Conservative Illinois Bishop Has To Restrict Some Latin Masses 'In Line With Cardinal Cupich'

Stupich has little authority as Metropolitan in the Diocese of Springfield, but he DOES have authority over the Canons Regular of St John Cantius, who serve in the Diocese of Springfield only by his permission. If Bishop Paprocki doesn't do as Cupich wants about them, Cupich will revoke that permission and there's one less TLM in the Diocese.

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Haynes

The bishop's spokesman said 'the Canons [Regular of St. John Cantius] are able serve in the Diocese of Springfield based on the permission of the Archbishop of Chicago. Therefore, Bishop Paprocki’s policy is in line with Cardinal Cupich’s December policy changes.'

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Cupich has doubled down on his restrictions on the Latin Mass, imposing prohibitions on the the Canons of St. John Cantius in neighboring Springfield diocese via the local bishop, and having a “catechesis” drawn up for Latin Mass devotees to “fully appreciate” the Novus Ordo.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, bishop of Springfield, Illinois, since 2010, announced the latest implementation of Traditionis Custodes via an insert in parish bulletins. 

The new rules affect the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, who serve in Springfield diocese but remain under the authority of Cardinal Blaise Cupich, in the Archdiocese of Chicago. 

Under the terms of Paprocki’s document, the Canons are forbidden from celebrating the Latin Mass on the first Sunday of the month. “All Masses celebrated by the Canons Regular in the Diocese of Springfield will be celebrated on the first Sunday of the month according to the Novus Ordo.”

Additionally, there is to be a “plan of catechesis” drawn up which will “assist” devotees of the traditional Mass to come to terms with the changes. 

“A plan of catechesis will be presented to assist and accompany those attached to the former rite to fully appreciate the restoration of the liturgy and the teachings of the Council.”

LifeSiteNews contacted the diocese about the catechesis, and was told that no finalized plans are in place so far, but that it would likely “examine the teachings on the liturgy in the documents of the Second Vatican Council as understood in continuity with the ancient liturgical traditions of the Catholic Church.”

‘Litmus test’ of Vatican II liturgy

All priests of the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius serving in Springfield are to “affirm in their written petition to celebrate the sacraments in the earlier liturgical form that the restored liturgy of the Council is the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

This was described by some as a “litmus test” of the Novus Ordo having precedence over the Latin Mass.

Such directives appear to have come at the request of Cardinal Cupich, rather than having originated entirely from Paprocki himself. The Springfield bishop noted in his addendum to the third directive: “As requested by the Archbishop of Chicago.”

LifeSiteNews contacted the Springfield diocesan spokesman, who re-iterated “the Canons are able serve in the Diocese of Springfield based on the permission of the Archbishop of Chicago. Therefore, Bishop Paprocki’s policy is in line with Cardinal Cupich’s December policy changes regarding the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962.”

The Canons of St. John Cantius serve St. Katherine Drexel parish, comprised of two churches: St. Patrick and Sacred Heart. The parish is dubbed “Springfield’s ‘Home of the Latin Mass,’” with two Sunday traditional Masses, and at least one such Mass on weekdays. 

First Friday devotions at Sacred Heart, 2019.

In order for these other celebrations of the traditional liturgy to continue, and to comply with Traditionis Custodes, Paprocki has designated Sacred Heart as a “non-parochial church,” since Pope Francis widely prohibited the Latin Mass from occurring in parish churches.

Given that the Vatican recently further restricted the traditional sacraments, Paprocki complied with this directive, allowing priests to request permission to “celebrate the Sacraments according to the Rituale Romanum of 1952,” but not to request permission to use the Pontificale Romanum, which contains the sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

The diocese noted that though Paprocki’s document banned the Latin Mass on first Sundays, “on all the rest of the days of the month” the Canons were still able to offer the Latin Mass. 

The traditional Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which also ministers in the diocese, was spared from any restrictions, as Paprocki ruled its personal parish of St. Rose of Lima “is effective for the spiritual growth of the faithful and is therefore retained.”

Back in the immediate aftermath of Traditionis Custodes, Paprocki marked himself out by employing Canon Law to dispense priests in the diocese from the Papal restrictions. Drawing on can. 87, §1, Bishop Paprocki allowed the Canons of St. John Cantius and the FSSP to continue as normal. Such a permission will remain unchanged, “unless directed otherwise by the Holy See,” the diocese noted.

Cardinal Cupich exercising his power

Paprocki’s document, effective January 25, thus brings priests of the Chicago archdiocese serving in Springfield in line with Cupich’s own decrees regarding the traditional liturgy, seemingly under the request of Cupich himself. Cupich’s directive, published two days after Christmas, requires all priests, deacons, and instituted ministers to request permission to celebrate the Latin Mass either publicly or privately after January 25.

Cupich’s policy firmly prohibits celebrations of the Latin Mass on the first Sunday of each month, as well as on Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday, and further bans saying Mass ad orientem without permission.

Just as in Springfield, Cupich referenced a process of “accompaniment” of Catholics who prefer the traditional Mass, in order to “to help them understand the essential principles of renewal called for in the Second Vatican Council and appreciate how the reformed Mass introduces them to a greater use of Scripture and prayers from the Roman tradition, as well as an updated liturgical calendar of feasts that includes recently canonized saints.”

Cardinal Cupich, known for his widespread deviation from Church teaching on a variety of issues, continues to exercise increasingly firm control over his archdiocese. Just last week, the cardinal accused one of his priests of inciting “animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary” after the cleric publicly criticized Cupich’s ban on saying Mass ad orientem.

Father Anthony Buś, C.R., took issue with the liturgical restrictions, saying that faithful Catholics were “cruelly demoralized — thrown into confusion” by them. As a result, Buś was summoned to meet Cupich, and then sent to a ten day retreat to “reflect on my priesthood.”

Back in July, Cupich reportedly placed “tremendous pressure” on the National Catholic Bioethics Center to change the guidance issued by the center against mandatory injection for COVID-19.

Catholic outrage at Paprocki’s decree

Bishop Paprocki’s letter has been met with frustration and sadness by Catholics online, with many expressing surprise that “one of the good ones” was restricting the Latin Mass.

Others queried why traditional Catholics were being punished, when the attendees of the Novus Ordo were more likely to reject Church teaching.

Word of the Day: Macedonianism

 

MACEDONIANISM. The heresy named after Macedonius, Arian Bishop of Constantinople (d. c. 362), whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Unlike Macedonius, most of his followers acknowledged the divinity of Christ. The heresy was opposed by Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa, and was condemned in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople.

Are Catholics Christian?

 In fact, we are the only Christians, properly speaking. From the Catechism of St Pius X,

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

From Complete Christianity

By Shane Schaetzel 

Yes, Catholics are not only Christians, but we were the first Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ in AD 33, and planted in Rome in about AD 42 [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (AD 180); Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle (AD 303)], when Saint Peter established his Apostolic see in Rome after planting a church in Antioch [Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (AD 96); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (AD 180); Eusebius, Church History, 2:14,5 (AD 325)]. Peter was later crucified in Rome, upside down, in the year AD 67 [Gauss, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (AD 198); Tertian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (AD 210); Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3 (AD 212); Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (AD 306); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6:14-15 (AD 350)]. His direct successors became the popes.

Do Catholics believe in Jesus Christ?

Yes, of course we believe in Jesus Christ. We believe he is God the Son – the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) – made flesh and blood, taking on a fully human form, and becoming fully man in every way, yet retaining his full divinity [Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 464 – 470, 480 – 482]. We believe in his life, virgin birth, miracles, ministry, suffering, death and resurrection. We also believe he is currently reigning as the King of kings in Heaven, and he will one day return to judge the living and the dead [Catechism of the Catholic Church; pages 56 – 57].

What do Catholics mean by the Holy Trinity?

We believe in ONE God, who is eternally existent in three divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 232, 234, 237, 261 & 266]. This is the teaching of the Holy Scriptures [Matthew 3:16-17; Matthew 28:19; John 1:1; John 8:59-59; John 10:30-33; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 20:28; 2nd Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 4:4-6; Titus 2:13] and the early Church. The first Christians gave their lives for this faith. As Justin Martyr wrote in AD 155: “Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.” – (Justin Martyr, First Apology 13)

The doctrine of the Trinity was taught from the earliest days of the Church, and it’s helpful to remember that the people who gave their lives as martyrs in the Roman circuses (made into human torches and lion food) died believing that Jesus Christ is God, and that he is the second Person of the Holy Trinity. The name “Trinity” was used as early as the third century to briefly describe the triune nature of God. The doctrine was finally defined dogmatically in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea in response to the Arian heresy. In the early fourth century, a rogue priest named Arius introduced the teaching that Jesus Christ is not divine and that God is not a Trinity. This caused such a great disturbance in the early Church that an ecumenical council was called in the City of Nicea (located in Asia Minor) in which all of the bishops were summoned to investigate this matter. They condemned the Arian heresy, affirmed the Trinity as the universal faith taught by the Apostles, formulated the Nicene Creed, and ordered the compilation of a universal New Testament to combat this heresy. Thus, the Catholic Christian faith was dogmatically defined as those Christians who maintained belief in the Trinity, as opposed to those who followed Arius in denying the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity is universally accepted by all Christian churches that broke with the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century and thereafter. It is taught by all Christian churches connected to the Catholic Church through history and baptism. It is the universal doctrine of all Protestant denominations: Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc. Evangelicals are staunchly Trinitarian in their belief about God. Christianity has always been defined as a Trinitarian faith, meaning the belief in ONE God in three equally divine Persons. There are of course some churches that no longer teach the Trinity. These churches are no longer connected to the Catholic Church, neither through history nor baptism. For that matter, they are no longer connected to Protestantism or Evangelicalism, and most of them have no problem telling you that. 

The above paragraphs are taken from the book Are Catholics Christian? A Guide to Evangelical Questions about the Catholic Church, written by Shane Schaetzel. The book is highly recommended by priests and catechists alike. The Foreword is by Fr. Chori Seraiah, of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

Integralism is Christendom – Pt. II

As you can tell from the extensive bibliography on this article, Integralism is no longer just a fringe movement.

From One Peter Five

By Joshua May

Read part I here.

Editor’s note: this is part of the postliberal conversation at OnePeterFive, in which we discuss and debate how to rebuild Christendom against the Liberal disorder. If you would like to add a submission to this conversation, please email us at editor [at] onepeterfive.com.

Integralism is care for the common good…

In the United States, the particular sin of the conservatism is to endorse wholeheartedly the myth of “rugged individualism.” Conservatives make idols of the virtues of self-reliance, independence, and the rights of the individual. While these are fine to a certain extent, they cannot be ends in themselves. Man was made to be, as Aristotle says, a “political animal.” He is meant to live in a structured, ordered society, where each has a role to play and a duty to fulfill. This idea, understood even in pagan times, finds its most beautiful exposition in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he speaks of many parts, but one body. Just as a leg or an eye could not survive on its own, so too we humans make war against our natures when we claim the ability or desirability of life totally in greater or lesser isolation from and in passivity to others.[1] Integralism calls us to be mindful of our obligations to friend, neighbor, and country. In our society, putting the integralist vision of the common good into practice would have its most pronounced effects in the economic sphere and would mean first and foremost the demolition of capitalism as we know it. It has never been Church teaching that man has an absolute right to his money or even his property; rather, man holds in trust all that he has for the greater glory of God and the help and succor of neighbor. His possessions are only his by right insofar as he seeks to use them to build the kingdom of God on earth. Money and all forms of wealth must be used for our own salvation and for the salvation of others, and cannot have as a goal simply the creation of more money. This is why integralists condemn virtually all forms of stock market investment, for example.

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum gives perhaps the finest summary of the Church’s (and the integralist’s) stance on the hoarding of wealth, to the detriment of the common good, that has ever been written (paragraph 23):

“Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ—threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord—and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money… rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills…[quoting Thomas Aquinas] “Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need.” [emphasis added]

…but not collectivism or authoritarianism.

Enough has been said in condemnation of socialism and communism, including in many encyclicals, that a repetition of the Church’s perennial teaching on these evil and perverted systems is unnecessary. Similarly, the Church’s condemnation of extreme fascism (see in particular Pius XI’s Mit Brennender Sorge) and race-based nationalism holds forever true. Opponents of integralism must cease the straw man attacks (especially from fellow Catholics!) which calumniate us as socialist or fascist. In a modern world once again tempted to seek salvation in the worship of class, race, or the nation, the integralist shows that Christ alone must be the focus of our worship. In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, no rich or poor. We must resist the temptation to seek earthly messiahs or utopias and bear in mind that “there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” but that of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).

A note on practicality

At this point, the otherwise well-meaning traditional Catholic is quick to play the skeptic. “Sure, this is all well and good, but it’s never going to happen, so why bother?” Immediately, poisoned by a horizontal and pessimistic Liberalism as he is, the modern Catholic dismisses integralism as not practical, meaning it is not likely to be permitted by the global Liberal regime without a fight to the death. The integralist fully accepts this definition of impractical and relishes it, for it is in the struggle against the powers that be that the Church has always had her proudest moments. Was it practical for twelve mostly uneducated provincials, a few women, and their hangers-on to bring down the most powerful empire ever known to man, to convert its emperor, overturn its temples, and use its rotting carcass to spread a radically new faith to every corner of the world? Was it practical for St. Athanasius to press on in the struggle against Arianism when something like eighty percent of the world’s bishops had gone over to heresy? For that matter, was it practical for small, huddled, and isolated groups of traditionalist Catholics, banished to Una Voce or the SSPX, to hope against hope and dare against the odds to keep alive the dying embers of the Mass of Ages, their sacred patrimony? We cannot forget fundamentals: with God, nothing is impossible. And God will not brook talk of practicality. Have you not read that you must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect? What is practical about that?

Nevertheless, the task is not so daunting as it may seem, for it has the virtue of having succeeded before. Integralism is merely a description of what was historically the default political system of Christendom. It thrived for centuries in the Middle Ages, and although the evils of Protestantism and Masonry have not ceased from that day to this to crush it, it has never fully been suppressed. It has even resurfaced from time to time.[2] Ecuador under President Gabriel Garcia Moreno, the Habsburg Empire under Blessed Emperor Charles, and other examples readily present themselves. One must admit that the task is made harder in an era when churchmen and prelates can hardly be relied on to play the role assigned to them in an integralist state, but their sins do not excuse our inaction. We must work to build integralism from the ground up, wherever we live and whatever is our state of life. This will take as many forms as there are Catholics. We may dwell on the words of John the Baptist in Luke 3, where he shows that all are called to sanctify their particular station in life and use their means to build the kingdom of God. Living an integrally Catholic life, together in community with other integral Catholics—this is how we build integralism, practically.

For further study: the leading lights of contemporary integralism. Note: not all of these thinkers have used or would use the term “integralist” to describe their philosophy, but in this author’s opinion, their writings are admirable manifestations of integralist thought.

• Pater Edmund Waldstein
  • Integralism and the Common Good
  • See also his many articles on The Josias (thejosias.com)
• D. C. Schindler
  • The Politics of the Real: The Church Between Liberalism and Integralism
  • Freedom From Reality
• Andrew Willard Jones
  • Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX
  • The Two Cities: A History of Christian Politics
• Marc Barnes and Jacob Imam
  • See their many articles and excellent podcast series at New Polity (newpolity.com)
• Fr. Thomas Crean and Alan Fimister
  • Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy
• Christopher Ferrara
  • The Church and the Libertarian
  • Liberty: The God That Failed
• Patrick Deneen
  • Why Liberalism Failed
• Charles Coulombe
  • Puritan’s Empire: A Catholic Perspective on American History
  • Blessed Charles of Austria: A Holy Emperor and His Legacy
• John Médaille
  • Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective on the Role of Government, Taxes, Health Care, Deficits, and More
• Brian McCall
  • The Church and the Usurer: Unprofitable Lending for the Modern Economy
  • To Build the City of God: Living as Catholics in a Secular Age
• Thomas Storck
  • From Christendom to Americanism and Beyond
  • An Economics of Justice and Charity
• Ryszard Legutko
  • The Demon in Democracy
  • The Cunning of Freedom

Photo by Richard Clark on Unsplash

Links in this article earn affiliate income for Musings of an Old Curmudgeon.

[1] Although it would appear on the surface that monasticism must thus be condemned, a closer examination reveals that the religious, whether hermitic or living in community, devotes his entire life to prayer for the Church, thus uniting him to his fellow man more closely than are most laypeople.

[2] For a depressing account of how a traditionally Catholic society, based on what we would now call integralist principles, was obliterated, read Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars.

Unpopular Democracy in Egypt

Democracy is an evil system and should be unpopular wherever it exists or where it is foisted on a people by outside forces.

From The Mad Monarchist (4 July 2013)

Your humble blogger is somewhat perplexed today. All day long all the news has been talking about is the military coup in Egypt. I’m confused; isn’t a military coup the norm in Egypt? President Morsi (lately declared deposed) was the first Egyptian president chosen by the democratic process, other than that, every change in government has been brought about by a military coup. I fail to see what is newsworthy about another in the long list of military coups in Egypt. However, the current situation does provide the world with a “teachable moment” as they say. Of course, few to no one will bother to see the obvious but no one can say we didn’t try. Like so much of the rest of the world, Egypt is in a deplorable condition and no matter who is holding power at the moment, it is no time to be celebrating. Religious fanatics are disturbing the peace, the economy is a shambles, tourism has dried up and is not likely to return so long as riots are the preferred method for changing the national leadership and tanks and soldiers on the streets are a common sight. Egypt has a lot going for it but, looking at the country today, it is hard to believe that at one time (granted, several thousand years ago) Egypt was fabulously wealthy and the Egyptians had but to lift their hand and the whole world would tremble.

If anything, what is going on today should be a lesson to everyone that democracy is not the cure-all for every problem in the world. Remember, the people protesting in the streets now are the same one who were protesting in the past for Mubarak to be ousted and for there to be democracy so they could have a leader of their own choosing. Now these same people are in the streets again because they are unhappy with the leader they chose. International observers said everything was handled fairly, the people of Egypt voted and Morsi was the winner with his Muslim Brotherhood gaining a majority in parliament. It wasn’t a huge majority of course, but a majority and that is all that matters. Now, I have heard that a petition went out calling for the removal of Morsi that had more signatures (by far) than the total number of people who voted for him. So, where were all these people on election day? It is hard for me to have sympathy for people who vote in a bad politician, mostly because I think politicians are almost inherently bad as a whole (with very, very few exceptions) and I think people should know better. I also think people tend to get the government they deserve and even the government they want regardless of democracy. This military coup was certainly not democratic, yet, the people wanted it and they got it. Communist China may not be democratic but if the people were really unhappy with the Communist Party and really wanted change they would have it. When a billion people make up their mind to have something, you can rest assured that they are going to get it.

King Farouk

Speaking only for myself of course, I am glad to see Morsi go. I was also glad to see Mubarak go. That one made me a little nervous but I certainly shed no tears over his fall from power. And, just in case anyone is curious, I can assure you that whoever replaces Morsi will be someone I will be glad to see go in his turn as well. I do not like any of them, I have not liked any Egyptian government since 1953 and I will not approve of any Egyptian government until the monarchy is restored. There was even a reminder of the old Kingdom of Egypt yesterday as it was reported that Princess Fawzia (probably best known as the first wife of the last Shah of Iran) passed away at the age of 92. Egypt had a perfectly good monarchy, there was no reason to abolish it whatsoever and because of that, everything that has happened since fails to move me much. It is all a case of reaping what has been sown. King Farouk may not have been a perfect man in every way but he was certainly no tyrant, no over-zealous fanatic nor did he ever make war on his own people. Even in a limited capacity, the exiled King Fuad II could make life in Egypt better as it is, without holding government power himself, but simply by appointing or removing from office the one who is chosen to hold government power without the need for one military coup after another.

Monarchists are rightly frustrated though as King Farouk of Egypt was unpopular mostly because of a mistake. Much of the opposition to him and to the monarchy in general, came from the idea that he was closely associated with the British occupation of Egypt. In fact, the British were not overly fond of King Farouk either because they knew he really would have preferred they left his country. During World War II he was very friendly with the Italian Royal Family and the British believed he was hoping for the Italo-German forces to drive them out of Egypt. At one point during the war Britain actually deployed military force to compel the King to accede to their wishes and he had to be browbeaten into joining the war alongside Britain and even that was after the conflict had moved far away from Egypt. Furthermore, King Farouk was not the only one of his dynasty to be displeased with the British presence. At the start of World War I the British deposed Khedive Abbas II because he supported the Central Powers rather than the Allies. It was also then that the nominal ties between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire were officially broken. Now, in all fairness, I have to add that, in my view, where the British Empire has been things usually get better rather than worse for their presence, but that is not the issue. Revolutionaries turned the people against the King by portraying him and the Muhammad Ali dynasty as a whole as the willing accomplices of the British when in fact the exact opposite was true.

Finally, of course, the monarchy was abolished under the nominal reign of King Fuad II, a mere child, before he ever had the chance to prove himself as a monarch. Instead, Egypt got a succession of military dictators and now one would-be religious dictator, all coming and going with a great deal of storm and stress. The people demanded an end to military control of the government and democratic elections. They got what they wanted and now they are cheering because the military took control and tossed out the democratically elected president. Oh how fickle the mob can be.

1 February, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

 

True Peace

1. Everybody desires peace, but very few people possess it. A good many profound and beautiful definitions have been attempted. Cicero called it "tranquilla libertas," which one might translate as "undisturbed freedom." His general idea was that there can be no peace without liberty. St. Augustine defined it as "hominum ordinata concordia" (De. Civ. Dei, XIX, 13) or "ordered agreement among men." St. Thomas followed on the same lines when he said that peace was "tranquillitas ordinis" (Summa, II-II, q. 29, a. 1 ad. 1) or "tranquillity of order." There are three necessary elements in peace. They are order, harmony, and liberty. Right order is the most important. Everything in us must be in its proper place. As we have shown in the preceding meditation, our lower faculties must be entirely subordinate to right reason, and this must be completely subject to the law of God.

Every act of rebellion against this proper order creates confusion in our nature and makes peace impossible. Furthermore, there must be harmony and agreement. This means that our minds must voluntarily accept and embrace this just order, and not merely endure it with reluctance. As St. Thomas says, peace is an act of charity; it comes indirectly from justice and directly from charity. (Summa, II-II, q. 29; a. 1, ad. 3) We have perfect peace when this just order holds sway within us, provided that we are not enduring it as if it were a yoke, but lovingly accepting it under the inspiration of divine charity. This is that genuine peace which gives us the liberty of the sons of God, that freedom from evil with which Christ has set us free. (Cf. Gal. 4:31; 2 Cor. 3:17) True peace flourishes in an atmosphere of goodness and perishes when it encounters evil. Whether it is in the field of social relations or in the spiritual life, peace without liberty is not peace at all, but slavery and death.

2. When He came into the world, Jesus proclaimed peace. The Angels hovering over His humble manger sang songs of glory to God on high and of peace to men of good will on earth. During His earthly pilgrimage He often spoke of peace. When He forgave sinners their faults, He said to each of them: “Go in peace,” and “sin no more.” (Luke 7:50; 8:48; John 8:11) When He was leaving this earth He bequeathed His peace to His Apostles as if it were a sacred heirloom: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. (John 14:27) We can see from these words that the peace of Jesus is not the same as worldly peace. The Church in its liturgy implores from God that peace which the world cannot give. When the world speaks of peace, it means normally the external, public peace which flows from respect for the law and for the established regime. This is peace; there is no doubt about that. It is necessary and is a gift from God. But it is not enough. We need the inner peace of soul of which we have already spoken, for it is the only true and solid foundation for external peace. Without this peace of soul, external peace is uncertain and fleeting. We have said that true peace is based on three things: Right order, harmony, and liberty. But in order to obtain full and perfect peace still one more thing is necessary; complete and loving abandonment to the will of God. The beginning of real peace and holiness lies in doing the will of God in every detail. The perfection of peace and holiness is to do the will of God in everything purely from love for Him. Dante expresses this profound idea when he describes the peace of the blessed in Heaven, now unshakable in their joyful compliance with the divine will.

"E la sua volontate é nostra pace:
Ella é quel mare, al qual tutto si move
ciò ch' ella crea e che natura face."
(Paradiso, III, 85-87)

"His will is our repose:
He is the ocean into which everything flows
Which He has created in the universe."

3. This absolute and loving abandonment to the will of God in all things brings complete inner peace, but it does not exclude conflict. Interior peace is the result of the practice of virtue and therefore of the struggle against evil. When Our Lord had repeated several times that He had given us His peace, He said also: “Do not think that I have come to send peace upon the earth; I have come to bring a sword, not peace.” (Mt. 10:34) These apparently contradictory words of Our Lord are explained by the fact that the peace of Jesus does not consist in inactivity, but demands action and strife and the conquest of evil. It is a militant peace which Our Lord desires us to possess. Only when we have controlled our passions, when we have made our wills entirely subject to the will of God and have renounced ourselves so that the justice and charity of Jesus Christ can triumph in us, only then shall we reach those serene heights where storms from below cannot come near us and the peace of God reigns supreme.

We find examples of this true and perfect peace among the Saints, Martyrs and Apostles. We read of the Apostles that “they departed... rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus.” (Acts 5:41) This is an example of that genuine peace which is the result of victory in the combat against evil and of complete and loving submission to the will of God.

Eastern Rite - Feasts of 1 February AM 7530

Today is the Forefeast of the Encounter and the Feast of the Holy Martyr Tryphon.

✠✠✠✠✠

The Typikon should be consulted if the Forefeast falls on the Sunday of the Pharisee, the Publican, or Meatfare.

Because of the Forefeast of the Meeting of the Lord, the service to Saint Tryphon (February 1) may be moved to Compline or to another day, as the Pastor decides, unless the parish is dedicated to Saint Tryphon, or there is a particular devotion to him.

Troparion — Tone 1

The celestial choir of heavenly angels / bends down to the earth / and sees the First-born of all creation / being carried into the Temple as a babe / by a Mother who has not known man, / and in amazement sings with us / a pre-festal hymn.

Kontakion — Tone 6

The Word, unseen with the Father, / now is seen in the flesh, ineffably born of the Virgin, / and is given into the arms of the priest and Elder. / Let us worship Him, our True God.

✠✠✠✠✠

The Martyr Tryphon was born in Phrygia, one of the districts of Asia Minor, in the village of Lampsacus. From his early years, the Lord granted him the power to cast out demons and to heal various maladies. He once saved the inhabitants of his native city from starvation. Saint Tryphon, by the power of his prayer, turned back a plague of locusts that were devouring the grain and devastating the fields.

Saint Tryphon gained particular fame by casting out an evil spirit from the daughter of the Roman emperor Gordian (238-244). Helping everyone in distress, he asked only one thing from them: faith in Jesus Christ, by Whose grace he healed them.

When the emperor Decius (249-251) assumed the imperial throne, he began a fierce persecution of Christians. Someone reported to the commander Aquilinus that Saint Tryphon was boldly preaching faith in Christ and that he led many to Baptism. The saint was arrested and subjected to interrogation, during which he fearlessly confessed his faith.

He was subjected to harsh tortures: they beat him with clubs, raked his body with iron hooks, scorched his flesh with fire, and led him through the city after iron nails were hammered into his feet. Saint Tryphon bravely endured all the torments without complaint.

Finally, he was condemned to beheading with a sword. The holy martyr prayed before his execution, thanking God for strengthening him in his sufferings. He also asked the Lord to bless those who should call upon his name for help. Just as the soldiers raised the sword over the head of the holy martyr, he surrendered his soul into the hands of God. This event occurred in the city of Nicea in the year 250.

Christians wrapped the holy body of the martyr in a clean shroud and wanted to bury him in the city of Nicea, where he suffered, but Saint Tryphon in a vision commanded them to take his body to his native land to the village of Lampsacus. Later on, the relics of Saint Tryphon were transferred to Constantinople, and then to Rome.

In Russia, Saint Tryphon is regarded as the patron saint of birds. There is a story that when Tsar Ivan the Terrible was out hunting, his falconer carelessly allowed the Tsar’s favourite falcon to fly away. The Tsar ordered the falconer Tryphon Patrikeiev to find the bird within three days, or else he would be put to death. Tryphon searched all through the forest, but without luck.

On the third day, exhausted by long searching, he returned to Moscow to the place called Marinaya Grove. Overcome with weariness, he lay down to rest, fervently praying to his patron saint, the Martyr Tryphon, for help.

In a dream he saw a youth on a white horse, holding the Tsar’s falcon on his hand. The youth said, “Take the lost bird, go to the Tsar and do not grieve.” When he awakened, the falconer actually spotted the falcon on a pine tree. He took it to the Tsar and told him about the miraculous help he received from the holy Martyr Tryphon. Grateful to Saint Tryphon for saving his life, Tryphon Patrikeiev built a chapel on the spot where the saint appeared. Later on, he also built a church dedicated to the holy Martyr Tryphon in Moscow.

The holy martyr is greatly venerated in the Russian Catholic Church as the heavenly protector of Moscow. Many Russian icons depict the saint holding a falcon on his arm.

Troparion — Tone 4

Your holy martyr Tryphon, O Lord, / through his suffering has received an incorruptible crown from You, our God. / For having Your strength, he laid low his adversaries, / and shattered the powerless boldness of demons. / Through his intercessions, save our souls!

Kontakion — Tone 8

By the power of the Trinity you destroyed polytheism to the ends of the earth, / and you were honoured by Christ, all-glorious Tryphon; / having conquered tyrants through Christ the Savior, / you received your crown of martyrdom and the gift of divine healing, for you are invincible.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 FEBRUARY – SAINT BRIGID OF IRELAND (Virgin)

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 FEBRUARY – SAINT BRIGID OF IRELAND (Virgin): Brigid was born at Fouchard (Foughard) in the diocese of Armagh, County Louth (then part of Ulster) circa 451. Her father, a nobleman cal...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 FEBRUARY – SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Bishop and...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 FEBRUARY – SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Bishop and...: Ignatius was the third Bishop of the Church of Antioch, Saint Peter the Apostle being the first. During the persecution under Trajan he...

1 February, The Chesterton Calendar

 

FEBRUARY 1st

Many modern Englishmen talk of themselves as the sturdy descendants of their sturdy Puritan fathers. As a fact, they would run away from a cow. If you asked one of their Puritan fathers, if you asked Bunyan, for instance, whether he was sturdy, he would have answered with tears, that he was as weak as water. And because of this he would have borne tortures.

'Heretics.'

1 February, The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Patriarch of Western Monasticism

 

CHAPTER VII. Of Humility

1 Feb. 2 June. 2 Oct.

The fourth degree of humility is, that if in this very obedience hard and contrary things, nay even injuries, are done to him, he should embrace them patiently with a quiet conscience, and not grow weary or give in, as the Scripture saith: “He that shall persevere to the end shall be saved.” And again: “Let thy heart be comforted, and wait for the Lord.” And shewing how the faithful man ought to bear all things, however contrary, for the Lord, it saith in the person of the afflicted: “For Thee we suffer death all the day long; we are esteemed as sheep for the slaughter.” And secure in their hope of the divine reward, they go on with joy, saying: “But in all these things we overcome, through Him Who hath loved us.” And so in another place Scripture saith: “Thou hast proved us, O God; Thou hast tried us as silver is tried by fire; Thou hast led us into the snare, and hast laid tribulation on our backs.” And in order to shew that we ought to be under a superior, it goes on to say: “Thou hast placed men over our heads.” Moreover, fulfilling the precept of the Lord by patience in adversities and injuries, they who are struck on one cheek offer the other: to him who taketh away their coat they leave also their cloak; and being forced to walk one mile, they go two. With Paul the Apostle, they bear with false brethren, and bless those that curse them.

2 February, The Roman Martyrology

 

Quarto Nonas Februárii Luna tricésima Anno Dómini 2022

The morrow is the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which by the Greeks is called the Hypapante that is, the Presentation of the Lord.
February 2nd 2022, the 30th day of the Moon, were born into the better life:

At Rome, upon the Salarian Way, (in the fourth century,) the holy martyr Apronian. He was a notary, who, while he was a Gentile, was leading the holy Licinius out of prison to present him before the Prefect Laodicius, when he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom which is prepared for you from the foundation of the world," whereupon he believed, and was baptized, and was afterwards put to death confessing the Lord.
Likewise at Rome, the holy martyrs Fortunatus, Felician, Firmus, and Candidus.
At Caesarea, in Palestine, (in the first century,) the holy centurion Cornelius, who was baptized by the holy Apostle St Peter, and by him also raised to be Bishop in that city.
At Orleans, holy Flosculus, (about the year 500), Bishop of that see.
At Canterbury, in England, holy Laurence, (in the year 619,) Archbishop of that see, which he governed in succession to holy Augustin, and converted king Ethelbert himself to the faith. We keep his feast upon the morrow after.
At Prato, in Tuscany, the holy Florentine Virgin Katherine di Ricci, of the Order of Friars Preachers, eminent for the abundance of her gifts from heaven, whose name the Supreme Pontiff Bendict XIV. enrolled among those of holy virgins.
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day