1500 signatures collected in Paris

A piece in Le Croix in French reports that in Paris 1500 people have signed a petition presented to André Card. Vingt-Trois forthe creation of a  "personal parish" for the extraordinary use of the Roman Rite to be staffed by the priests  of the Bordeaux-based Good Shepherd Institute. 

 

Dans la capitale, 1 500 signatures ont été transmises au cardinal André Vingt-Trois pour la création d’une « paroisse personnelle » (c’est-à-dire définie non par un territoire mais par affinité) qui serait confiée au Bon-Pasteur. « L’archevêque de Paris a déjà fait beaucoup, par exemple en autorisant une messe traditionnelle à Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois qui n’est pas une petite chapelle. De ce côté-là, les Parisiens ont toutes les messes qu’ils veulent, reconnaît l’abbé Laguérie. Mais on ne peut pas se contenter de faire de l’apostolat de grande surface, comme on remplit son caddie le dimanche. La vie chrétienne ne se limite pas à la messe du dimanche. Il faut aussi le catéchisme, le scoutisme, les mouvements de jeunesse, la formation… »

 

Given what has happened to the Church in France over these last decades, I imagine it would be overwhelming for a French bishop to see that 1500 people want to go to Mass.

The article has more information.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to 1500 signatures collected in Paris

  1. I wonder if 23 will give them Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet.

  2. Ottaviani says:

    I’d like to see the French bishops try and use the “stable number” argument on this one…

  3. Prof. Basto says:

    Given what has happened to the Church in France over these last decades, I imagine it would be overwhelming for a French bishop to see that 1500 people want to go to Mass .

    Brilliant observation!

  4. Flambeaux says:

    Except that they all want to go to a Mass the French bishops have spent nearly 40 years trying to stamp out.

    It should catch their attention, but not in a good way.

  5. dominic1962 says:

    Those are probably about all the people who go to Mass in Paris on a regular basis.

  6. Chironomo says:

    I think this TRULY says something about why there are so few people going to Mass in France. Consider whether or not you, or anybody on these blogs, would be able to get a petition with 1500 signatures on it in any major US city. This could be a remarkable turn of events if it continues to move in this direction… imagine the impact of a country where more Catholics attend the EF than the OF… what would that say?

  7. FranzJosf says:

    Last time I was in Paris I went to the High Mass at St. Nicholas. The church was bursting to the seams. Lots of young families and college students. I literally had to stand with my back touching the back wall. And it was just an ordinary summer Sunday, the summer before last.

    And on any day of the week St. Gervais is full for Vespers. It is run by the Community of Jerusalem. A bit modernist for my tastes, but interesting nevertheless for the numbers they attract. Even though the have the reputation for not going to church, there are many spiritual seekers in France. With the SSPX, the TLM is thriving in that country, as are other charisms and apostolates. Le Barroux Abbey was also thriving the summer Sunday I was there. It seems that the only thing not thriving is the Novus Ordo as presided over by many modernist French bishops.

    During the Winter, the SSPX, had a Mass in the streets of Amiens. They had around 500 faithful, while the main Mass at the Cathedral had about 150.

    Remember, in their meeting two summers ago, the Holy Father told Bishop Fellay that he may indeed be right about a ‘state of necessity’ in France and Germany, according to Bishop Fellay’s report on the meeting.

  8. A.Williams says:

    This all gives some relevance to this saying of the Lord:

    “.. Wheresoever the body shall be, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.”
    Luke 17:37

  9. 1,500 people !
    Mon Dieu.

    Well, The , Cardinal Archbishop of Paris can hardly ignore a request from this number of Catholics.
    Nor can he plausibly question whether they exist “continenter”.
    This question, it seems to me, has been answered by the fact that they have signed their names to the request.

    But if their request is granted, in France of all places, it will be a seismic shift, and one wonders where it might lead.

    What the article in Le Croix says about the Christian life not being limited to Sunday Mass is very true, and seems to anticipate the likely response : “Well, those who wish for the “old” Mass are already catered for.”

    Yes, but along with the traditional Mass goes traditional Catholic life, too ..

  10. Dove says:

    *La* Croix please.

  11. Tom says:

    Pope Benedict XVI declared the following last year:

    “Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.”

    In light of such reports as the latest news from Paris regarding the TLM, I wonder whether His Holiness will rethink the above declaration?

    The Pope has not offered the Traditional Roman Mass…surprising as he issued Summorum Pontificum.

    But if His Holiness were to throw his support to the TLM in ultimate fashion…that is, by offering the TLM and doing so regularly, I believe that tremendous support for the TLM would emerge throughout the Latin Church.

    The Pope has made it clear that the Novus Ordo will not go away…certainly not soon.

    But the Novus Ordo is a disaster…and we have reached a telling moment in history.

    With ultimate support from Pope Benedict XVI…offering the TLM regularly…interest in and support for the TLM would explode throughout the Latin Church.

    From there, the phasing out of the Novus Ordo would begin. Said process would take decades.

    But in the meantime, with ultimate support from the Pope, millions of Latin Catholics would transfer from the Novus Ordo to the Traditional Mass.

    It is up to His Holiness.

    Millions of Latin Catholics would follow the Pope’s lead…a great many converts would join the Church, attracted by the TLM.

    Again…it’s up to the Pope.

    Will he throw in to the hilt with the TLM?

    Or will he continue to ensure that his above declaration (that relatively few Catholics will worship via the TLM) will remain in place as a self-fulfilling prophecy?

    With one great sign, offering the TLM himself, Pope Benedict XVI could bring millions of people to the Traditional Roman Mass.

  12. 1500 signatures may be an impressive number, but we can doubt very much that they will receive a warm reception.

  13. danphunter1 says:

    Tom,
    We all are waiting…
    God bless

  14. wayne ratzinger says:

    Maybe the Pope will offer the Traditional Mass when he goes to Lourdes, the
    SSPX say Mass for “large” numbers when they are in Lourdes, so the Pope could
    kill two birds with one stone. Anybody have any idea the availability of the
    Traditional Mass at Lourdes since the Motu Proprio came in to force. I will be
    there this summer (God willing) and I’m kind of looking forward to not having
    to walk out half way through “mass” like I did 3 years ago. When I ask about
    availability of the traditional mass I mean in the Domain it’s self not” out
    side the city” like the poor Society Of St Pius X is consigned to.
    I hope to be at the SSPX pilgrimage in October as well.

  15. oz says:

    Oh, the Rubbish we in Australia have to put up with on religious broadcasting: from the National Broadcaster’s prime religious program:

    “Stephen Crittenden: The Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Bishop Suheil Dawani, and the music there of Cole Porter, sung by Tom Waites.

    We have invited Archbishop Peter Jensen to join us on next week’s program.

    Well you may remember the debate in the Catholic church last year when Pope Benedict reintroduced the old pre-Vatican II Latin missal of 1962 in an effort to build bridges with Catholic traditionalists.

    Critics were quick to point out that the old rite contained at least one prayer, a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, that used language which was really no longer acceptable. This is it.

    ‘Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews. Hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people, so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth.’

    Well that kind of language went out with the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on the church’s relation with non-Christians, called Nostrae Aetate. Mainstream Catholics these days say a completely different prayer for the Jews on Good Friday that makes no mention of conversion.

    Well now Pope Benedict has dumped the prayer from the old Latin rite and written a third prayer, minus the offensive language, but the language of conversion is back. Now this may seem like a tiny technical matter, only of interest to a few diehards who want to hang on to the Latin. But it also opens an extremely interesting theological can of worms.

    Father John Pawlikowskyis one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he’s the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews. He says the way the Pope has addressed the Jewish prayer is quite inadequate.

    John Pawlikowsky: With some serious reflection, it could have been handled far better because any number of Jewish and Christian groups and inter-religious groups wrote to the Vatican well in advance, and there were also cardinals and bishops who wrote saying there was a problem here that needs addressing, if you’re going to restore the prayers of the ’62 missal. And unfortunately he was very late in the game when they even began to take serious notice of the concerns.

    Stephen Crittenden: Is the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the old Latin rite from 1962, just one small sign of what was wrong with the old rite, and why it needed to be reformed? Does the Jewish prayer reflect in fact, a mentality that’s characteristic of the whole rite?

    John Pawlikowsky: Well it certainly reflects a theological position with respect to the Jews and also I would say to other Christians and to people of other faith traditions, including Muslims and so on. There is a significant theological difference between the theological approach of the old rite over against the ’70 missal. There are a number of articles in the international press by liturgists who have pointed out that you can’t blend the two, they’re really quite distinct, and obviously Vatican II saw some problem with the old one or else they wouldn’t have changed it. They wouldn’t have voted to change it if they didn’t think there was some difficulty.

    Stephen Crittenden: So what’s your response then to this new prayer that the Pope has created for the updated Latin rite?

    John Pawlikowsky: Well first of all, I personally can’t see any need for it. We have a Latin version of the ’70 prayer, it would have been the most simple thing in the world to have used that. That prayer, one has to say, has a certain ambiguity which reflects the ambiguity of even Nostrae Aetate regarding the whole question of you put the Jewish-Christian relationship together, theologically, from a Catholic perspective, and how mission might fit into that.

    Stephen Crittenden: Some people might say that’s the genius of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the modern rite, that it sidesteps the question so neatly.

    John Pawlikowsky: Well I think what it did was Vatican II was not in a position to solve that issue. What it did say very clearly and decisively is that the old theology was no longer acceptable. Now what kind of new formulation of the Jewish Christian relationship theologically, should replace it, is a matter I think that theologians have to work on over a number of years, and in a sense, the ambiguity of the ’70 prayer, left that open as a possibility, but it’s a much more positive, appreciative prayer for the Jews, recognising what Nostrae Aetate did say very decisively, that Jews remain a part of the covenantal tradition. This one though, the terrible language of the ’62 prayer has been eliminated by the Pope and that is a step forward. Nonetheless, its whole emphasis is on conversion, and that is such a sensitive issue with Jews. Frankly, many Jews see that as a way of ultimately killing off the Jewish community.

    Stephen Crittenden: Let’s go back to the point you just made a few moments ago, that the Pope could have used a Latin translation of the prayer that mainstream Catholics say on Good Friday in the modern rite. But he didn’t do that, in the end he wrote a third prayer. It seems obvious that he was up to something; what do you think it was he was up to?

    John Pawlikowsky: Yes, and you know, Cardinal Bertoni, the Secretary of State, towards the end of the Summer, had given us some hope that that would be the solution. That didn’t happen, as you say. Look, I can’t read the Pope’s mind and heart, I don’t know exactly what he had in mind here. I think the general feeling is that the people who are in favour of the ’62 missal don’t really regard the ’70 missal with great admiration, and therefore simply do not want anything taken or imported from the ’70 missal into the ’62 missal. Now to what extent the Pope personally shares some of those views, is anyone’s guess.

    Stephen Crittenden: Are we talking about the church holding or appearing to hold, simultaneously, two incompatible theologies?

    John Pawlikowsky: Well, that’s my contention, that in a sense there’s a significant difference between the theologies that under-gird the new prayer and the one that under-girds the prayer of the ’70 missal. And I’ve said this any number of times in more dramatic ways or more sober ways, but you know, the church looks like it’s speaking from the two sides of its mouth, though it’s put a little more gingerly. It’s speaking with two voices that are not really compatible, and therefore I think its integrity in terms of the dialogue with Jews, is compromised. I mean the Jewish community can rightly ask, Well which of the theologies really pertains to us? And the difficulty now is, you know many people say, Well don’t worry about this because only a small number of people are going to celebrate the liturgy with the ’62 missal. That may be true in terms of numbers, but we’re already seeing bloggers and so on, conservative bloggers, saying ‘Oh now see, the Pope himself has put his stamp on this theology.’ Whereas the theology of the ’70 missal only has the stamp of Vatican II.

    Stephen Crittenden: And so where does that leave 40 years of Jewish-Christian dialogue? Where does it leave people like you?

    John Pawlikowsky: Well I would say confused to some extent, uncertain as to where to go. But I would say also determined to carry on. I mean, this is what we’re seeing in the interchange among those of us who have been involved in dialogue for many years. There is a resilient spirit here that we will not give in easily, and that the vision of Vatican II as expressed in Nostrae Aetate, must be continued and must be expressed, not only in theology but also in prayer. I mean our colleague, [Sr] Dr Mary Boys, made a very, very telling point which I think very much moved many in the Jewish community, that on Good Fridays should we praying for the conversion of Jews, or should we be praying for the conversion from our long history of Christian anti-Semitism. I mean, I think it’s a good question.

    Stephen Crittenden: Yes. This is such an interesting theological grey area however. I wonder whether it was inevitable that Pope Benedict would want to resolve it.

    John Pawlikowsky: Well see I don’t think he has resolved it, that’s the point.

    Stephen Crittenden: That’s right.

    John Pawlikowsky: And he can’t resolve it just by going and sitting down and writing a prayer in a couple of weeks. I mean true dialogue involves communication with people. One of the frustrating things frankly about Pope Benedict’s approach to dialogue is that it’s very heady, it’s very theoretical, and yet the 1974 or ’75 Vatican guidelines, however you name them, says among the most important points that Catholics should come to know Jews as they understand themselves. Authentic dialogue is a dialogue among people, not just the dialogue of the head, and I think it’s important that the Pope comes to hear and understand how conversion, the idea of conversion and prayer for conversion, which then can inevitably lead to concrete programming for conversion, how that impacts the Jewish community that has experienced the Holocaust, that has experienced anti-Semitism and so on. I mean you want the stuff of authentic dialogue, and this is what seems to me to be missing with his approach. And I don’t know, perhaps we can break through this. I mean I said back in 2001 in a talk at the University of Cambridge, that I thought that conversion was the issue that was lurking in the shadows, was hiding under the table and one day would have to be addressed in a more forthright way. Many of my own colleagues in the dialogue said “Oh no, the Catholic church has given up trying to convert Jews”. Well I wasn’t so sure, and unfortunately in a way, I’ve been proven correct by this situation. And now it’s on the table, and I don’t know, we have to try to find constructive ways to deal with it.

    Stephen Crittenden: I’m sure many people would find it difficult to get their heads around the idea that Jesus didn’t come to convert the Jews.

    John Pawlikowsky: Well I mean here is where you get into a very, very complex area. There is a whole new growing body of scholarly literature done essentially by biblical scholars, that really quite changes our understanding of how Jesus related to the Jewish community of his time. There’s an increasing number of scholars, very reputable New Testament scholars, who are saying “There is no evidence that Jesus ever intended to found a separate religious institution in his own lifetime”, and that we see now that the linkage between Judaism and Christianity went on for several centuries, and we can no longer say that there was any kind of split, let alone a definitive split, in Jesus’ own lifetime. Well if that becomes the norm for the understanding of the early period, then that changes the whole idea of how “Jesus wanted to convert Jews”. So I mean there’s a whole new body of scholarship out there. I realise that that’s probably a large majority, not the vast majority ordinary Christians would say a definite “Yes” to your original statement here. But I think we need to help people understand that some of these simplistic ideas simply don’t hold up on the scholarly level any more.

    Stephen Crittenden: See how a tiny prayer opens on to everything. Father John Pawlikowsy, and we’ll have a Jewish view on this story next week.”

  16. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    At present, there are eleven every-Sunday Masses in the Archdiocese of Paris. They are distributed over eight locations. There are even more in the suffragan Diocese of Versailles, plus some in the nearby dioceses of Meaux, Pontoise, Créteil, Evry-Corbeil-Essonnes, and Nanterre. So a personal parish would make sense. This would be the second one in Europe, not the first. The first is in another French Archdiocese, that of Strasbourg.

    P.K.T.P.

  17. FranzJosf says:

    There is also a personal parish in Toulon, in the South, which I believe is a Bishopric.

  18. Norman says:

    I’m a little puzzled. The Institute of the Good Shepherd in Paris has a chapel in a shop unit near the Paris Stock exchange. (Nearest metro is Reaumur-Sebastopol). Perhaps the 1500 people are petitioning for a bigger place!

  19. Kiran says:

    Stephen Crittenden: I’m sure many people would find it difficult to get their heads around the idea that Jesus didn’t come to convert the Jews.

    Ex Ore Infantium. This calls for a different and interesting thread. Funny that he is supposed to be “one of the most senior figures in the Church. I had never heard of the guy.

  20. Braadwijk says:

    This is certainly news indeed! I have been to Mass at the local SSPX church in Paris, and it was packed with mostly young people and large families. News such as this only gives momentum to a growing movement in the Church, and it gives me hope that there is still something left of the West. I believe the Church in Europe has a unique opportunity to save the continent from Islam and from itself by offering a truly European counter-culture to the spiritual void present today, and I also believe clergy who oppose this have a special place in hell reserved for them given what they are supporting in lieu of a Catholic identity. Let us hope this cardinal takes notice and not neglect his flock!

  21. I greatly admire Fr Pawlikowski and his comments above are the most enlightening I have found on the Good Friday prayer.

    1500 signatures (including children?) is not such a big deal. They are not a parish based stable group but a collection of people from different backgrounds — are they all int eh Archdiocese of Paris? Does the Motu Proprio have anything about the conditions in which people can ask and expect to receive a special parish set up for them?

    The following petition has quickly garnered more than 15000 signatures:
    http://www.petitiononline.com/irangay. Sign it and save two lives.

  22. Kiran, if you have never heard of Pawlikowski it means you know nothing about Catholic-Jewish dialogue in the last thirty years. He is the foremost representative of it in the USA.

    It is by no means self-evident that Jesus came “to convert the Jews”.

    Jesus was himself a Jew, observing the Jewish Law in every detail and believing every single thing that the Jews of his time believed.

    Historically, it might be more correct to say that he came to recall Jews to thier true Jewishness.

    When “the parting of the ways” between Jews and Christians occurred is a difficult issue.

    The early Christians were Jews.

  23. gengulphus says:

    1500 signatories (including children?)
    I imagine that children’s names would be found on the list – seeing that they constitute such a significant percentage of the congregations of ER masses here in France.

  24. Note that the “personal parish” is formed by affinity not territory. The 1500 are those already attending the TLM at their chapel or chapels. They want higher ecclesiastical recognition. The 1500 may live in the large and densely populated Paris area — not a terribly impressive figure. I am sure you would easily find 1500 people of any bizarre category in that part of the world.

    1500 latter-day Dadaists, 1500 trampoline artists, 1500 fans of Jeremiah Gotthelf

    1500 pancake jugglers, 1500 banjo serenaders, 1500 time-machine experimenters

    1500 toenail-ring fetishists, 1500 composers of alternative anthems to La Marseillaise, 1500 believers that Louis XVII is the hidden Imam

  25. And of course they want derestriction of their activities in forming young people in thier mentality. I rather fear for those young people. What idea of churchhood, of Vatican II will they have? Will they be some kind of sectarian ghetto, some cult, eventually schismatic?

  26. spirit: The people who signed the petition do not have to form a stable group for their rights to be respected. “stable group” is not actually language found in Summorum Pontificum.

    Also, Fr P’s comments (above) suggest he, as so many others who resist Pope Benedict, have fallen into the “zero sum” trap. The Holy Father did not replace the Novus Ordo prayer for Jews with the new one. He did not consider the Novus Ordo prayer adequate for the older use. Now we have *two* authorized ways of praying for Jews. One of them reflects the most ancient of Christian aspirations as well as St. Paul’s desires for his brethren expressed in inspired Sacred Scripture. The 1970 prayer sails closer to the breezes of the Council with less regard for the extreme antiquity of the way Christians prayed on one of our most sacred days of the liturgical year. Pope Benedict’s creates continuity between these different streams. That is a benefit, not a drawback.

  27. Wow… Someone should really get a different comment-name… and that someone would do well to read the last bunch of comments here:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/important-2003-letter-of-card-ratzinger-about-the-older-rite-of-mass/#comments

    and then do some other, extra-curricular reading…

  28. Diane says:

    Spirit of Vatican II (aka Fr. O’Leary”) suggest I am sure you would easily find 1500 people of any bizarre category in that part of the world.

    1500 latter-day Dadaists, 1500 trampoline artists, 1500 fans of Jeremiah Gotthelf

    1500 pancake jugglers, 1500 banjo serenaders, 1500 time-machine experimenters

    1500 toenail-ring fetishists, 1500 composers of alternative anthems to La Marseillaise, 1500 believers that Louis XVII is the hidden Imam

    Dear Father,

    The Church doesn’t need to approve such things, with a little googling liturgical abuses on the web, many of them can already be found in certain parishes today.

    The problem is that they are incompatible with all that has been handed down liturgically, including Vatican II, whereas the 1500 in France are exercising their right to worship in a way validated by Holy Mother Church as legitimate.

    You might take a close look at the demographics of those most interested in the EF, Father. In every community I am aware of, they are very young. I’m sure they are not being forced. I’m also quite sure that the lax, irreverent, “we-oriented” behavior seen in many N.O. liturgies have forced them to leave such parishes in search of something far more dignified and respectful. That behavior was never advocated by Vatican II, nor was the complete dismissal of Latin, or the ad orientem posture.

    There is an outstanding article written by Fr. Dwight Longenecker called, “A Tale of Two Churches” in the National Catholic Register. In it, he talks about those in the Church who focus on happiness here, and those who focus on happiness hereafter. I encourage all to go read it. You can leave comments on Father’s blog in this post.. Father nails it perfectly.

  29. London Calling says:

    I sometimes wonder how many “traditionalists” really believe in the Pope’s leadership of the Church. Fr Z, at least, is consistent: he recognises and follows Pope Benedict’s lead even when it leads to some situations (e.g. a change to rather than a reaffirmation of the old EF Good Friday prayer) where he might personally have preferred a different outcome.

    A number of other posters here seem happy to recognise papal authority and the hierarchy more generally when it does what they want (Summorum Pontificum) and to discard it when it doesn’t (Novus Ordo, change to EF Good Friday prayer, etc.). Some of these folks write Pope Paul VI off as a heretic, with JPII only a tad better; Vatican II is dismissed as a sort of ecclesiastical accident. Papal authority is great when it de-restricts the Vetus Ordo; when it removes the second confiteor or changes the Good Friday prayer it is “ultramontanism”.

    There’s a name for that attitude: Protestant.

  30. Richard says:

    Fr. O’ Leary comments:

    1500 signatures (including children?) is not such a big deal. They are not a parish based stable group but a collection of people from different backgrounds—are they all in the Archdiocese of Paris? Does the Motu Proprio have anything about the conditions in which people can ask and expect to receive a special parish set up for them?

    I must say this does not seem to be a generous attitude.

    And “generosity” seems to be the order of the day with Summorum Pontificum – generosity in expanding the rights of both priests and laity. Why should we begrudge that?

    At any rate, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf rightly notes, SP does not speak of a “stable group,” even though some English translations have used that language. “In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit…” Fr. O’Leary is a demonstrated competent Latinist, and undoubtedly can see that “continually existing” is a more accurate translation. In any case, why should we seek to restrict, to narrow? If a significant group – and however you want to gloss 1500, it’s fair to say it’s a significant size, it’s not phone booht gathering – of the faithful desire this (entirely legitimate) liturgical usage, why should we deny them, especially if a priest can be found willing to take on the responsibility?

    Will they be some kind of sectarian ghetto, some cult, eventually schismatic?

    If you treat them like a ghetto, that may be what you end up with.

    But it seems to me that if they had a schismatic mindset, they could simply head down the street to an SSPX chapel (whether SSPX is formally schismatic or not, such an action would certainly be prima facie more evidential of a schismatic attitude than petitioning the local ordinary through canonically proper channels). But they did not.

  31. Henry Edwards says:

    Spirit of, well, Whatever: 1500 signatories (including children?)
    I imagine that children’s names would be found on the list – seeing that they constitute such a significant percentage of the congregations of EF masses here in France.

    As they in EF Masses everywhere, Deo gratias. The handwriting for the future is already written on the wall. Better get used to it.

  32. parisian says:

    Pastors have already opened their doors to the “children’s Mass”, “the Youth Mass”, the “Country Music Mass”, the “charismatic Mass”….if only they would offer the EF Mass…parishioners wouldn’t have to travel elsewhere…..and there wouldn’t be any “ghetto”…..

  33. Maureen says:

    Re: 1500 signatures not being a big deal

    I’m glad that “Spirit of Vatican II” wasn’t in charge of negotiations with Abraham.

    “What if there are even 1500 righteous men in the city? Will you spare it then?”

    “1500 is nothing! If there are even 2000 righteous men in the city, I will still burn it to the ground!”

  34. Tom says:

    Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “Now we have two authorized ways of praying for Jews. One of them reflects the most ancient of Christian aspirations as well as St. Paul’s desires for his brethren expressed in inspired Sacred Scripture. The 1970 prayer sails closer to the breezes of the Council with less regard for the extreme antiquity of the way Christians prayed on one of our most sacred days of the liturgical year.”

    Hmmm…”…two authorized ways of praying for Jews.”

    One way…vague, ambiguous, unclear.

    One way…(although the ancient Traditional prayer is superior to the novel 2008 “traditional” prayer) a clear (at least compared to the Novus Ordo prayer in question) prayer for the conversion of Jews.

    Something is terribly wrong when the “one Roman Rite” has two monumentally different “authorized” ways to pray for Jews.

    Again…ambiguous, unclear…nobody has a clue as to what the Novus Ordo prayer means…

    …vs…clear and apparent.

    Therefore, based upon the “one Roman Rite,” Catholics may be led to believe that Jews need not convert to the True Religion…

    …and Catholics may be led to believe that Jews need to convert to the True Religion.

    That is the result of the “two authorized ways of praying for Jews.”

    Funny how prior to Vatican II the “one Roman Rite” was crystal clear when it came to the “authorized way” to pray for Jews.

    We are in desperate need of one CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS Roman Rite.

  35. Antiquarian says:

    As has been pointed out repeatedly, the pre-1962 prayr is itself ambiguous. Those who brush that aside with “everybody knew what it meant” are being disingenuous at best.

    Complexity is different than ambiguity. And ambiguity is, in part at least, subjective. If we do not understand the Holy Father’s intention is that his failing or ours?

  36. Tom says:

    Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “Now we have two authorized ways of praying for Jews.”

    Actually, we had “two authorized ways of praying for the Jews.”

    The Traditional Roman Mass was “never abrogated.”

    Therefore, the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews was “authorized” last year, the year before, the year before that…etc.

  37. Tomas Lopez says:

    I don’t see any posts by a Fr O’Leary. Has Fr Zed deleted comments?

  38. Flambeaux says:

    Tomas Lozpez,

    Father O’Leary, S.J. is the name of the fellow posting as Spirit of Vatican II.

    His views are well known to many of us.

  39. Flambeaux says:

    Tomas Lopez,

    Father O\’Leary, S.J. is the name of the fellow posting as Spirit of Vatican II.

    His views are well known to many of us.

  40. jack burton says:

    Fr. O’Leary = Spirit of Vatican II.

  41. Louis E. says:

    “Spirit of Vatican II” is the pseudonym of a Father Joseph O’Leary.

    As for Australian television…a while back they posted a transcript where they quoted a Stanislas Lalanne who they called Bishop and “head of the Catholic Church in France”.I wrote to them pointing out that he was a neither France’s senior Cardinal (Etchegaray),nor senior resident prelate(then Lustiger),nor Primate(Cardinal Barbarin),nor head of the bishops’ conference(Ricard),nor even a bishop,but a newly minted monsignor and secretary of the bishops’ conference…so they edited their “transcript” so people would not know they’d ever gotten it wrong!

  42. Habemus Papam says:

    The Eldest Daughter of the Church stirs from her sleep….and Father Most Weary is miffed. She was thought to be dead!

  43. RBrown says:

    Spirit of Vat II,

    In so far as the previous thread was closed before I could answer, I’ll post there here.

    Colossians is probably a much later text than Philippians, and has much less prima facie relevance to the question of the divinity of Christ, which is why I did not bother to mention it.

    1. The question at hand is the Christological hymn not the letter.

    2. It is out of date scholarship to maintain that the hymn is a late work. Such an idea was based on little except ideology–the a priori assumption that low Christology is earlier. Later scholarship is more honest and is without those a priori assumptions.

    BTW, the Low-Christology-Is-Earlier concept is little else than Hegelian philosophy. If this Hegelian approach were applied to the works of St Thomas, we would think that the Commentary on the Sentences were composed before the Summa Theologiae. And historical documentation shows that not to be the case.

    There is no analysis of structure or language of the letter that indicates a late composition.

    3. It is generally agreed that the Christological hymn predates the composition of the letter. Even so, acc to Raymond Brown some think the letter was written as early as 54.

    4. The hymn is rife with High Christology, with references to His pre-existence before the Creation, not only the cosmos but also the angels. His role in the act of creation indicates Divinity. NB: the similarity between Col (omnia per ipsum et in ipsum creata sunt) and the Prologue of John (Omnia per ipsum facta sunt), which is obviously a reference to His Divinity.

    If you’re referring to Him being called primogenitus (??????????), this word must be understood in light of the rest of the hymn. As I said earlier, there is no text without context.

    I have criticized Rahner’s metaphysical categories in my book “Questioning Back” but in no way do they imply a rejection of Chalcedon or any unorthodoxy. I would not be so sure the categories are as hopelessly out of date as you suggest, any more than the categories of Aristotle or St. Thomas are.

    1. As I said earlier, there is theoretical rejection and practical rejection. Rahner–and it seems you also–are involved in practical rejection, which is the common tactic of Progressivism (Chalcedon was fine for its day, but it doesn’t fit post modern man). Such an approach also is found in Gnosticism.

    2. You might have rejected the categories, but you continue to embrace the theological equivocations. Besides which, the German approach never had any but a small group of followers, and they are disappearing.

    3. BTW, St Thomas’ philosophic thought is a synthesis of Aristotle and Plato, not merely that of the former (as the Jesuits insisted for years). The Summa Contra Gentiles is heavy with Platonic threads (nb: the concept of ontological participation is not found in Aristotle’s thought).

    “We’ve had a mass exodus from the priesthood and religious orders, few vocations, priests and bishops who are active homosexuals (sometimes with young men), priests (and at least one bishop) dead from AIDS, suicides in the priesthood (I know of two from Ireland) and religious orders, and… theological obfuscators who are purveyors of an untheology. What more damage can be done?”

    It can be argued that not Vatican II but the failure to implement it – including the refusal to question the opportuneness of the celibacy law – is the cause of this, alongside the sexual revolution. The obfuscators, it seems to me, are not Liberation Theology or Rahner but those who have prevented Catholic theological culture from flourishing and who have caused a serious brain drain in the Church.

    Huh?

    1. Where in Vat II does it say that celibacy should be questioned?

    2. But: If the celibacy discipline were lifted, it would not affect those in religious institutes (about one third of all the clergy) because celibacy is intrinsic to their lives. For example, if the celibacy discipline had been listed and Karl Rahner had wanted to marry his girlfriend, he could not have remained a Jesuit.

    3. Further, as we both know, most of the intellectual work in the Church is done by those in religious institutes, who are celibate.

    4. You are correct that there has been a Brain Drain. But you are wrong in assuming the reason. Men have left seminaries and the priesthood (or never entered in the first place) for one reason: The Protestantization of the Church (which you seem to endorse) has trivialized the priesthood and made priestly life superficial.

    What you consider Catholic theological culture I consider dishonest equivocations intended (at least, unconsciously) to destroy the Church.

    I can imagine more damage: the final discouragement of the laity, except for a small remnant. The transformation of the Roman Catholic Church into a historical fossil like the Coptic Church—beautiful, spiritual, undying but unconnected with the wider world. The growth of intransigent fanaticism within that remnant, making Catholicism synonymous with anti-democratic politics. The complete alienation of Catholicism from our sister churches and the complete abandonment of scriptural culture.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II —

    Your comments are a superb example of naive clericalism.

    1. The laity is already discouraged.

    2. As I noted earlier, the theological method you seem to have embraced, which conveniently excludes texts that contradict your opinion, runs counter to a Scriptural culture.

    3. Anti-democratic politics? You are making the mistake I noted some weeks ago here: You have continued to embrace the Jesuit concept of the Church as Perfect Society–but simply moved from a monarchical model to a democratic one.

    I prefer the Church as the Mystical Body (which is more Scriptural than your political concept), with Christ the High Priest as the Head (NB: BXVI’s use of the miter instead of the Tiara in his coat of arms.) Such as approach is independent of any political model.

  44. RBrown says:

    Note that the “personal parish” is formed by affinity not territory. The 1500 are those already attending the TLM at their chapel or chapels. They want higher ecclesiastical recognition. The 1500 may live in the large and densely populated Paris area—not a terribly impressive figure. I am sure you would easily find 1500 people of any bizarre category in that part of the world.

    1500 latter-day Dadaists, 1500 trampoline artists, 1500 fans of Jeremiah Gotthelf

    1500 pancake jugglers, 1500 banjo serenaders, 1500 time-machine experimenters

    1500 toenail-ring fetishists, 1500 composers of alternative anthems to La Marseillaise, 1500 believers that Louis XVII is the hidden Imam
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    Do you think that you can find 1500 men in Ireland who want to be priests?

  45. Richard says:

    Postscript:

    I still – like Prof. Basto – am struck by Fr. Z’s observation: Given what has happened to the Church in France over these last decades, I imagine it would be overwhelming for a French bishop to see that 1500 people want to go to Mass. Although I might limit that observation for the sake of discussion to Paris – there are still a few locales with above-anemic mass attendance rates.

    And speaking of…

    Fr. O’Leary is bold (but welcome) indeed not only to venture into this nest of mossbacks, but to assert baldly that the collapse in vocations and lay resort to sacraments is due not to the reforms which followed the council, but the reforms that failed to follow. Correlation is not, to be sure, always causation, but proving his negative is a formidable task. One is left in mind of Marxist survivals who still insist, post-1989, that the concept just hasn’t been given a fair try yet.

    If there is an underlying premise here that too many traditionalists or conservatives are hasty in ascribing *all* of the post-1965 collapse in vocations to the post-conciliar reforms, that may well be a valid argument. The decades following the Council were a very unsettled time – a veritable cultural revolution in the West. To assume that a council-less, reform-less Church could have navigated those currents unaffected would be rash.

    Nonetheless, great things were promised and hoped for out of these reforms, and it’s clear that in regards to vocations, they simply were not realized – at least in regards to what *was* implemented. Does Fr. Leary mean to maintain that vocations would not have collapsed if celibacy had been eliminated as a requirement for all religious? If he wishes to, he’ll have to provide much more than his mere assertion. In the meantime, he might reasonably at least be willing to examine the correlation between the reforms that did take place and the vocational collapse and be open to considering whether, in fact, some law of unintended consequences didn’t take place after all. On some level. In other words, I think more of the burden in this debate rests on him.

    Or (to get back on topic) we could look at mass attendance of the laity in France. Priestly life might not have been reformed but one can hardly argue that French progressives (among the episcopacy) didn’t pretty much get their way on nearly every point in reforming the liturgy. Which leaves me with the question of how much actuosa participatio you can actually have if, in fact, no one is showing up at mass at all. Because, for the most part, they aren’t any more.

    And that was happening even before Poles or Germans were occupying the See of Rome.

  46. Tomas Lopez says:

    Shocking!

  47. Tom: although the ancient Traditional prayer is superior to the novel 2008 “traditional” prayer

    I think in many ways the newer prayer is clearer about the core of the issue.

  48. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Fr. Z writes:

    “I think in many ways the newer prayer is clearer about the core of the issue.”

    Cardinal Kasper thinks so too. He finds that the newer prayer is open to an eschatological meaning that is, of course, completely heretical.

    The older prayer is better, first of all, because it is univocal. That’s why Kasper doesn’t like it. It calls for a conversion here and now. A resuce (conveyed by the verb, eruantur) is something that becomes imminent, something that doesn’t wait until the last moment in time, like the sinner who delays his confession to the deathbed.

    Secondly, the older prayer is clearer about the core of the issue, which is the fact that those who calumniate our Lord in the most unspeakable ways possible in their official holybook are in a far worse and more desperate state than are other infidels. They are those, above all, who should be targetted for evangelisation. You could say that they are blinded and in darkness. You might even say that they have eyes but they cannot see. But somebody else said that first. May His most Precious Blood be a laver of mercy unto them!

    I sometimes get the feeling that some bloggers find the newer prayer to be superior simply because they wish it were, and they confuse their wishes with reality.

    Of course, I am not changing my view on this. While I note that the 1962 words are obviously a better prayer for the masoretes, that is not the core issue. The core issue is that a Vicar of Christ has set a precedent by which the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the Holy Ghost, is altered at the behest of two chief infidels of Palestine who don’t believe that there is a Holy Ghost. What a fine example that sets! May God forfend it!

    P.K.T.P.

  49. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Fr. Z. says that there are only two authorised ways of praying for the Jews. Fortunately, there are also ways that are not authorised but also not forbidden. The Pope has no authority to forbid private prayers or devotions except to proscribe those that are heretical or evil in content. The term ‘authorised ways of praying’ could lead some astray on this. It could lead some to believe that these are the only formulations possible.

    In fact, faithful can use any formulation they like as long as there is nothing in it that is contrary to the faith. For example, they could use the 1955 text every night before tucking in. They could even pray those 1955 words while a priest during a public Good Friday Service was using the 2008 revision. They are authorised to do so! I authorise them! So does God!

    P.K.T.P.

  50. pktp: Are you of the opinion that Romans 11 is heretical?

  51. Ottaviani says:

    Antiquarian: “As has been pointed out repeatedly, the pre-1962 prayr is itself ambiguous…”

    Please be my guest to demonstrate that the pre-1962 Good Friday Prayers are in anyway ambiguous or even more ambiguous than the new rite version or Pope Benedict’s newly formulated prayer.

    I think the whole crux of the matter was the 1962 prayers were very much clear about what they meant: so clear that it upset politically correct prelates (who are not Catholic anymore) and anti-Christian Jewish lobbyists.

  52. jack burton says:

    One may believe the new prayer to be better or not, but the fact is if one is ashamed of the 1962 prayer they are ashamed of Christ and His doctrines. If we must repent of the 1962 prayer we must also repent of Romans 9, II Corinthians 3, many words of Christ in the Gospels, et cetera. This is what has resonated with me from the perspective of PKTP anyway, even if I do not share all of his sentiments. I similarly believe that Fr. Z’s mention of Romans 11 is essential since its puts many things in perspective.
    What I do find excessive is the accusatory jabs of PKTP against Jewish anti-Christian elements. My understanding is that most of the really juicy stuff in the Talmud literature was edited away in the middle ages. In any case I don’t think this is a constructive approach nor is it particularly convincing as a defense of the 1962 prayers. You seem to be admitting that they are inflammatory in some way but justified because the Jews have done this. Perhaps it is better to explain the prayer in its Biblical context and understand that it is in no way derogatory.

  53. Tom says:

    Fr. John Zuhlsdorf wrote: “I think in many ways the newer prayer is clearer about the core of the issue.”

    Okay, Father. We disagree on the issue at hand.

    The “party line” is that suddenly, after having been part of the Roman Liturgy for some 1,700 years, the Traditional prayer for Jews is “ambiguous” and in dire need of “correction” based upon the post-Vatican II “modernization” (updating) process that has infected the Church.

    I may be wrong, but I doubt that anybody who posts to your blog (and supports the current “party line”) insisted last year, the year before, etc…that the Traditional prayer for Jews was “ambiguous” and in need of “updating.”

    In fact…and let’s be flat-out frank…we know that the Traditional prayer for Jews was considered too clear…too obvious…too “Catholic”…and that said prayer was despised within and without the Church by liberals and modernists.

    The Traditional Roman prayer for Jews is monumentally clear is presenting the Church’s traditional teachings regarding Jews.

    That, of course, is why the Traditional prayer could not possibly stand in our age of interreligious “dialogue.”

    Again…I realize that we tend to go to great lengths to support each liturgical novelty that Popes introduce into the “one” Roman Rite.

    For example, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II insisted repeatedly that despite “shadows” here and there, the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution was a tremendous success.

    The reality is that the Novus Ordo is a disaster.

    However, the party line among bishops, priests and laymen, particularly “conservatives,” was (is) that the Popes in question were correct…the Latin Church was (is) in the midst of a tremendous liturgical “springtime.”

    While “opposing” (or simply questioning) Peter when Peter favors novelty over Tradition is part of our Catholic heritage…it isn’t fun.

    Disagreeing with bishops and priests who continue to express the Novus Ordo party line isn’t fun and games.

    Disagreeing with you and various posters regarding the prayer for Jews isn’t fun…but I simply don’t buy the party line regarding the new prayer in question.

    Unfortunately, Rome’s insistence in recent decades to discard Tradition in place of novelty has led to the current situation:

    The Party Line vs. Holy Tradition.

    We live during a very, very mysterious time regarding Popes and the Traditional Roman Liturgy.

  54. Interesting letter of Jan 19 from Card. Bertone about the three priests who refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass:

    Eccellenza reverendissima,

    è pervenuta al Santo Padre la stimata lettera del 20 dicembre scorso, con cui Ella ha voluto confidarGli la seria preoccupazione per l’atteggiamento assunto da tre sacerdoti della diocesi di Novara, i quali interpretano il Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” come la possibilità di adottare quale unico rito per la Celebrazione eucaristica e gli altri Sacramenti quello anteriore alla riforma attuata dopo il Concilio Vaticano II, rifiutando totalmente l’uso dei Libri liturgici promulgati dal papa paolo VI.

    Allo stesso tempo Vostra Eccellenza ha descritto i passi da Lei compiuti per far comprendere a questi Sacerdoti l’infondatezza della loro lettura del Motu Proprio e aiutarli a cogliere le esatte intenzioni che hanno spinto Sua Santità Bendetto XVI a scrivere tale Documento.

    Il Sommo Pontefice, Che ha letto con attenzione la missiva e la documentazione allegata, mi incarica di comunicarLe che quanto sostiene Vostra Eccellenza, “in spiritu lettera” è pienamente conforme al Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” e alla Lettera accompagnatoria indirizzata ai Presuli di tutto il mondo. Le Celebrazioni liturgiche secondo i Libri promulgati dal Papa Paolo VI rimangono la “forma ordinaria” e il Vescovo è il moderatore per la Liturgia nella sua diocesi.

    Sua Santità auspica che i tre Presbiteri comprendano che quanto ha indicato Vostra Eccellenza in merito al Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” corrispondente alla Sua “mens” e, mentre Le assicura un ricordo nella preghiera, impartisce la Sua Benedizione Apostolica a Lei e a quanti sono affidati alle sue cure pastorali.

    Nell’augurarLe un fecondo ministro pastorale, profitto della circostanza per confermarmi con sensi di distinto ossequio.

    Dall’Eccellenza Vostra Rev.ma
    dev.mo nel Signore

  55. Flambeaux — once again I am not a Jesuit. If you commit such glaring inaccuracies, how can you expect your other comments to be taken seriously?

    RBrown, yes, Colossians may be later than the Pauline letters (since it seems to be by a disciple of Paul rather than Paul himself) but indeed the hymn may be much older than the letter itself. Pointing out correspondences with the hymn underlying the Johannine Prologue would again succest a later date.

    The role of Christ in Creation is linked with his divinity explicitly in John, but it would be reading too much into John to say that he already teaches that the Word is equally divine with the Father. Development of dogma.

    Hegel, at least in his maturity, was a high Christologist, not at all a low Christologist. You are too out of sympathy with the great German philosophers (and German Idealism is more and more being rediscovered as a truly great philosophical moment even by Analytical philosophers today — see for example Espen Hammer, ed. German Idealism: Contemporary perspectives, Routledge.

    For the record I believe in the full divinity of the Word as defined at Nicea.

    I also accept Chalcedon’s horos about the hypostatic union of the Word and Jesus of Nazareth as the horizon of my own thinking on the meaning of John 1.14.

  56. Fr Renzo di Lorenzo misunderstands me on that other thread; the Roman thesis smuggles in at Vatican II was not about morality but about the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. This is not found in previous official church teaching, but only in Bellarmine et al.

    Also Fr di Lorenzo’s claim that there is no such thing as freedom of conscience, only freedom to sin, is contrary to Catholic teaching.

  57. 1) se questa è la mens del papa perchè padre Uwe Lang, fr Fessio e altri asseriscono che B16 abbia detto loro esattamente il contrario e non vengono mai zittiti dall’autorità vaticana, queste persone non portano turbamento ai fedeli? Solo i gesuiti troppo aperti sui gay turbano i fedeli, secondo B16?
    2) Noto che nonostante la lettera sia di gennaio, ma probabilmente resa pubblica a febbraio, è stata ignorata da tutti i siti conservatori americani che ovviamente si dimostrano falsi e tendenziosi come sempre.

    I think she is wrong about Fr Fessio — to judge from his most recent interview.

  58. Oops, last post is quoting an Italian lady’s remark on the letter.

  59. jack burton says:

    Father O’Leary,
    Thanks for the clarification. I’ve been enjoying your ongoing debate with RBrown and the others so much that I’ve opted to be a mere spectator lest my interjections diminish the quality of the discussion. Cheers people!

  60. “In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium
    continenter exsistit”

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists”

    This obviously does not apply to the 1500 for they are not a group in a parish but a group assembled from all over. In Ireland and also in Japan Latin Mass enthusiasts are ferried from church to church in order to give the impression that they are numerous. The Motu Proprio does not want to encourage such strategies.

  61. jack burton says:

    That’s asinine. At my parish hundreds of people drive 30, 40, in some cases 120 minutes to get to Mass and they certainly constitute a stable group. I drive about an hour to get to Mass (two hours for the total trip) because there is no TLM in my diocese. It is pathetic that faithful Catholics must leave their diocese to attend a Mass that is traditional. We’re talking about 1500 people in Paris; one city. In the spirit of Pope John Paul II’s policies you’d think this pastoral need would have been met by now- so much for generosity and the super pastoral new church. I’m sorry but your argument in this case makes you look like you have a vendetta. The way this post makes you sound I wouldn’t be surprised if you have more respect and tolerance for non-Christian religions and Protestant sects than for legitimate and holy Catholic traditions. Why do so-called liberal Catholics resent and attack Catholicism in this way?
    I lived in a city recently that got its own Congolese parish and these people were far less than 1500 and they did not form a stable group in a single parish, they came from all around. That is seen as commendable and pastoral but this Paris scenario is treated as though a plague. I don’t understand this.

  62. Rose says:

    Fr. O’Leary, I believe you are from Japan. I understand that Fr. Nicolas, the new Jesuit General is also from a Jesuit institute in Japan. Are you in the same institute?
    And I would be curious to know about the state of the Church in Japan. I met a young Japanese woman sent to Canada to be trained for missionary work (preaching) in Japan by an evangelical denomination and asked her, because we were on the Jesuit property in Guelph, Ontario, where my relatives worked as farm managers and which is going to be sold, I understand because of the usual problems, no more vocations, older priests and brothers all dying off etc. etc., if she knew about the Jesuits in Japan. Her answer astonished me. Yes, she said, they are well known as the oldest missionaries to Japan but they no longer preach the Gospel; they only teach English and study Japanese culture. Of course this is one evangelical missionary to be in a casual conversation but I’d be curious about your comments on the state of the Church
    in Japan.

  63. Diane says:

    Fr. O’Leary tranlates:

    “In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit”

    to…

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists”

    Dear Father,

    The word is “continenter” not “stabiliter”. Please correct your translation.

  64. Richard says:

    This obviously does not apply to the 1500 for they are not a group in a parish but a group assembled from all over. In Ireland and also in Japan Latin Mass enthusiasts are ferried from church to church in order to give the impression that they are numerous. The Motu Proprio does not want to encourage such strategies.

    Again, Father: Where is the generosity?

    And how can one have either a group or stability in such a strict sense when the local ordinaries have made every effort to deny them a liturgical life that might enable them to be either?

  65. Whoever wrote:

    Fr Renzo di Lorenzo misunderstands me on that other thread; the Roman thesis smuggles in at Vatican II was not about morality but about the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. This is not found in previous official church teaching, but only in Bellarmine et al.

    What you actually wrote is this:

    Paul VI recognized the teaching authority of the bishops and allowed them to practice it in their reception of his encyclical. Their response was not based on Prinzipienlosigkeit but on the principles of responsible pastoral judgment and respect for freedom of conscience. The argument that the teaching on contraception is infallible in virtue of the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium (a Roman thesis smuggled into Vatican II) has been made impossible by the fact that the most articulate and well-prepared representatives of the ordinary magisterium received Humanae Vitae in such an attenuative and dubitative manner.

    Your words would lead one to think that you claim a brutish morality by force of brute numbers, a might makes right approach, whereby the ordinary teaching[?] of episcopal conferences is, for you, infallible (note your “impossible”), even while the ordinary magisterium of Peter is non-existent or irresponsible (not to mention, not infallible). Nothing of what you write has anything to do with reality. The reality is that your words (attempt to) lead people astray. You might want to read Humani generis, or, for something more up do date for you, for instance, Evangelium vitae and, then the commentary on Ad tuendam fidem, as in the notes… about… Humanae Vitae… which contradicts what you say.

    You, whoever, also wrote:

    Also Fr di Lorenzo’s claim that there is no such thing as freedom of conscience, only freedom to sin, is contrary to Catholic teaching.

    Well. Your words would bring one to think that either you’re blind, or stupid, or a liar. Read again what I wrote. I add a comment in brackets for your benefit:

    Conscience is [that is, provides,] a practical judgment. The conscience itself is not free. One’s conscience is to be formed in attentiveness to natural law and the teaching of the Church. One is free to accept the practical judgment from such a properly formed conscience.

    If anyone wants to read the back and forth, go here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/important-2003-letter-of-card-ratzinger-about-the-older-rite-of-mass/#comments

    ============
    To all: We are just so ripe for a persecution whereby believers will be martyred even while being cursed for being imprudent by the unbelieving priests and bishops (who will not be martyred, since no witness will be given).

    To whoever: whatever, whoever you are, know that judgment comes to all those who are subject to the natural law, which is all of us, whether we like it or not. Really.

    God bless.

  66. PKTP: Fr. Z. says that there are only two authorised ways of praying for the Jews.

    No, I didn’t. I didn’t say we have “only” two authorized ways.

  67. Tom: The “party line” is that suddenly, after having been part of the Roman Liturgy for some 1,700 years, the Traditional prayer for Jews is “ambiguous” and in dire need of “correction” based upon the post-Vatican II “modernization” (updating) process that has infected the Church.

    No, that is not the “party line” on the prayer for the Jews. I don’t accept your premise.

    I don’t believe anyone thinks the older Good Friday prayer for the Jews is “ambiguous”. The fact that the newer prayer is “clearer” does not mean that the older prayer is “ambiguous”. Both prayers clearly aim at the conversion of the Jews. The newer prayer hits that point even harder than the older prayer.

    It strikes me as odd that you can miss what the real criticism of the older prayer was and why some people thought it had to be corrected.

    NB: I don’t think it had to be corrected, but now that it has been, I accept it for what it says.

  68. Spirit: You really should provide a translation for texts that long, or at least an accurate precis.

  69. DISCORSO DI SUA SANTITÀ BENEDETTO XVI AI PADRI DELLA CONGREGAZIONE GENERALE DELLA COMPAGNIA DI GESÙ Sala Clementina Giovedì, 21 febbraio 2008

    Cari Padri della Congregazione Generale
    della Compagnia di Gesù,

    sono lieto di accogliervi quest’oggi mentre i vostri impegnativi lavori stanno entrando nelle fasi conclusive. Ringrazio il nuovo Preposito Generale, Padre Adolfo Nicolas, per essersi fatto interprete dei vostri sentimenti e del vostro impegno per rispondere alle attese che la Chiesa ripone in voi. Ve ne ho parlato nel messaggio indirizzato al Rev. Padre Kolvenbach e – per suo tramite – a tutta la vostra Congregazione all’inizio dei vostri lavori. Ringrazio ancora una volta il Padre Peter-Hans Kolvenbach per il prezioso servizio di governo da lui reso al vostro Ordine per quasi un quarto di secolo. Saluto anche i membri del nuovo Consiglio Generale e gli Assistenti che aiuteranno il Preposito nel suo delicatissimo compito di guida religiosa e apostolica di tutta la vostra Compagnia.

    La vostra Congregazione si svolge in un periodo di grandi cambiamenti sociali, economici, politici; di accentuati problemi etici, culturali ed ambientali, di conflitti di ogni genere; ma anche di comunicazioni più intense fra i popoli, di nuove possibilità di conoscenza e di dialogo, di profonde aspirazioni alla pace. Sono situazioni che interpellano fino in fondo la Chiesa cattolica e la sua capacità di annunciare ai nostri contemporanei la Parola di speranza e di salvezza. Mi auguro perciò vivamente che tutta la Compagnia di Gesù, grazie ai risultati della vostra Congregazione, possa vivere con rinnovato slancio e fervore la missione per cui lo Spirito l’ha suscitata nella Chiesa e da oltre quattro secoli e mezzo l’ha conservata con straordinaria fecondità di frutti apostolici. Voglio oggi incoraggiare voi e i vostri confratelli a continuare sulla strada di questa missione, in piena fedeltà al vostro carisma originario, nel contesto ecclesiale e sociale che caratterizza questo inizio di millennio. Come più volte vi hanno detto i miei Predecessori, la Chiesa ha bisogno di voi, conta su di voi, e continua a rivolgersi a voi con fiducia, in particolare per raggiungere quei luoghi fisici e spirituali dove altri non arrivano o hanno difficoltà ad arrivare. Sono rimaste scolpite nel vostro cuore le parole di Paolo VI: “Ovunque nella Chiesa, anche nei campi più difficili e di punta, nei crocevia delle ideologie, nelle trincee sociali, vi è stato e vi è il confronto tra le esigenze brucianti dell’uomo e il perenne messaggio del Vangelo, là vi sono stati e vi sono i Gesuiti” (3 dicembre 1974, alla 32a Congregazione Generale).

    Come dice la Formula del vostro Istituto, la Compagnia di Gesù è istituita anzitutto “per la difesa e la propagazione della fede”. In un tempo in cui si aprivano nuovi orizzonti geografici, i primi compagni di Ignazio si erano messi a disposizione del Papa proprio perché “li impiegasse là dove egli giudicava essere di maggior gloria di Dio e utilità delle anime” (Autobiografia, n. 85). Così essi furono inviati ad annunciare il Signore a popoli e culture che non lo conoscevano ancora. Lo fecero con un coraggio e uno zelo che rimangono di esempio e di ispirazione fino ai nostri giorni: il nome di San Francesco Saverio è il più famoso di tutti, ma quanti altri se ne potrebbero fare! Oggi i nuovi popoli che non conoscono il Signore, o che lo conoscono male, così da non saperlo riconoscere come il Salvatore, sono lontani non tanto dal punto di vista geografico quanto da quello culturale. Non sono i mari o le grandi distanze gli ostacoli che sfidano gli annunciatori del Vangelo, quanto le frontiere che, a seguito di una errata o superficiale visione di Dio e dell’uomo, vengono a frapporsi fra la fede e il sapere umano, la fede e la scienza moderna, la fede e l’impegno per la giustizia.

    Perciò la Chiesa ha urgente bisogno di persone di fede solida e profonda, di cultura seria e di genuina sensibilità umana e sociale, di religiosi e sacerdoti che dedichino la loro vita a stare proprio su queste frontiere per testimoniare e aiutare a comprendere che vi è invece un’armonia profonda fra fede e ragione, fra spirito evangelico, sete di giustizia e operosità per la pace. Solo così diventerà possibile far conoscere il vero volto del Signore a tanti a cui oggi rimane nascosto o irriconoscibile. A questo pertanto deve dedicarsi preferenzialmente la Compagnia di Gesù. Fedele alla sua migliore tradizione, essa deve continuare a formare con grande cura i suoi membri nella scienza e nella virtù, senza accontentarsi della mediocrità, perché il compito del confronto e del dialogo con i contesti sociali e culturali molto diversi e le mentalità differenti del mondo di oggi è fra i più difficili e faticosi. E questa ricerca della qualità e della solidità umana, spirituale e culturale, deve caratterizzare anche tutta la molteplice attività formativa ed educativa dei Gesuiti, nei confronti dei più diversi generi di persone ovunque essi si trovino.

    Nella sua storia la Compagnia di Gesù ha vissuto esperienze straordinarie di annuncio e di incontro fra il Vangelo e le culture del mondo – basti pensare a Matteo Ricci in Cina, a Roberto De Nobili in India, o alle “Riduzioni” dell’America latina -. Ne siete giustamente fieri. Sento oggi il dovere di esortarvi a mettervi nuovamente sulle tracce dei vostri predecessori con altrettanto coraggio e intelligenza, ma anche con altrettanta profonda motivazione di fede e passione di servire il Signore e la sua Chiesa. Tuttavia, mentre cercate di riconoscere i segni della presenza e dell’opera di Dio in ogni luogo del mondo, anche oltre i confini della Chiesa visibile, mentre vi sforzate di costruire ponti di comprensione e di dialogo con chi non appartiene alla Chiesa o ha difficoltà ad accettarne le posizioni e i messaggi, dovete allo stesso tempo farvi lealmente carico del dovere fondamentale della Chiesa di mantenersi fedele al suo mandato di aderire totalmente alla Parola di Dio, e del compito del Magistero di conservare la verità e l’unità della dottrina cattolica nella sua completezza. Ciò vale non solo per l’impegno personale dei singoli Gesuiti: poiché lavorate come membra di un corpo apostolico, dovete anche essere attenti affinché le vostre opere ed istituzioni conservino sempre una chiara ed esplicita identità, perchè il fine della vostra attività apostolica non rimanga ambiguo od oscuro, e perché tante altre persone possano condividere i vostri ideali e unirsi a voi efficacemente e con entusiasmo, collaborando al vostro impegno di servizio di Dio e dell’uomo.

    Come voi ben sapete per aver compiuto molte volte sotto la guida di Sant’Ignazio negli Esercizi Spirituali la meditazione “delle due bandiere”, il nostro mondo è teatro di una battaglia fra il bene e il male, e vi sono all’opera potenti forze negative, che causano quelle drammatiche situazioni di asservimento spirituale e materiale dei nostri contemporanei contro cui avete più volte dichiarato di voler combattere, impegnandovi per il servizio della fede e la promozione della giustizia. Tali forze si manifestano oggi in molti modi, ma con particolare evidenza attraverso tendenze culturali che spesso diventano dominanti, come il soggettivismo, il relativismo, l’edonismo, il materialismo pratico. Per questo ho chiesto il vostro rinnovato impegno a promuovere e difendere la dottrina cattolica “in particolare sui punti nevralgici oggi fortemente attaccati dalla cultura secolare”, alcuni dei quali ho esemplificato nella mia Lettera. I temi, oggi continuamente discussi e messi in questione, della salvezza di tutti gli uomini in Cristo, della morale sessuale, del matrimonio e della famiglia, vanno approfonditi e illuminati nel contesto della realtà contemporanea, ma conservando quella sintonia con il Magistero che evita di provocare confusione e sconcerto nel Popolo di Dio.

    So e capisco bene che questo è un punto particolarmente sensibile e impegnativo per voi e per diversi dei vostri confratelli, soprattutto quelli impegnati nella ricerca teologica, nel dialogo interreligioso e nel dialogo con le culture contemporanee. Proprio per questo vi ho invitato e vi invito anche oggi a riflettere per ritrovare il senso più pieno di quel vostro caratteristico “quarto voto” di obbedienza al Successore di Pietro, che non comporta solo la prontezza ad essere inviati in missione in terre lontane, ma anche – nel più genuino spirito ignaziano del “sentire con la Chiesa e nella Chiesa” – ad “amare e servire” il Vicario di Cristo in terra con quella devozione “effettiva ed affettiva” che deve fare di voi dei suoi preziosi e insostituibili collaboratori nel suo servizio per la Chiesa universale.

    Allo stesso tempo vi incoraggio a continuare e a rinnovare la vostra missione fra i poveri e con i poveri. Non mancano purtroppo nuove cause di povertà e di emarginazione in un mondo segnato da gravi squilibri economici e ambientali, da processi di globalizzazione guidati dall’egoismo più che dalla solidarietà, da conflitti armati devastanti ed assurdi. Come ho avuto modo di ribadire ai Vescovi latinoamericani riuniti al Santuario di Aparecida, “la opzione preferenziale per i poveri è implicita nella fede cristologica in quel Dio che per noi si è fatto povero, per arricchirci con la sua povertà (2 Cor 8,9)”. E’ quindi naturale che chi vuol essere veramente compagno di Gesù, ne condivida realmente l’amore per i poveri. Per noi la scelta dei poveri non è ideologica, ma nasce dal Vangelo. Innumerevoli e drammatiche sono le situazioni di ingiustizia e di povertà nel mondo di oggi, e se bisogna impegnarsi a comprenderne e a combatterne la cause strutturali, occorre anche saper scendere a combattere fin nel cuore stesso dell’uomo le radici profonde del male, il peccato che lo separa da Dio, senza dimenticare di venire incontro ai bisogni più urgenti nello spirito della carità di Cristo. Raccogliendo e sviluppando una delle ultime lungimiranti intuizioni del Padre Arrupe, la vostra Compagnia continua a impegnarsi in modo meritorio nel servizio per i rifugiati, che spesso sono i più poveri fra i poveri e che hanno bisogno non solo del soccorso materiale, ma anche di quella più profonda vicinanza spirituale, umana e psicologica che è più propria del vostro servizio.

    Un’attenzione specifica vi invito infine a riservare a quel ministero degli Esercizi Spirituali che fin dalle origini è stato caratteristico della vostra Compagnia. Gli Esercizi sono la fonte della vostra spiritualità e la matrice delle vostre Costituzioni, ma sono anche un dono che lo Spirito del Signore ha fatto alla Chiesa intera: sta a voi continuare a farne uno strumento prezioso ed efficace per la crescita spirituale delle anime, per la loro iniziazione alla preghiera, alla meditazione, in questo mondo secolarizzato in cui Dio sembra essere assente. Proprio nella settimana scorsa ho profittato anch’io degli Esercizi Spirituali, insieme con i miei più stretti collaboratori della Curia Romana, sotto la guida di un vostro esimio confratello, il Card. Albert Vanhoye. In un tempo come quello odierno, in cui la confusione e la molteplicità dei messaggi, la rapidità dei cambiamenti e delle situazioni, rende particolarmente difficile ai nostri contemporanei mettere ordine nella propria vita e rispondere con decisione e con gioia alla chiamata che il Signore rivolge a ognuno di noi, gli Esercizi Spirituali rappresentano una via e un metodo particolarmente prezioso per cercare e trovare Dio, in noi, attorno a noi e in ogni cosa, per conoscere la sua volontà e metterla in pratica.

    In questo spirito di obbedienza alla volontà di Dio, a Gesù Cristo, che diviene anche umile obbedienza alla Chiesa, vi invito a continuare e a portare a compimento i lavori della vostra Congregazione, e mi unisco a voi nella preghiera insegnataci da Sant’Ignazio al termine degli Esercizi – preghiera che sempre mi appare troppo grande, al punto che quasi non oso dirla e che, tuttavia, dovremmo sempre di nuovo riproporci: “Prendi, Signore, e ricevi tutta la mia libertà, la mia memoria, la mia intelligenza e tutta la mia volontà, tutto ciò che ho e possiedo; tu me l’hai dato, a te, Signore, lo ridono; tutto è tuo, di tutto disponi secondo ogni tua volontà; dammi soltanto il tuo amore e la tua grazia; questo mi basta” (ES 234).

    © Copyright 2008 – Libreria Editrice Vaticana

    ==============================
    An accurate precis: The Holy Father called the Jesuits (those in Japan included) to task. They are to live their fourth vow of obedience to the Holy Father; they are to listen, in the obedience in faith, to God, both with and in the Church. They are to love and serve the Vicar of Christ on earth with effective and affective devotion, making them his precious and irreplacable collaborators in the service of the universal Church. If not, everything the Jesuits do will be ambiguous and obscure, leading to confusion and dismay.

  70. Tom says:

    Father Z wrote: “I don’t think it had to be corrected, but now that it has been, I accept it for what it says.”

    I accept the new prayer for what it says.

    I accept the numerous post-Vatican II liturgical novelties for what they say or denote.

    I accept that while I believe that post-Vatican II Popes were/are holy men, they have made tragic decisions regarding their “reforms” of the Roman Rite.

  71. Tom says:

    Father Z wrote: “Both prayers clearly aim at the conversion of the Jews. The newer prayer hits that point even harder than the older prayer.”

    The new “traditional” prayer for Jews aims at the conversion of Jews…I agree.

    Father Z, Pope Benedict XVI declared that the two missals of the “one Roman Rite” do not contradict each other.

    The Novus Ordo prayer for Jews is…well…I don’t know that anybody knows what said prayer means…at least at first glance.
    Now…my question for you, Father Z:

    Again…the Novus Ordo prayer in question is ambiguous.

    But as the two missals do not contradict each other…and as the new “traditional” prayer aims at the conversion of the Jews (we agree on that)…it is right to conclude that despite it’s seemingly unclear nature, that we are to view the Novus Ordo prayer as a prayer for the conversion of the Jews?

    Thank you.

    TLM Tom

  72. Fr Renzo, conscience itself is not free, you say, but there is freedom in the practical judgment based on an informed conscience. The second of these statements seems to me to contradict the first.

    I agree that my phrase on “smuggled into Vatican II” could be ambiguous grammatically, but surely not contextually — since as is well known Vatican II did not pronounce on the morality of contraception.

    “Your words would lead one to think that you claim a brutish morality by force of brute numbers, a might makes right approach, whereby the ordinary teaching [?] of episcopal conferences is, for you, infallible (note your “impossible”), even while the ordinary magisterium of Peter is non-existent or irresponsible (not to mention, not infallible).”

    Again, a misunderstanding. I said it is impossible to regard the teaching against contraception as infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium of bishops because the bishops’ response to Humanae Vitae showed disagreement with it. And far from saying that episcopal conferences are infallible I actually cast doubt on the teaching that the ordinary magisterium of bishops is infallible – a teaching smuggled in at Vatican II without proper discussion.

    “ Nothing of what you write has anything to do with reality.”

    This kind of sweeping statement just spoils your argument.

    “ The reality is that your words (attempt to) lead people astray. You might want to read Humani generis, or, for something more up do date for you, for instance, Evangelium vitae and, then the commentary on Ad tuendam fidem, as in the notes… about… Humanae Vitae… which contradicts what you say.”

    Sure it contradicts what I say – I think Ad tuendam fidem is a classic example of creeping infallibility – a desperate attempt by smoke and mirrors to claim for the teaching on contraception the very infallibility that Paul VI said it did not have.

  73. Diane, how would you translate continenter yourself, in idiomatic English?
    Stably is the best I could come up with.

    As to Bertone’s letter to the Bishop of Novara, it says the Bishop was right and had the mind of the Motu Proprio. He suspended three priests who refused to celebrate the Novus Ordo any more.

    Money quote:“The Supreme Pontiff, who has read with attention the letter and attached documentation has asked me to communicate to you that what Your Excellency maintains “in spiritu lettera” is fully in accord with the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” and the accompanying Letter addressed to the Presuli of the whole world. Liturgical celebrations according to the Books promulated by Pope Paul VI remain the “ordinary form” and the Bishop is the moderator for Liturgy in his diocese.”

  74. Fr Renzo, please remember that I am not a Jesuit but a diocesan priest.
    I am much more tuned in to the thinking of beleaguered bishops than to the rarefied matter of the Fourth Vow, which most Jesuits interpret as simply being at the disposal of the Pope for missions (also they tend to think the Vow should have been scrapped long ago, as it refers to a time when the papacy were planning worldwide missions in the 16th century). Benedict’s free use of teh Ignatian phrase perinde ac cadaver in connection with the Fourth Vow is to my mind insulting and if I were a Jesuit it is something up with which I would not put for a moment. But then I am not a Jesuit and I have no idea what it feels like to be a Jesuit. I know many Jesuits who have the most intense devotion to the Pope and others who plead for a more mature and reflective understanding of obedience, which they claim is what Ignatius really meant (perinde ac cadaver refers to only one moment in the obediential process).

    As to the accusation reported by Rose above that the Jesuits in Japan have given up preaching the Gospel and gone in for education and interreligious dialogue as well, it is pure bile and bilge. If anything the Jesuits could be accused of too much pastoral involvement at the expense of their specific teaching charism (and that is connected with the falling intellectual standards of candidates); they have also fallen behind in the field of interreligious dialogue, where they had set a great headline with the older generation of Enomiya-Lassalle, Dumoulin, Kadowaki, Johnston, et al.

  75. I found this on the net:

    “The Latin continenter is being variously rendered by unofficial English translation as continuously, stable, uninterruptedly; but these are all faulty because they contradict the historical and pastoral context of the document, which is to provide for the faithful who request the Ancient Rite, who do not have access to this Rite. The more general notion of continenter is “as in a manner held together”, that is, “as a body”, “as a group”, “commonly”, “together”, and thus the sense is who petition for this as a group.”

    There is a lot of argument from etymology and context here, to provide a very strained translation.

    Here was my translation:

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists”

    Here are the proposed alternatives:

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition exists as in a manner held together.”

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition exists as a body.”

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition exists as a group.”

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition exists commonly.”

    “In parishes in which a group of faithful adhering to the previous liturgical tradition exists together.”

    All of these alternative translations are pleonastic. The “continenter” adds nothing to “coetum”.

    Moreover, the 1,500 do not exist in a parish as a group, so the phrase still does not cover their case.

    My parsing may seem “ungenerous” but it is necessary to cut through the flimflam.

  76. To whoever: Why should I think you are a Jesuit, or, with your rejection of communion with Peter, why should I think you are any kind of Catholic priest, or any kind or Catholic, or Christian?

    Whoever said:

    Fr Renzo, conscience itself is not free, you say, but there is freedom in the practical judgment based on an informed conscience. The second of these statements seems to me to contradict the first.

    That’s right, the second does contradict the first, but only because the second statement is made up of your own twisted words. What I said was the following, again, in bold, and now, in capital letters (for maybe you are losing your eyesight, perhaps one of those older priests ordained at the time of or just after the Council?):

    Conscience is [that is, provides,] a practical judgment. The conscience itself is not free. One’s conscience is to be formed in attentiveness to natural law and the teaching of the Church. ONE IS FREE TO ACCEPT THE PRACTICAL JUDGMENT FROM SUCH A PROPERLY FORMED CONSCIENCE.

    From the rest of what you say in the comboxs above, you seem to be making a desperate attempt by smoke and mirrors not to listen to God — in obedience in faith — with and in the Church. But, in the midst of all this, don’t forget Natural Law, you know, all that stuff Humanae vitae talks about, like have a good marriage, be fruitful and multiply, don’t violate nature, and don’t kill your children… all good points in Humanae Vitae.

    Back to the original intent of this thread: Christ redeemed marriage with His own marriage with His Bride, the Church, by way of the Last Supper (the Wedding Banquet)and the consumation, so to speak, of that Wedding on Calvary. Christ’s marriage is fruitful, making us the children of God, but only if we cooperate.

    Oh, I forgot, you, whoever, seem to have a most violent hatred for the Mass and its fruitfulness (which is, then, reflected in the rest of your attitudes), for you drew a horrificly unfitting, insulting analogy between those who attend the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and toenail-ring fetishists, etc.

    I suppose I have bothered to respond since someone out there might just benefit, even maybe you, whoever. Can’t you see what you are doing? Again, God will judge us all on our following, or not, of the Natural Law (and on so much more, especially for priests). Why shouldn’t I just think that you are yet another visitor from the Dawkins rubbish site trying to have a bit of fun (but only finding frustration and an invitation to convert)? Even if you are, that judgment will be there for you too. You have a mind. God expects you to use it. Isn’t that reasonable?

    What I would say to you, whoever, is this: If you are a priest, go ahead, spew out everything in your heart and soul and mind right onto paper. Sign it, witnessed. Send it to your bishop, or even bring it to him in person. Send copies to all the relevant roman dicasteries. Then, tell us that you’ve done it, where we can read what you’ve written, and what all the responses are. Before you do that, you might adjust your horrifically ignorant understanding of ecclesiology. Take note: bishops, over against the Pope, cannot propose any magisterial teaching, ordinary or otherwise. And be sure to include my words with your response:

    Fr Renzo di Lorenzo: “You might want to read Humani generis, or, for something more up do date for you, for instance, Evangelium vitae and, then the commentary on Ad tuendam fidem, as in the notes… about… Humanae Vitae… which contradicts what you say.”

    You: Sure it contradicts what I say – I think Ad tuendam fidem is a classic example of creeping infallibility – a desperate attempt by smoke and mirrors to claim for the teaching on contraception the very infallibility that Paul VI said it did not have.

    First, however, I recommend you go here:

    http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-01/25-13/Adoration.pdf

    Along with that, I recommend a thirty day Ignatian retreat with, say, Cardinal Vanhoye. I hear he gives good retreats.

    God bless.

  77. RBrown says:

    RBrown, yes, Colossians may be later than the Pauline letters (since it seems to be by a disciple of Paul rather than Paul himself) but indeed the hymn may be much older than the letter itself. Pointing out correspondences with the hymn underlying the Johannine Prologue would again succest a later date.

    Congrats. You’ve given a superb example of the fallacy of the a priori assumption that High Christology is Later.

    The role of Christ in Creation is linked with his divinity explicitly in John, but it would be reading too much into John to say that he already teaches that the Word is equally divine with the Father. Development of dogma.

    Huh? In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum. Et Deus erat Verbum.

    Doesn’t that mean the Word is equally divine?

    Hegel, at least in his maturity, was a high Christologist, not at all a low Christologist.

    Disagree. The later Hegel concentrates on Christ’s Death and Resurrection, but this is hardly High Christology.

    You are too out of sympathy with the great German philosophers (and German Idealism is more and more being rediscovered as a truly great philosophical moment even by Analytical philosophers today—see for example Espen Hammer, ed. German Idealism: Contemporary perspectives, Routledge.

    If you’re inclined to German idealism Analytic philosophy, then you’re too out of sympathy with reality.

    For the record I believe in the full divinity of the Word as defined at Nicea.

    I also accept Chalcedon’s horos about the hypostatic union of the Word and Jesus of Nazareth as the horizon of my own thinking on the meaning of John 1.14.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    I’ve already noted the equivocal method of theology that you seem to promote.

  78. RBrown says:

    Should be: “German Idealism and Analytic Philosophy”

  79. RBrown says:

    Moreover, the 1,500 do not exist in a parish as a group, so the phrase still does not cover their case.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    1. In the US it is quite common for Catholics to attend mass outside of their geographical parish. Mass in the vernacular versus populum has meant that people are often subjected to the “liturgical” whims of each celebrant. Consequently, many simply change parishes.

    Further, the priest shortage (which somehow you don’t consider to be damage to the Church) means that daily communicants sometimes must attend more than one Church: Every week I have to attend 4 different parishes.

    2. If, as you seem to assume, the 1500 Parisians are already attending Latin masses in their own parishes (which is not indicated in the citation), then I would prefer that remain the situation, simply because it multiplies the number of Latin masses.

  80. Richard says:

    Hello RBrown,

    “2. If, as you seem to assume, the 1500 Parisians are already attending Latin masses in their own parishes (which is not indicated in the citation), then I would prefer that remain the situation, simply because it multiplies the number of Latin masses.”

    I would also prefer to see more Latin (TLM) Masees.

    But, while I don’t know the precise situation which obtains currently in Paris, my guess is that these existing masses are Sunday only affairs. What is lacking is a full sacramental life in the 1962 usage – daily mass, baptism, confirmation, marriage, etc. These would be easier to have access to in a dedicated personal parish.

    Hopefully, however, the foundation of such a parish would not destroy the existing TLM masses.

  81. RBrown says:

    Again, a misunderstanding. I said it is impossible to regard the teaching against contraception as infallibly defined by the ordinary magisterium of bishops because the bishops’ response to Humanae Vitae showed disagreement with it. And far from saying that episcopal conferences are infallible I actually cast doubt on the teaching that the ordinary magisterium of bishops is infallible – a teaching smuggled in at Vatican II without proper discussion.

    1. Documents are binding if they are passed by the bishops and signed by the pope. It is irrelevant whether or not certain texts have been “smuggled” without “proper” discussion.

    2. And of course, your “smuggled” argument could also be made against the Novus Ordo and the vernacularization of the liturgy, which happened with no discussion at all. Frankly, I am surprised that you haven’t stuck by your own principles and opposed the vernaculisation of the liturgy.

    3. According to LG the first condition for the Ordinary Universal Magisterium for bishops is that they preserve “amongst themselves and with the successor of Peter the bond of communion”. How can any bishop dissenting from Humanae Vitae can be said to be in communion with the successor of Peter?

    Sure it contradicts what I say – I think Ad tuendam fidem is a classic example of creeping infallibility – a desperate attempt by smoke and mirrors to claim for the teaching on contraception the very infallibility that Paul VI said it did not have.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    When did Paul VI say it was not infallible?

    But the notion of infallibility on moral teaching is very complex, simply because of clear-obscure is present in every human act.

  82. RBrown says:

    Richard,

    I understand what you are say, but is it likely that 1500 Parisians would be able to come from all over the city for daily mass?

    IMHO, this is a situation that admirably demonstrates the need for SSPX reunion with Rome. They are already in Churches in France and Germany, and so the local bishops would be taken out of the equation.

    Consequently, the present attitude of the SSPX can be said to be inhibiting the spread of Latin liturgy.

  83. Pope Paul VI did not proclaim Humanae Vitae as infallible doctrine.

    His public spokesman, Monsignor Ferdinand Lambruschini, stated at the press conference presenting the encyclical:

    “The pronouncement has come. It is not infallible, but it does not leave the questions concerning birth regulation in a condition of vague problematics. Assent of theological faith is due only to definitions properly so-called, but there is owed also loyal and full assent, interior and not only exterior, to an authentic pronouncement of the magisterium, in proportion to the level of the authority from which it emanates — which in this case is the supreme authority of the Supreme Pontiff — and to its object, which is most weighty, since it is a matter of the tormented question of the regulation of births. In particular, it can and must be said that the authentic pronouncement of the Humanae Vitae encyclical prevents the forming of a probable opinion, that is to say an opinion acting on the moral plane in contrast with the pronouncement itself, whatever the number and the hierarchical, scientific, and theological authority of those who considered in the past few years that they could form it for themselves. The pretext of a presumed doubt in the Church because of the Pope’s long silence has no substance and is in conflict with the renewed pontifical and conciliar appeals to observe previous and always valid directives of the magisterium.”

    In a subsequent article Lambruschini argues that the teaching is not irreformable (“Statement Accompanying Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Catholic Mind, Vol. 66, No. 1225; September 1968; pp. 54-55).

    When the Birth Control Commission first met in the early 1960s, the first question they had to deal with was whether the teaching could be changed. They decided it could, and the Pope agreed, then added more people to the Commission to continue the investigations.

    Moral theologian Paul Surlis writes in the Irish Times, Feb.: “With reference to Humanae Vitae, when Pope Paul VI, who accepted responsibility for that document, was entrusting it to Cardinal Lambruschini to deliver it to the press, he explicitly said: “Please tell them it’s not infallible.” If the author said that then it is, technically, authentic and one may in good conscience dissent from it. In the aftermath of the promulgation of the encyclical many bishops’ conferences said something similar to what the Belgian Bishops taught in their declaration on Humanae Vitae: “If someone competent in the matter and capable of forming a well-founded judgment – which necessarily supposes sufficient information – after serious investigation, before God, reaches different conclusions on certain points, he/she has the right to follow his/her convictions in this matter, provided that he/she remains disposed to continue his/her investigations.””

  84. Such possibility of informed dissent is of course incompatible with the idea that conscience has no freedom, other than the freedom to obey or disobey what official teaching tells it to do.

    The right or authority of conscience to disobey church authorities, including the Pope, is upheld by Joseph Ratzinger in the Herder commentary on Vatican II; he sees this freedom of conscience as a defence against totalitarianism.

    Elsewhere he writes:

    “John Henry Newman remarked: “Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into afterdinner toasts,… I shall drink – to the Pope, if you please, – still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards.” Ratzinger remarks: “We can now appreciate Newman’s toast first to conscience and then to the pope. The pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it expedient. Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy. The true nature of the Petrine office has become so incomprehensible in the modern age no doubt because we only think of authority in terms which do not allow for bridges between subject and objects. Accordingly, everything which does not come from the subject is thought to be externally imposed. But the situation is really quite different according to the anthropology of conscience which we have tried to come to an appreciation of in these relations. The anamnesis instilled in our being needs, one might say, assistance from without so that it can become aware of itself. But this ‘from without’ is not something set in opposition to anamnesis but ordered to it. It has maieutic function, imposes nothing foreign, but brings to fruition what is proper to anamnesis, namely its interior openness to the truth….

    ““The true sense of teaching authority of the pope consists in his being the advocated of the Christian memory. The pope does not impose from without. Rather he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. For this reason the toast to conscience indeed must precede the toast to the Pope because without conscience there would not be papacy. All power that the papacy has is power of conscience. It is service to the double memory upon which the faith is based and which again and again must be purified, expanded and defended against the destruction of memory which is threatened by a subjectivity forgetful of its own foundation as well as by the pressures of social and cultural conformity.””

  85. cor ad cor loquitur says:

    In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit

    It had always seemed to me that continenter could as easily modify adhaerentium as exsistit, so that you could translate this as

    In those parishes where a group of faithful come forward who demonstrate a steadfast adherence to the older liturgical traditions, [let the parish priest …]

    But didn’t the PCED or some Vatican authority clarify the Latin, in a response to a dubium? Or is my memory failing here?

  86. So, journalists and theologians are infallible now. I see.

    Newman and Ratzinger undo everything you say.

    But, never mind them. See, instead, the Commandments, the Gospels, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and, oh, yes, let’s repeat this:

    Fr Renzo di Lorenzo: “You might want to read Humani generis, or, for something more up do date for you, for instance, Evangelium vitae and, then the commentary on Ad tuendam fidem, as in the notes… about… Humanae Vitae… which contradicts what you say.”

    You: Sure it contradicts what I say – I think Ad tuendam fidem is a classic example of creeping infallibility – a desperate attempt by smoke and mirrors to claim for the teaching on contraception the very infallibility that Paul VI said it did not have.

    Oh, I guess that doesn’t work because you’ve refused to read this:

    Conscience is [that is, provides,] a practical judgment. The conscience itself is not free. One’s conscience is to be formed in attentiveness to natural law and the teaching of the Church. One is free to accept the practical judgment from such a properly formed conscience.

    Of course, as I’ve also said, you’re free to sin as well. But there are consequences.

    You remind me of a seminarian a while back who was taking moral theology 101 at the Gregorian University, and was spewing out all the same rubbish as you. I asked him if he ever read Humanae vitae and the response was “No, but my professor said…” For him, his professor was infallible.

    P.S. I guess the bit about checking out the Commandments, the Gospels, the Mass won’t work either because, well, let’s just repeat these, my words to you:

    Oh, I forgot, you, whoever, seem to have a most violent hatred for the Mass and its fruitfulness (which is, then, reflected in the rest of your attitudes), for you drew a horrificly unfitting, insulting analogy between those who attend the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and toenail-ring fetishists, etc.

  87. RBrown says:

    Spirit of VatII,

    I don’t know why you’re playing games with the question of the infallibility of Humanae Vitae. The truth is that you’re not really keen on any Catholic sexual teaching, including homosexuality.

  88. Yes. cor ad cor, ingenious. But contintenter coming after the noun it qualifies seems wrong to me.

    RBrown, no games — just pointing out that it’s not infallible, tout simplement.

    Meditate on this from Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “If either the Pope of the Queen demanded of me an ‘Absolute Obedience,’ he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give absolute obedience to neither.”

    Not very keen on any Catholic sexual teaching? Hmm, I agree with all the positive things in Humanae Vitae and Deus Caritas Est and with all the positive things Augustine says about marriage.

    The things I am not keen on are things the majority of Catholics are not keen on, by and large.

    Fr di Lorenzo, your distortion of my post about 1500 Jeremias Gotthelf fans etc. is unworthy of you. I am happy you found a seminarian saying the same things as myself — I thought they were all supposed to be ultra-conservatives!

  89. RBrown says:

    RBrown, no games—just pointing out that it’s not infallible, tout simplement.

    Whether or not it’s infallible has nothing to do with anything printed in the Irish Times.

    I’ll address the matter of conscience later.

  90. RBrown says:

    Meditate on this from Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk: “If either the Pope of the Queen demanded of me an ‘Absolute Obedience,’ he or she would be transgressing the laws of human nature and human society. I give absolute obedience to neither.”

    I will address this question of obedience later.

    Not very keen on any Catholic sexual teaching? Hmm, I agree with all the positive things in Humanae Vitae and Deus Caritas Est and with all the positive things Augustine says about marriage.

    As I said before, you are an equivocator–you endorse Catholic teaching on marriage but permit certain acts (e.g., homosexuality) that contradict the teaching.

    The things I am not keen on are things the majority of Catholics are not keen on, by and large.

    Since when is morality to be put to a vote?

  91. Nope, no equivocation — I accept the glory of marriage, I believe gays can participate in it analogically. If you listen carefully you will find no equivocation in this.

    Of course morality cannot be put to a vote. But remember the sensus fidelium and the issue of reception.

  92. Spirit: I accept the glory of marriage, I believe gays can participate in it analogically.

    What a perversion of Catholic thought.

  93. Flambeaux says:

    Fr. Z,

    Doesn’t the phrase “perversion of Catholic thought” perfectly describe what then-Cardinal Ratzinger labelled the Council Unsgeist?

  94. RBrown says:

    Nope, no equivocation—I accept the glory of marriage, I believe gays can participate in it analogically. If you listen carefully you will find no equivocation in this.

    You obviously don’t know the difference between equivocation and analogy.

    Of course morality cannot be put to a vote. But remember the sensus fidelium and the issue of reception.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    More equivocation. The sensus fidelium applies to the teachings of the Church in so far as the faithful believe that the Church has by Divine Right the authority to teach. Anyone who rejects Catholic teaching also rejects a priori that very authority–and thus has a certain deficiency of faith.

    And so your equivocation fails . . . once again.

  95. Fr Z, I know gay couples (male ones and female ones) who have lived together for many years ina creative and loving partnership. Surely you do too.

    You may say that the blessings of such relationships (which it would be perverse to deny)come under the rubric of friendship and have nothing to do with marriage.

    But I do not think it would be perverse to argue, as these couples themselves sometimes do, that the life-project they have embarked on participates analogically and not merely equivocally in the goods of fides, proles, sacramentum. Their unbreakable love for one another with themutual aid and companionship it implies (not to mention the remedium concupiscentiae aspect) is a triumph of fides (faithful devotion).

    Their relationships are not procreative, so proles might be ruled out (none have adopted) but in the greater creativity they achieve together more than if they remained isolated one may see a reflection of the creative power of marriage.

    Their relationships are not sacramental marriage, but insofar as the love of friendship reflects Christ’s love it has a sacramental quality in a looser, analogical sense.

    It is 28 years since this idea of analogical participation popped into my head, and while I have not developed it very much I have found it useful in facing the huge upsurge of the idea of gay marriage and civil partnership legislation since then.

    PS Congrats on your measured response to the Lefebvrites on the prayer for the Jews.

  96. As to the sexual aspect of such committed relationships, it can have the unitive qualities that heterosexual marital sex has — though people like Fr Anatrella and Card. Grocholewski deny this.

    Even if it is not entirely satisfactory ethically, it is no more unsatisfactory than contraceptive sex, practiced by the overwhelming majority of Catholic spouses.

  97. All this confirms one of the points of the TRILOGY, namely, that determined homosexual priests, ‘chaste’ or not, are living a lie and must leave or be forced out of the priesthood. This includes those who think of themselves as ‘chaste’ heterosexuals, who, however, approve in whatever way of active homosexual behaviour of whatever kind, or say that homosexual ‘love’ is true in any way.

    Priests act in Persona Christi, reciting His marriage vows for His Bride, the Church: “This is my Body being given for you… This is the chalice of my Blood being shed for you…” It is in this way that the priest is also married to the Church. It is in this way that he becomes a father in the midst of the Church.

    A homosexual, chaste or not, has no capacity to be a father. He is living a lie. This lie will push him to rationalise anything. I would not be surprised in the least if such a person were not also one who would rationalise the sexual abuse of those, say, under 18, as a good thing at least in some ways in some circumstances. This may be denied, but, as I argue in the TRILOGY, this is the way that attitude must work. Even the statistics demonstrate this.

    What we see here is a lockstep process: denial of original sin leading to the denial of personal sin leading to the denial of any need for redemption leading to the denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass as the marriage of Christ with His Bride, the Church, leading to the denial of human marriage and the fruit of that marriage with contraception and abortion leading to the denial of the difference of the sexes leading to homosexuality leading to the extreme violence of Sodom and Gomorrah leading straight to hell.

    Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, is great. He mentions that the suppression of truth and inversion of life go hand in hand. He knows the importance of Natural Law.

  98. Fr di Lorenzo, you are repeating Cardinal Grocholewski’s ill-fated letter of two years ago and Fr Anatrella’s even more ill-fated official commentary. Sorry, but no one is buying that. The document in question was received by the generals of the religious orders and the top bishops as saying that only some kinds of gay seminarians should be excluded from seminaries.

    “This includes those who think of themselves as ‘chaste’ heterosexuals, who, however, approve in whatever way of active homosexual behaviour of whatever kind, or say that homosexual ‘love’ is true in any way.”

    This is Anatrella-style homophobia.

    But you go beyond Anatrella when you write: “A homosexual, chaste or not, has no capacity to be a father. He is living a lie.”

    You mean that a homosexual priest cannot be a father in the sense that he cannot sincerely enact the paternal dimension of his role. Well, you have just written off some of the great spiritual fathers of history, such as Newman. I dread to think what the effect of such dehumanizing and demonizing pontifications are on those you encounter in the Confessional.

    “will push him to rationalise anything.” The arguments put forward by me are rational ones, if you have an argument against them, formulate it rationally. You will find the same arguments put forward by many who are neither priests nor gay, so your suppositious suspicions get your argument nowhere. Your Blosser style “sniff his underpants” method of argumentation could even
    rebound on yourself, if anyone took the trouble to read your rather revealing fictional outpourings!

    Raving, wild-eyed religious fanaticism follows:

    “What we see here is a lockstep process: denial of original sin leading to the denial of personal sin leading to the denial of any need for redemption leading to the denial of the Sacrifice of the Mass as the marriage of Christ with His Bride, the Church, leading to the denial of human marriage and the fruit of that marriage with contraception and abortion leading to the denial of the difference of the sexes leading to homosexuality leading to the extreme violence of Sodom and Gomorrah leading straight to hell.”

    Your wonderfully fantasized identikit does not fit this particular correspondent at all. I hope I am duly conscious of sin and of the need of redemption and of the value of the Eucharist.
    I honor the sacredness of marriage and I want to see the evil of abortion reduced.

    It is nonsense to say that denial of the difference of the sexes leads to homosexuality — such utter nonsense that it needs no answer.

    I am really sorry for you that you seem unable to argue rationally and that you have made the priesthood an occasion for such hellfire ranting. This cannot do anyone any good. Sit back, relax, study, dialogue, get your perspective on human nature a little more adjusted to reality, is my fraternal advice to you.
    With this I must bring our discussion to an end.

  99. For the lockstep bit, all one needs to do is read the first chapter of Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans. Wonderful. Saint Paul, BTW, does not hate anyone who suffers from any perversion or inversion. He wants to bring them to the Truth in Charity, an understanding which risks being misunderstood, to be sure, but an understanding rooted in obedience in faith. I pray that I might always be worthy of being this great apostle’s disciple.

    Hatred of Holy Mass, lack of fatherly governance by many bishops, and homosexuality among the clergy are grave problems in the Church that have consequences in the entire world. I hope that making an effort to provide workable solutions to these problems is not evil.

  100. Spirit: Fr Z, I know gay couples (male ones and female ones) who have lived together for many years ina creative and loving partnership. Surely you do too.

    First, this is a rabbit hole and has nothing to do with the subject of this entry.

    Second, what you wrote tries to force that we accept a hidden premise. I respond saying that whatever else it might be, such a relationship isn’t really loving if it has fallen into unnatural behavior. At that point what it is is a distortion of friendship, and therefore it is mutual use and abuse wrapped in civility and confused with some genuine feelings.

    You may say that the blessings of such relationships (which it would be perverse to deny)come under the rubric of friendship and have nothing to do with marriage.

    Yep, that is what I just said. However, you are doing it again. I do not admit the premise you are hiding: this sort of relationship does not confer blessings. As a matter of fact, it does quite the opposite in the end, because it endangers their immortal souls.

    But I do not think it would be perverse to argue, as these couples themselves sometimes do, that the life-project they have embarked on participates analogically and not merely equivocally in the goods of fides, proles, sacramentum.

    Yes, you picked the right word: “perverse”. You are wrapping this in pretty language, such as “life-project”, but readers here must not be deceived. What you are describing is a perversion of the natural order. “Analogical participation” is simply a smoke screen. Sexual homosexual relationships are a perversion of the natural order and they destroy genuine bonds of charity in authentic friendship, and they destroy the bonds of society.

    Their unbreakable love for one another with themutual aid and companionship it implies (not to mention the remedium concupiscentiae aspect) is a triumph of fides (faithful devotion).

    Again, no one here will accept the premises you are determined to hide as you push ahead. What they have cannot by the love which is charity. It isn’t really mutual aid, because they put each other at risk of eternal damnation. As far as the remedium concupiscentiae aspect, this is precisely the most perverse of all. Triumph of fides? What you wrote here is diabolical.

    Their relationships are not procreative, so proles might be ruled out (none have adopted) but in the greater creativity they achieve together more than if they remained isolated one may see a reflection of the creative power of marriage.

    Again the readers will notice that you continue require us to accept certain things as unchallenged: greater creativity? Reflection of marriage?

    Their relationships are not sacramental marriage, but insofar as the love of friendship reflects Christ’s love it has a sacramental quality in a looser, analogical sense.

    Their relationship are not marriage in any sense. Reflection of Christ’s love? You have now verged into blasphemy.

    It is 28 years since this idea of analogical participation popped into my head, and while I have not developed it very much I have found it useful in facing the huge upsurge of the idea of gay marriage and civil partnership legislation since then.

    There is still time for you to abandon this.

    I am now abandoning it for this blog. This is the last, as in final, word on this topic, in this entry.

    This is official declared a rabbit hole.

    PS Congrats on your measured response to the Lefebvrites on the prayer for the Jews.

    Thanks! I appreciate that feedback.

    I hope you will see my response to your positions as measured.

  101. I’m still wondering if there are any plans for Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet ! ! !

  102. RBrown says:

    The issue of conscience is complex because the word is used in various ways–as a faculty, habit, or act. Better to concentrate on the basic approaches to theology.

    1. The Deontological approach (AKA conservative theology). This has its roots in the Franciscans of the Middle Ages and was taken up by the Jesuits and the Manualists. There is a very legalistic concept of the moral act–Too much emphasis on the Object at the expense of Intention. Because it emphasizes Obedience and de-emphasizes freedom and the conscience, there is very little need for the concept of natural law or malum intrinsecum.

    This is univocal theology–it tends toward Rigorism.

    2. The Intentional school (AKA liberal theology). This has its roots also in the Middle Ages, with Abelard. Basically, in this theology the morality of the human act is a matter of intention. Atlhough it rightly emphasizes freedom and the importance of the conscience, it is deficient in natural law and malum intrinsicum. There is too much emphasis on Intention at the expense of the Moral Object. Versions of this approach are now found in the Spiritual Existential of Karl Rahner and in Proportionalists (e.g., Curran)

    This is equivocal theology–it tends toward Laxism.

    It is easy to see that #1 and #2 are contraries. And it can be understood why someone like Josef Fuchs, who once was a #1 hardliner, later joined the second school.

    IMHO, both #1 and #2 are attractive because many are repelled by the clear-obscure, which I think is intrinsic to moral theology. Both want too much clarity in judging concrete acts. The exaggerated desire for clarity of #1 is obvious. Surprisingly, it is also found in #2, e.g., the insistence that sins of weakness involving grave matter can never be mortal because they do not violate the Fundamental Option.

    Considering both to be deficient and moral relativism, I am a member of #3:

    3. The Thomist school, in which freedom and the conscience are important concepts. Here Prudence (rather than Obedience) is the kingpin of the moral act–for St Thomas the moral life consists in the proper ordering of particular goods. But Prudence (a virtue of the practical reason) exists only alongside natural law and malum intrinsecum.

    That is why I agree with the Newman diatribe against Blind Obedience, but disagree with Spirit of VatII.

    In this school antecedent passion mitigates culpability (cf sins of weakness), but it is still possible that a mortal sin has been committed.

    BTW, a few years ago I heard Herbert McCabe, op, speak, the first part of the lecture being an at least an implicit paean to Wittgenstein’s philosophy. The second part he spoke of Prudence. Sorry, Rev Father, that doesn’t work.

  103. RBrown says:

    But I do not think it would be perverse to argue, as these couples themselves sometimes do, that the life-project they have embarked on participates analogically and not merely equivocally in the goods of fides, proles, sacramentum. Their unbreakable love for one another with the mutual aid and companionship it implies (not to mention the remedium concupiscentiae aspect) is a triumph of fides (faithful devotion).

    Their relationships are not procreative, so proles might be ruled out (none have adopted) but in the greater creativity they achieve together more than if they remained isolated one may see a reflection of the creative power of marriage.

    Their relationships are not sacramental marriage, but insofar as the love of friendship reflects Christ’s love it has a sacramental quality in a looser, analogical sense.

    It is 28 years since this idea of analogical participation popped into my head, and while I have not developed it very much I have found it useful in facing the huge upsurge of the idea of gay marriage and civil partnership legislation since then.

    PS Congrats on your measured response to the Lefebvrites on the prayer for the Jews.
    Comment by Spirit of Vatican II

    There is no human love that can be called “unbreakable”–it is all breakable.

    But granting that there could be (or that you would merely use the term “love), your use of it is equivocal not analogical. Although love is a good, it is a genus not a species because it lacks an object–and the object may be suitable or not (obiectum conveniens). Thus a genus that is good can be good or evil in its species depending on the object.

    Thus unbreakable love (or love) can be good or evil in its species and thus can be predicated of any human relationship, inside or outside of marriage.

    The irony is that the flaw in your argument is the same as the LeFebvrist argument that the consecration of bishops was good.

  104. RBrown says:

    Should be:

    Unbreakable love (or just love), which can be good or evil in its species, and thus can be predicated of any human relationship, inside or outside of marriage.

  105. RBrown says:

    Should be:

    Unbreakable love (or merely “love”), which can be good or evil in its species, can be predicated of any human relationship, inside or outside of marriage.

  106. “3. The Thomist school, in which freedom and the conscience are important concepts. Here Prudence (rather than Obedience) is the kingpin of the moral act—for St Thomas the moral life consists in the proper ordering of particular goods. But Prudence (a virtue of the practical reason) exists only alongside natural law and malum intrinsecum.”

    This is fine. But note that natural law thinking develops.