive priests. Here is a sample of some of the priests who received treatment at CSP facilities:

A Reply to JD Flynn's Attack on Cardinal Burke

Dr Shaw calls out J.D. Flynn for calumniously accusing Cardinal Burke and others of calling for disobedience.

From The Chairman's Blog

By The Hon. Joseph Shaw, PhD, FRSA

Cross-posted from Rorate Caeli.

In the Pillar, JD Flynn criticises ‘the siren voices calling for disobedience, or casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. He has earlier quoted Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and Bishop Robertus Mutsaerts, but he leaves it to his readers to connect what he quotes them as saying with ‘calls for disobedience’ and ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’. This seems on the face of it a serious injustice, and a failure to give these individuals the respect due to their office and indeed to every Catholic, who has a right to his good name: see Canon 220.

For readers such as myself to be expected to examine the quoted remarks and look for possible support of these serious allegations is ridiculous and an invitation to uncharity. Flynn does not even give us a clue which of the three is implicated in these two alleged offences. Indeed, it might even be that Flynn would, if challenged, refer us instead to the unnamed others he vaguely refers to in the course of the article. However, the insinuation remains, it is serious, and it should be withdrawn.

To illustrate, a reasonable person reading this article would conclude that ‘casting into doubt the authority of the Vicar of Christ’ is a reference to the remarks quoted from Cardinal Burke in the article:
“Can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the UA?” Burke asked.

The cardinal concluded in the negative, positing that the pope’s authority does not allow him “to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier.”
This is then linked to an interpretation of His Excellency’s remarks by a CNA author. Flynn does not express an opinion as the truth of this interpretation, and yet feels justified to make his insinuation.

In point of fact, Cardinal Burke’s remarks are not a denial of the authority of the Papacy, but a comment about what that authority means. I would be interested to know if Flynn would regard as a rejection of the authority of the Vicar of Christ these words of the then sitting Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, one Joseph Ratzinger (The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000)):
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. … The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.
It is a commonplace among theologians that the power of the Vicar of Christ is not arbitrary or despotic, but given for a specific purpose, a purpose which conditions the matters which it governs and also the way it can be used. The Church’s own tradition of Canon law allows for the fact that some practices are simply not uprooted by legislation against them and become legitimate with the passage of time (Canon 24.2); that bishops can lift universal disciplinary obligations from those under their charge for the good of souls (Canon 87.1); and that, in the final analysis, the salvation of souls is the supreme law (Canon 1752).

The power of the Vicar of Christ must be understood within this context, and not the context of a modern, positivist conception of the law, which would make the Pope into a dictator or even a slave-master. When Cardinal Burke directs our attention to the correct context, he is doing a service to all who love and respect the Office of the Papacy.

Support the Latin Mass Society

20 "Radical" Saint Quotes that Modern Catholics Might Hate

You might want to print this out to have handy to give to your typical 'Church of Nice' Catholic friends. It's powerful!

From Catholic 365

By Jacinta Boudreau

It’s no secret that many Modern-day Catholics have little to no idea of what real, true blue, Catholicism is. The sheer number of “Catholics” in our government that continue to promote pro-abortion (pro baby murder) while claiming to be "devout Catholics" proves this. This is partly because of the complete lack of proper education on Catholicism by the clergy for the past 50-60 years.

Today I thought I’d share some of my favorite, Catholic quotes from Saints that are so opposite to the beliefs of many Modern Catholics today. If anything, it might remind all of us that Catholicism is way more serious than we think, and the Four Last Things (Death, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory) are far closer than we realize. It’s time to wake up and learn more about the true Catholic Faith. No more squishy, useless  Ambiguous-type "Catholicism". I can assure you these quotes I am sharing are not your typical “Pray Hope and Don’t Worry” Catholic mug quote you’ll find in a  Catholic store.

Let us compare the mentality of these great saints to ourselves today… not just what the majority of the Church and those inside have become, but also of ourselves in our own lives and mindsets. Where can we make little changes to become more Catholic? More saintly? More like Christ?

  1. “Waste yourself, give yourself to others!” Venerable Fulton Sheen

  2. “Our business is to gain heaven, everything else is a sheer waste of time!” St. Vincent de Paul

  3. “If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you don’t like, it's not the Gospel you believe but yourself..” St Augustine of Hippo

  4. “That the state must be separate from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” Pope St. Pius X

  5. “Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire.” Pope St. Gregory the Great

  6. “Truly, this vice (sodomy) is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…” St. Peter Damian

  7. ““We must humble ourselves on seeing how little self-control we have and how much we love comfort and rest. Always keep Jesus before your gaze; He did not come to rest nor to be comfortable either in spiritual or temporal matters, but to fight, to mortify Himself and to die.“ St. Padre Pio

  8. “The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: ‘Here is the wolf!’ when it enters the flock or anywhere else.” St. Francis de Sales

  9. “He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust.” Saint Thomas Aquinas

  10. “All the evil in the world is due to lukewarm Catholics.” Pope Saint Pius V

  11. “I cannot sufficiently be astonished that such is the insanity of some men, such the impiety of their blinded understanding, such, finally, their lust after error, that they will not be content with the rule of faith delivered once and for all from antiquity, but must daily seek after something new, and even newer still, and are always longing to add something to religion, or to change it, or to subtract from it!” St. Vincent of Lérins

  12. “Fly to the Catholic Church! Adhere to the only faith which continues to exist from the beginning, that faith which was preached by Paul and is upheld by the Chair of Peter.” St. Hippolytus of Rome

  13. “There is no such thing as bad weather. All weather is good because it is God’s.” Saint Teresa of Avila

  14. “For Jesus Christ I am prepared to suffer still more.” Saint Maximilian Kolbe

  15. “The more we are afflicted in this world, the greater is our assurance in the next; the more sorrow in the present, the greater will be our joy in the future.” St. Isadore of Seville

  16. “Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope St. Felix III

  17. “The Church shall be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until She will, at last, seem to be extinguished and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But after this, She will be exalted.” St. Nicholas of Flue, Patron of Switzerland, 15th Century

  18. “The clearest sign of God’s anger and the most horrible punishment He can inflict upon this world is manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are clergyman more in name than in deed.” St. John Eudes

  19. “My son, I would sooner see you die than guilty of a mortal sin;” Queen Blanche to her son, King St. Louis

  20. “Death rather than sin!” St. Dominic Savio


[1] It is clear, moreover, that, although the human nature assumed by the Word is a creature, it cannot, for all that, be said without qualification that Christ is a creature.

[2] For to be created is to become something. Now, since becoming is terminated in being simply, a becoming is of that which has subsistent being, and it is a thing of this kind which is a complete individual in the genus of substance, which, indeed in an intellectual nature is called a person or even an hypostasis. But one does not speak of forms and accidents and even parts becoming, unless relatively, since they have no subsistent being in themselves, but subsist in another; hence, when one becomes white, this is not called becoming simply, but relatively. But in Christ there is no other hypostasis or person save that of God’s Word, and this person is uncreated, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, one cannot say without qualification: “Christ is a creature;” although one may say it with an addition, so as to say a creature “so far as man” or “in His human nature.”

[3] Granted, however, that one does not, in the case of a subject which is an individual in the genus of substance, refer to that as becoming simply which belongs to it by reason of accidents or parts, but that one calls it becoming only relatively, one does predicate simply of the subject whatever follows naturally on the accidents or parts in their own intelligibility; for one calls a man “seeing” simply: this follows the eye; or “curly” because of his hair; or “visible” because of his color. Thus, then, the things which follow properly on human nature can be asserted of Christ simply: that He is “man”; that He is “visible”; that He “walked,” and that sort of thing. But what is the person’s very own is not asserted of Christ by reason of His human nature, unless with some addition whether expressed or implied.


There's No Such Thing as a Pregnant Man

'The 'birthing community' is increasingly deluded about biology'. It is only a small part of the total insanity of 'wokeism'.

By Raquel Rosarios Sánchez

The 'birthing community' is increasingly deluded about biology

A “pregnant man” emoji is incoming. Designed by Emojipedia, it’s due to be released by the Unicode Consortium later this year. The final approval of all new emojis won’t take place until September, although the organisation says that draft lists of designs have been approved without modification.

Trans rights campaigners have long advocated for a depiction of gestating men and consider the release of the “pregnant man” emoji a recognition that transgender men and non-binary people can give birth — if they were born female. In their announcement, Emojipedia stated: “The above additions will mean that nearly all emojis can have a default gender neutral option, with choice to use a woman or man where relevant.”

Should anyone have a problem with this? Well, men cannot physically give birth. But then again, humans do not have literal dollar signs in their eyes, or zippers on their mouths, yet these emojis are in wide use. This is a legitimate argument — but it ignores the sinister undercurrent below the push to widen society’s understanding of pregnancy and childbirth by side-lining the material repercussions both have for women and girls, and the advocates campaigning for their rights.

Around the same time the “pregnant man” emoji was announced, the parallel plight of Milli Hill became widely known. Hill, a bestselling author and the founder of the Positive Birth Movement, was dropped by a charity after she challenged taboos around the idea of ‘pregnant men’.

Hill faced the wrath of the birthing community when she wrote on Instagram in November of last year: “I would challenge the term ‘birthing person’” and stated that the concept of “obstetric violence is violence against women”. The subsequent threats and abuse she received left her shaken. Speaking to UnHerd, Hill reflects:

“The pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding world is changing language across the board. Anyone who questions this is swiftly ejected from their professional body or attacked on social media. Many people working in maternity rights consider the push for inclusive language as a positive step and a way of being more accepting of people – which of course I support. But I don’t think they have thought through the implications of changing the definition of ‘woman’. They don’t necessarily realise that ‘being kind’ is going to have an impact on women’s hard-won rights.” 


The context here is crucial. Worldwide, pregnancy and childbirth remain a life-or-death matter for a large number of women. The COVID pandemic has triggered an alarming increase of maternal deaths in some countries as many women and girls are kept away from hospitals. In May, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published guidelines suggesting doctors should encourage labour induction at 39 weeks for all pregnant women of colour in the UK, a proposal that has been branded as “discriminatory” by the Royal College of Midwives.

There are genuine concerns about the way parts of the medical establishment treat women — particularly pregnant women of colour. These questions, and the realities of childbirth, risk being obscured under the guise of “inclusivity” when experts who speak in favour of material reality become victims of abuse.

Identity politics has led to a lot of meaningless performative gestures at the expense of substantive support for improving childbirth care, at its worst presenting a veneer of modernity to the age-old habit of erasing female bodies. If only they could make an emoji to articulate that.

1st Amendment Suspended if LGBTQ Mad

'You see, when they say “coexist” they mean submit.' Another anti-Christian decision by an activist court determined to drive us underground.

From Creative Minority Report

By Matthew Archbold

This is what happens when you create new rights for certain select communities. They tend to conflict with the God given rights for all.

And it turns out that judges tend to favor these newfangled made up rights over those icky God-given ones.


A U.S. appeals court has ruled against a web designer who didn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples and sued to challenge Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, another twist in a series of court rulings nationwide about whether businesses denying services to LGBTQ people amounts to bias or freedom of speech.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Monday denied Lorie Smith’s attempt to overturn a lower court ruling throwing out her legal challenge.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Smith, argued that the law forced her to violate her Christian beliefs.

In the 2-1 ruling, the panel said Colorado had a compelling interest in protecting the “dignity interests” of members of marginalized groups through its law.

The anti-discrimination law is the same one at issue in the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips that was decided in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court decided the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias against Phillips after he refused to bake a cake for two men who were getting married. But it did not rule on the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to LGBTQ people.

The Scottsdale, Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom also represented Phillips. Founded in 1994 by Christian leaders concerned about religious freedom, the group said it would appeal Monday’s ruling.

“The government should never force creative professionals to promote a message or cause with which they disagree. That is quintessential free speech and artistic freedom,” the group’s senior counsel, John Bursch, said in a statement.

Lambda Legal, a group that fights for the civil rights of LGBTQ people, had submitted a brief supporting the Colorado law.

“This really isn’t about cake or websites or flowers,” Lambda Legal senior counsel Jennifer C. Pizer said in a statement. “It’s about protecting LGBTQ people and their families from being subjected to slammed doors, service refusals and public humiliation in countless places — from fertility clinics to funeral homes and everywhere in between.”

In arguments before the three-judge panel in November, Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich asked what Smith would do if she was approached by a straight wedding planner asking her to create four heterosexual wedding sites and one for a same-sex wedding. Kristen Waggoner, a lawyer for the alliance, said Smith would not take that job.

Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson questioned whether Smith should even be allowed to challenge the law since she had not started offering wedding websites yet.

But if she did, Olson said, her argument would mean she would refuse to create a website for a hypothetical same-sex couple named Alex and Taylor but agree to make the same one for an opposite-sex couple with the same names. He said that would be discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation…

Judge Mark Beck Briscoe wrote in Monday’s majority opinion that “we must also consider the grave harms caused when public accommodations discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Combatting such discrimination is, like individual autonomy, ‘essential’ to our democratic ideals.”

In his dissent, Tymkovich wrote that “this case illustrates exactly why we have a First Amendment. Properly applied, the Constitution protects Ms. Smith from the government telling her what to say or do.”

Say, how is this “coexist” thing working out?

You see, when they say “coexist” they mean submit.

The Four Olds and the Embattled Traditional Catholic Mass

There is a reason that Fr Zed refers to the 'liberals' who slavishly follow Francis's every utterance as 'the New catholic Red Guard'.

From One Peter Five

By Jane Stannus

“Destroy the Four Olds.” This slogan was central to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, launched in Beijing in 1966. What were the Four Olds? Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Customs. The destruction began simply, with the renaming of streets, stores, and even people, who exchanged their traditional Chinese names for revolutionary ones like “Determined Red.”

But violence soon followed. Red Guards broke into the homes of the wealthy to destroy books, paintings, and religious objects. Places of historical significance were destroyed or forbidden to the public. Cemeteries containing notable pre-revolutionary figures were vandalized, their graves desecrated. Old customs surrounding marriage, festivals, and family life were forbidden. Temples and churches were pulled down or put to secular use.

Why? Why was all this necessary?

Because, as Mao understood, the traditions of the past had to be destroyed to make room for new ideas, new culture, new habits, new customs. In short, for communism—so alien to traditional societies that people strongly rooted in their cultural and religious identity are psychologically incapable of accepting it.

A comparison between the campaign against the Four Olds to the campaign waged against the traditional Catholic Latin Mass over the last 50 years is not entirely fair; for one thing the element of physical violence is absent. Yet we must remember that the Cultural Revolution started without violence: simply renaming everything, assigning a new identity to everything; simply cutting people off from their cultural and religious heritage.

So no one, Catholic or not, who considers himself conservative can see the Catholic Church’s strange, self-sabotaging attempt to rid itself of its old traditional Latin Mass without concern.

All serious historians are aware of the enormous influence of the Catholic Church in the development of Western civilization. At the heart of the Catholic Church burns, like a furnace, the Catholic Mass, its defining act of worship and its source of energy. This Mass was the force that built cathedrals, monasteries, hospitals, and universities. It brought about the age of chivalry and the age of the Baroque. It was the unifying inspiration that caused Europe to spring up from the remains of the Roman Empire, shaping all of Western society as a result.

It’s obvious to any objective bystander that this Mass is an essential part of the Church’s history and identity. So why has the Vatican been trying to get rid of it, off and on, for half a century—most recently in Pope Francis’ July 16 motu proprio, Traditionis custodes?

In this document, Francis gives orders calculated to phase out the traditional Mass at the bishops’ earliest convenience, leaving ordinary Catholics cut off from their traditional form of worship.

It’s only the latest setback in a series of ups and downs for the Old Mass over the past 50 years. In 1969, Paul VI promulgated the modern rite most Catholics attend today. It was designed by a commission whose mandate was to ensure accessibility for modern Catholics and Protestants alike, and to express certain ideas that had come into favor in the 1960s during the Second Vatican Council. Use of the old rite was forbidden, with vanishingly rare exceptions.

Most people accepted this, some filled with the rosy optimism that was a hallmark of Catholicism in the 1960s, others out of a spirit of obedience that, in hindsight, may have been exaggerated beyond its legal requirement.

But a handful resisted. They believed the Vatican had no right to cut Catholics off from their sacred traditions. Their priests continued to offer the old Mass: not, they said, in defiance of the pope, but out of loyalty to the Church of all time.

Under the pressure of this growing movement, the Vatican softened its hardline position, though only somewhat. Then in 2007 Pope Benedict XVI sent shockwaves through the Church by affirming—as the resistors had argued—that the Old Mass was not forbidden and never had been. “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful,” he wrote. The traditionalist star was in the ascendant.

Fast-forward to 2021, and the brakes have been slammed back on. The traditional Mass can only be said with special permission; bishops are to discourage it; all Catholics are gradually to return to the exclusive use of the modern rite. Goodbye, old ways.

You’d think more pressing issues plague the Church today: financial scandals, abuse scandals, threatened schism in Germany, the persecution of Catholics in China…Yet the ancient identity of the Church—preserved, moreover, only by a small minority–is singled out for the wrecking ball.

The crackdown is doomed, of course. It’s not 1969 anymore, and the papal flipflopping on the issue—Benedict says yes, Francis says no—shows a lack of seriousness from the Vatican that will be reflected in traditionalists’ response.

Like the resistors back in the 70s, they’ll argue that the Church doesn’t have the right to condemn its own sacred tradition. Eventually a favourable pope will come along. The Catholic Church thinks in terms of centuries, after all.

But for the present, those who dislike totalitarianism should sense their internal alarms going off. The Cultural Revolution teaches us that contempt for our Olds results in a loss of collective sense of identity. We need our past, as a child needs to know who his parents were, as a nation needs to know its history. We need—we have a right to–our sacred traditions. Non-Catholics who look to the Church have a right to expect the Church to maintain its identity, to be the protector of civilization and morality it has always been.

Who are we, cut off from our Old Mass, our ancient identity?

The Chinese could tell us. We are whatever the most powerful force of the day decides. And that’s terrifying.

The Coulombe Talks - Part 4: God in History

The last of the series, the workings of God in human history.

Traditionis Custodes in Bristol

To see what Fr Hunwicke is contrasting, see my post here.

From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

Bishop Declan is, I am sure, a Traditionis custos. He must be, because he is Bishop of Clifton; and because he will have read these words in Traditionis custodes:

"I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that 'in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorisation for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions' ... the eccentricities that can easily degenerate into abuses ..."

His lordship reacted to TC within hours in as far as it applied to the Traditionalist Benedictines at Glastonbury. It would be jolly ... very jolly ... to hear how he is dealing with the church of S Nicolas of Tolentino ... with regard to which, I am representing a couple of earlier posts, today and tomorrow.

It's a tremendously exciting place ... they even have a Creed of their own!! Which ... rather counter-culturally ... affirms the goodness of the Covidvirus!!!

Word of the Day: Infidel (With a Comment From the Old Curmudgeon)

INFIDEL. One who does not believe. Formerly applied to all non-Christians, the term is now used only of unbelievers, i.e., professed atheists or agnostics. (Etym. Latin in-,not + fidelis, true, faithful: infidelis, one that cannot be relied upon, faithless.)

(An example of the corruption of language on which I often harp. 'Infidel' still means all non-Christians, but the liberals have warped the language to pretend it only applies to 'professed atheists or agnostics'. N.B., I am not accusing the Servant of God, John Hardon, of liberalism, but in this case, he simply accepted the corruption.-JW)

Good News and Bad News on the Latin Mass Front

'Think of the bishops in England who betrayed the faith during the reign of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and you have a portrait of Wilton Gregory.' 

From Les Femmes

By Mary Ann Kreitzer

Good news from a good bishop:

Bishop Paprocki: “The problem has not been solved, but tensions have been heightened.”

Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, IL offers hope, consolation, and kindness to those who love the TLM. Following the motus proprio, Tradionis Custodes, he issued a decree on continuance of the Latin Mass in Springfield. 

While it gives specific permission for the FSSP and the Canons of St. John Cantius to continue the TLM, it also says this: "Priests who already celebrate Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962 in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois are authorized to continue to enjoy this faculty upon request (Art. 5)." Will they be able to celebrate the Mass at parishes outside those specifically mentioned in the decree? That is unclear. But the weather in Springfield is sunny.

Bishop Paprocki also puts to the lie, from personal experience, the disgusting mantra that those who love the Latin Mass are holier than thou and look down on others or consider themselves superior. Here's a bit from the interview with Catholic World Report:
CWR: When you’ve visited the parishes in your diocese which offer the Traditional Latin Mass, what experiences have you had with their priests and lay people?

Bishop Paprocki: I first celebrated that Traditional Latin Mass in 2010 for the Latin Mass community of St. Rose of Lima Parish in Quincy, which is staffed by the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter. I also did another time for St. Katharine Drexel Parish in Springfield, which encompasses two churches, one that offers the Ordinary form Mass in English and Spanish and another that offers the Extraordinary form. The priests who offer the Extraordinary form are from the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius. Both locations attract people who have an affinity for the Mass being celebrated in the Extraordinary form; they appreciate the Latin, and the sense of mysticism they experience. But in neither location did I experience people who had a sense of superiority over the rest of the Church...

A big thank you to Bishop Paprocki!

And now the bad news from the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. from a cardinal who continually scandalizes the faithful by his approval of sacrileges Communion for Catholic politicians who publicly the faith and embrace grave intrinsic evils.

D.C. Pontifical Mass: Canceled

Think of the bishops in England who betrayed the faith during the reign of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and you have a portrait of Wilton Gregory. 

Pray for Holy Mother Church. How long will it be before we have another papal conclave? What a horror to think of Cardinals like Gregory, Cupich, Farrell, Parolin, Joseph Tobin, etc. choosing the next pope. Those who insist that the Holy Spirit elects the pope have a pretty low opinion of the Holy Spirit judging from some of the men who've sat on Peter's chair. It would be good for faithful Catholic to start praying and fasting now for the next conclave. Who will come out on the balcony? If he chooses the name Francis II, you'll know we're still in big trouble!