Slavishly accurate liturgical translations & frank commentary on Catholic issues - by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)
![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Z-Cam and Radio Sabina: 
Here are a few links to posts that might be of greatest interest.
I am very grateful to those of you who have used the donation button. Please be assured that I remember you in my prayers, as one ought to remember benefactors.
This list of links isn’t exhaustive! God back and look around. Enjoy!
VOTE!
Add the WDTPRS feed to your site:
This is in from The Catholic League:
July 31, 2008Just doing my small part to let you know what is going on.
UNIV. OF MINN. CHANCELLOR ON MYERS:
HE’S IN THE CLEAR
On July 25, the University of Minnesota (UMN) at Morris issued a statement by its chancellor, Jacqueline Johnson, which began with the following paragraph: “I believe that behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible. The University of Minnesota Board of Regents Policy: [sic] Code of Conduct prohibits such behavior in the workplace—of course this includes the classroom—and I expect those who work and study here to comply with that policy.” She then proceeded to say that Professor Paul Z. Myers, who intentionally (and with malice) desecrated the Eucharist, was expressing his own views and not those of UMN.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued a news release the same day, saying, “This is classic: Johnson admits Myers has violated the UMN’s Code of Conduct and then proceeds to tell us why he is being allowed to do so with impunity—it’s a matter of academic freedom.”
Johnson faxed a letter to Donohue today saying she needed to address his “misunderstanding” of her statement. She makes it plain that because Myers posted his comments on his personal blog, he did not violate UMN’s Code of Conduct.
Donohue sent Johnson the following letter today:
“I am sorry for my generosity: I took it that the reason you began your statement of July 25 with a citation of UMN’s Code of Conduct as it applies to religious intolerance was your way of acknowledging Myers’ delinquency. I now stand corrected: Your comment was simply a ploy—a cute way of acknowledging that something was wrong, but certainly not anything that would demand your attention. And just so you don’t misunderstand me: You could have issued a statement saying that while UMN has no authority over what Myers says in his blog, it is morally indefensible for anyone to intentionally desecrate the Eucharist. But, no, you couldn’t even say that. Instead, you hide behind legalisms. We will let the Catholic community know of your decision.”
Contact Chancellor Johnson at jrjohnso@morris.umn.edu
Today in La Repubblica there was an interview by Marco Politi with His Excellency Archbp. Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
There is a lot here that will be familiar to readers of WDTPRS!
"Why Ratzinger is recouping the sacred"
Marco Politi
The signal was unmistakable. First Coprus Christi in Rome, then seen live all over the word from Sydney. Benedict XVI is demanding that, before him, Communion be received on one’s knees. It is one of many reclamations of this pontificate: Latin, the "Tridentine" Mass, celebration with the back to the faithful.
Pope Ratzinger has a plan and the and the Sri Lankan [Archbishop] Malcolm Ranjith, whom the Pontiff wanted with him in the Vatican as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, lays out with efficacy.
Attention to liturgy, he explains, has the objective of an "openness to the transcendent". At the request of the Pope, Ranjith states in advance, the Congregation for divine Worship is preparing a Compendium on the Eucharist to help priests to "prepare themselves well for Eucharistic celebration and adoration".
Does Communion kneeling aim in this direction?"In the liturgy one feels the necessity to recover the sense of the sacred, above all in Eucharistic celebration. Since we believe that what happens at the altar goes far beyond what we can humanly imagine. And so the faith of the Church in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species is expressed through adequate gestures and comportments different from those of daily life".
Indicating a discontinuity?"We are not in front of a political figure or a personage of modern society, but before God. When the presence of eternal God descends on the altar, we must place ourselves in a posture more apt for adoring It. In my culture, in Sri Lanka, we ought to prostrate ourselves with head to the pavement as the buddhists and muslims do in prayer.
Does putting the Host in the hand diminish the sense of transcendence of the Eucharist?
"Yes, in a certain sense. It risks that the communicant feel It to be as normal bread. The Holy Father speaks often of the necessity of safeguarding the sense of "transcendence" (al di la) in the liturgy in its every expression. The gesture of taking the Sacred Host and putting it ourselves in the mouth and not receiving It reduces the profound meaning of Communion."
Is there a desire to oppose trends that banalize the Mass?
"In some places that sense of the eternal, sacred or heavenly has been lost. There was a tendency to put man at the center of the celebration, and not the Lord. But the Second Vatican Council speaks clearly about the liturgy as actio Dei, actio Christi. Instead, in certain liturgical circles, either for an ideology or a certain intellectualism as you please, the idea spread of a liturgy adaptable to various situations, in which one had to leave room for creativity, so that it be accessible and acceptable to all. Then, rather, there were those who introduced innovations without even respecting the sensus fidei and the spiritual sentiments of the faithful."
At times even bishops grap the microphone and go out to their listeners with questions and answers.
"The modern danger is that the priest things that he is at the center of the action. In that way the rite can take on an aspect of theatre or the performance of a television host. The celebrant sees the people who see him as the point of reference and there is a risk that, to have the greatest success possible with the public, he makes up gestures and expressions as if he were the main character."
What would be the right attitude?
"When the priest knows that it is not he at the center, bu Christ. In humble service to the Lord and the Church respecting the liturgy and its rules, as something to be received and not to be invented, it means leaving greater room for the Lord, because through the priest as the instrument He can spark the awareness of the faithful."Are sermons by lay people also deviations?
"Yes. Because the sermon, as the Holy Father says, is the way in which Revelation and the great Tradition of the Church is explained, so that the Word of God can inspire the life of the faithful in their daily choices and render the liturgical celebration rich with spiritual fruits. The liturgical tradition of the Church reserves the sermon to the celebrant. To bishops, to priests, and to deacons. But not to laypeople.Absolutely not?
"Not because they are not capable of doing making a reflection, but because in the liturgy roles must be respected. There exists, as the Council said, a difference ‘in essence and not only in grade" between the common priesthood of all the baptized and that of priests".
Some time ago Card. Ratzinger was complaining about the loss in the rites of the sense of mystery.
"Often the conciliar reform was interpreted or considered in a way not entirely in conformity with the mind of Vatican II. The Holy Father defines this tendency as the ‘anti-spirit’ of the Council.
A year now since the full reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass, what is the assessment?
"The Tridentine Mass has its very profound internal values which reflect the whole tradition of the Church. There is more respect toward the sacred through gestures, genuflections, the times of silence. There is greater room reserved for reflection on the action of the Lord and also for the celebrant’s personal sense of devotion, who offers the sacrifice not only for the faithful but also for his own sins and his own salvation. Some important elements of the old rite can help also a reflection on the manner of celebrating the Novus Ordo. We are in the midst of a journey.
Some day in the future is there foreseen a rite that takes the best of the old and of the new?
"That could be, ... but perhaps I don’t see that. I think that in the coming decades we will move toward a comprehensive evaluation both of the older rite and of the new, safeguarding whatever is eternal and supernatural happening at the altar and reducing every desire to be the in the limelight so as to leave space for effective contact between the faithful and the Lord through the figure, but not predominantly, of the priest."
With alternative positions of the celebrant? When the priest would be turned around toward the apse?
"You could consider the offertory, when the offerings are brought to the priest, and from there all the way to the Eucharistic prayer, which represents the culminating moment of "transsubstantiatio" and "communio".
The priest who turns his back disorients the faithful.
"It is a mistake to speak in that way. On the contrary, he is turned to the Lord together with the people. The Holy Father, in his book The Spirit of the Council, explained that when people are sitting around looking at each other, a closed circle is formed. But when the priest and the faithful together a looking to the East, toward the Lord who comes, that is a way of opening up to the eternal".
In this view you put also the rehabilitation (recupero) of Latin?
"I don’t like the word ‘rehabilitation’. We are implementing the Second Vatican Council, which explicitly affirmed that the use of the Latin language, except in the case of particular law, was to be preserved in the Latin Rites. So, if room was also left for the introduction of vernacular languages, Latin wasn’t to be completely abandoned. The use of a sacred language is a tradition in the whole world. In Hinduism the language of prayer is Sanskrit, which isn’t in use anymore. In Buddhism Pali is used, a language which only Buddist monks study. In Islam the Arabic of the Koran is used. The use of a sacred language helps us to a lived experience of "transcendence (al di la)".
Latin as the sacred language of the Church?
"Of course. The Holy Father himself speaks in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum caritatis in paragraph 62: "In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin." Of course, in during international gatherings."
What does Benedict XVI want to accomplish, giving new force back to the liturgy?
"The Pope wants to offer the possibility of arriving at the wonder of life in Christ, a life that in the very living here on earth already leads us to sense the freedom and the eternity belonging to the children of God. And this kind of experience is lived powerfully through an authentic renewal of the faith which presupposes a foretaste of the heavenly reality in the liturgy one believes in, one celebrates and one lives. The Church is, and must become, the powerful instrument and the means for this liberating liturgical experience. And it is her liturgy that makes it possible to spark such an experience in her faithful".
There is some nice video from Stefano Maria Paci and SKY TG24 of the Holy Father on vacation in Bressanone, Italy with his brother Msgr. Georg Ratzinger, later joined by the other Msgr. Georg, the private secretary. The three of them joke around a little.
In the video the Pope and his brother during their stroll stop before a small and very old statue of Mary and Child. Mary is teaching Jesus how to bless. Sweet.
Our friends at Rorate have posted a very interesting interview with Prof. Luc Perrin at the Univ. of Strasbourg about the state of the question of the SSPX, Summorum Pontificum, unity, a year after the Motu Proprio and twenty years about the SSPX split with the Catholic Church.
My emphases and comments. Not my translation.
A Historian observes the Catholic moment
One year of Summorum Pontificum and the SSPX
Luc Perrin is a professor at the University of Strasbourg, where he teaches History of the Church. Perrin, widely known in Traditionalist circles in France, has written several works on the History of the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar trends in the Catholic Church, including on the so-called "Traditionalist Question", such as L’affaire Lefebvre (The Lefebvre Affair) and Paris à l’heure de Vatican II (Paris at the time of Vatican II).
We have interviewed Professor Perrin twice in the past, and have asked him a few questions on the Catholic moment one year after Summorum Pontificum and on the future of the negotiations of the Holy See with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX).
______________________________
Q: As a historian and as an observer of the Catholic Church in the past decades, do you believe that the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum has been relevant for the universal Church? Has its impact been what you expected when it was published one year ago?
PERRIN: First of all, it is important to underline that this 2007 motu proprio can have a major impact only on the long term for various reasons. The vast majority of the clergy and the episcopate worldwide has been trained to see the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite as "the" Rite per se, a so-called "restoration" of a pretended Early Christian times liturgy and "the" liturgy promoted by The Council, the only council they know or want to know [Good point.] i.e. Vatican II. They have a sort of Berlin Wall in their mind that keeps them protected from any interference from the Liturgical Roman tradition. This mental wall is extremely thick and resistant.
We can see how entranched the neo-liturgical lobbies are at every level (Roman Curia, episcopal committees, diocesan Curia, seminaries, parishes) with one example regarding the Ordinary Form. In most vernacular Masses (English, Italian etc.), "pro multis" is abusively translated into "for all", instead of "for many". John Paul II, with "Liturgiam Authenticam" in 2001, specifically mentioned this abuse, to no effect. Five years later, cardinal Arinze, prefect of CDW [the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments], sent a letter to the bishops where the false translation is currently used asking them to make a "necessary catechesis" of the people within "one or two years" so the change finally comes true. One year passed, a second year is nearly over and guess what … nothing happened. Thus the neo-liturgical establishment has been powerful enough to block the change of … two words during 7 years. The "pro multis" movie is going to stay on the screen for a while : cardinal Arinze recently approved the new translation but for the USA only and he is giving a new … delay to prepare the faithful that should have been prepared during the past two years. But without any specific date. So don’t expect that in one year any substantial change of attitude regarding the Extraordinary Form could have taken place. [I too am frustrated about the perpetual delays. However, I think Perrin’s analysis is not entirely fair.]
Besides, some episcopal attitudes [He means "some bishops"!] have made it clear from the start: the German, Swiss and Polish bishops took a stand of frontal opposition after the release of the document during Fall 2007. In France, episcopal opposition was very vocal before the motu proprio, especially in 2006, but the majority of French bishops adopted a more quiet attitude after July 2007. Wisely, the French Conference of bishops abstained to edit abusive guidelines like in Germany. In general, French bishops refrained to publish anything like open restrictions added to the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, like a few American or Italian bishops initially did. But a "containment policy" is implemented under the leadership of cardinal Vingt-Trois, archbishop of Paris, elected president of French bishops in 2007, especially for his subtle opposition to the pope’s will to free the Traditional Latin Mass. The aim of this policy is to retain a 1984-1988 regime [In other words, pretent that Summorum Pontificum never came out and that we are still living under the provisions of Quattuor abhinc annos and Ecclesia Dei adflicta.] in spite of Summorum Pontificum: bishops want to stay those who allow or not the celebration of the Extraordinary Form, superseding the faculties granted by the pope to the parish pastors and chaplains. Only a minority of French bishops is really open to a generous implementation of the Motu proprio.
Some facts are illustrating this containment policy: not a single personal parish (article 10) has been erected in France in a year; the 3 existing personal parishes were erected in 2005 and 2006. Not a single seminary has scheduled to systematically train the future priests in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form: in the best cases, like in Toulon under very benevolent Bishop Rey, the eventual volunteers are allowed to attend a training given by local traditionalist priests. One of the most hostile bishops, Archbishop Jordan of Rheims, granted a Mass but for two Sundays per month … The reluctance to call for traditional Institutes is obvious, although it’s not a general rule. In Paris, the cardinal-archbishop is refusing to negotiate a status for the Good Shepherd Institute which has a small conference center (Centre Saint-Paul) and traditional institutes have not a single diocesan apostolate. The contrast is striking with the former president of French bishops, cardinal Ricard, who has in his diocese of Bordeaux two FSSP chapels, one ICR-SP chapel and signed an agreement with the Good Shepherd for Saint-Éloi church in February 2007. So the increase of TLM locations is slow in France though it happens in spite of all these obstacles. According to some observers, around 40 new locations have been added to those existing under the Ecclesia Dei canonical provisions.
The situation is similar in most European countries, except maybe in Italy where apart from a very hostile lobby, several bishops look at the Motu proprio with an open eye, like Archbishop Bagnasco their president. I have not heard, so far, of a great echo either in Latin America (except for Brazil) or Africa and that was utterly predictable. On the contrary, as for the Ecclesia Dei motu proprio of John Paul II, implementation in the USA and Canada is much more encouraging both from the bishops and clergy. If we remember the hostile position of cardinal Lehmann (Germany), the negative attitude expressed by cardinal Murphy O’Connor (England), the containment policy of cardinal Vingt-Trois, it is amazing to see the benevolent policy of cardinal George, president of USCCB. In his diocese of Chicago (USA), he blessed the Canons of Saint John Cantius (who are celebrating with both Forms) and then invited the Institute of Christ the King (TLM only); the Liturgical Institute founded by the Cardinal is adding a mandatory course on the Extraordinary Form in its program and sessions of training have been organized for volunteers to learn how to celebrate with the Canons and in presence of Bishop Perry, the African American auxiliary Bishop of Chicago, who is known for his attachment to Liturgical tradition.
In short, Summorum Pontificum’s practical implementation is a replica of Ecclesia Dei’s expansion and limits. [Well… yes and not. It is less than a year that Summorum Pontificum is in force. It takes time to build.] So far, PCED [the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’] has not used its new authority – articles 7,8 and 12 -, just like the Pontifical Commission was not enforcing the provisions of the previous Motu proprio. [There is a lot to consider here. What would a policy of "enforcement" involve? Also, what obstacles have been – at least in the past – placed in front of the PCED within the Curia itself? These obstacles probably still give shape to the interior policy of the Commission.] We have also to remind that it’s not easy, even with a welcoming parish pastor and bishop, for a group of lay people to be constituted in countries like France, where Catholicism is in sharp decline. Moreover, the TLM is very demanding in energy, financial contribution and time for lay people. [I am not so sure about this. It need not be. Perhaps in some places where there is literally nothing left of decent things for Holy Mass, or they have to support a priest to do it, this is the case. I have in mind the Diocese in the USA where the bishops established a place and chaplain for the older Mass but said that he would support it as long as people paid the bills. People got angry because they were asked to support it financially. So there are problems to be sure.] In many aspects, the "active participation" of lay people in the Extraordinary Form Mass communities is superior to what it is in the standard Novus Ordo parish. You need more than one year to build a community. [Right. But I get the impression that that realization doesn’t inform all of the comments made here. But let’s read on.]
However we should consider two facts that need time to be fully received by the Church. First fact: the status of the traditional Roman rite (Extraordinary Form) has been firmly settled as never before. [But some will complain that it isn’t becaues Benedict XVI changed the Good Friday prayer. They are wrong, of course, and this guy right. But that doesn’t change the grousing.] On the very long term, it could help to influence the liturgical studies and consequently the teaching in seminaries and Faculties (see the examples of Mundelein and Kenrick-Glennon seminaries for Chicago and Saint-Louis which are magnets for vocations). The second fact is nearly impossible to evaluate: how many priests, especially young priests in Europe and Northern America, will have a spiritual benefit from article 2? [This is what I maintain is perhaps the single greatest point of importance of Summorum Pontificum.] It could be very interesting to have an inquiry to know the impact of the private celebration in the Extraordinary Form among priests.
I have constantly drawn attention to the structure of the motu proprio: the extension of the celebration in the parishes comes with article 5 but the right to celebrate privately for priests comes with article 2, i.e. the clergy is the main target of the document. [YES! Excellent! (Has he been reading WDTPRS from the beginning?)] Those who deeply refuse any move in the liturgical field toward Tradition are betting on the 3 year delay mentioned by the pope in his letter to the bishops. They are perfectly aware that Summorum Pontificum requests years and years, decades, to have a serious impact and bears its fruit so the "containment policy": in 2010, they will pretend the motu proprio is a failure and ask it to be rescinded. [This is really really really important.]
[Now we switch gears…]
Q: What are the similarities and the differences in the attitude of the FSSPX [SSPX] and the Holy See in the negotiations of May-June 1988 and of June-July 2008?
PERRIN: [Here is a status quaestionis.] Let us recall the whole process was in three, not two steps: the negotiations of 1988, the second attempt in 2000-2002 that ended with a declaration of Bishop Fellay saying the talks were stalled then the new talks that started after the August 2005 short encounter between pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay.
We can find some similarities between the 1978 election of John Paul II, who chose to meet Archbishop Lefebvre very quickly after his election and the election of Benedict XVI. But the situations are very different: there was [was] probably still a serious chance to reach a sound canonical agreement in 1988, although it was already difficult at that time like the events of May 5 and 6, 1988 showed. Fr. Tissier de Mallerais was then a member of the SSPX delegation and was urging the Archbishop to sign; [Interesting!] today he is the most vindictive [!] among the four bishops of the Society. He expressed, several times in 2007-2008, a true wrath against pope Benedict XVI, saying that the "horror" [!] of the pope’s theology is letting him "speechless", [Would that that were literally true.] if we can say so for a bishop who has gone very vocal these days. He is now raising the threat of new episcopal consecrations. [Watch the splintering begin.]
Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly seeking a canonical status that would give his priests the possibility to "make the experience of Tradition", as he said in 1975-1976. From 1969 to 1975, when the SSPX was suppressed by Bishop Mamie, this was after all the situation of the Society, in full communion with the Holy See, with a statute that was far less favorable than the 2000 proposal of a personal apostolic administration. However the failure of the 1988 agreement was an indication this path was quite dead like Bishop Galarreta said in June 2008.
In 2000, cardinal Castrillon Hoyos tried to reopen this canonical path: clearly the reluctance was strong on the SSPX side but Bishop Fellay was positively impressed by the open hand of the Holy See. Just like the pope was positively impressed by the decision of the SSPX to participate to the Great Jubilee, in the dioceses and with a big pilgrimage in Rome. But a few months later, Bishop Fellay put the ball in the Roman side with the two prerequisite questions: freedom for the TLM, the excommunications to be lifted. It was a subtle way not to say "yes", without clearly saying "no". [!] This was the beginning of the "in between" policy chosen by Bishop Fellay in order to restore a sense of Romanity within the SSPX: [Interesting.] with years passing by, most Society priests have got only a vague idea of what a "pope" and "Rome" are. [Exactly! After all this time, there is a whole new generation of followers and now members of the SSPX who have never known anything but conflict and separation, hostility and suspicion in regard to the Pope and Rome. We have said this here before on WDTPRS.] So when Bishop Tissier de Mallerais is saying, "In Rome, a new Pope? Really, if he would become worse, there is no need" (The Angelus magazine, interview, July 2008) -, he is probably the voice of many young SSPX priests.
Pope Benedict XVI is well aware of this feeling and he mentioned the danger of a prolonged schismatic attitude in his 2007 letter to the bishops sent with the Motu proprio and his intent to fight it : "one has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden". His election in 2005 allowed a renewal of the talks with Menzingen but, in spite of the Motu proprio or because of it, this phase inaugurated 8 years ago may come to an end. [Sad, if his assesment is accurate.]
[Watch this and keep in mind what I have written about the leadership of the SSPX trying to play to their base when there is any talk of greater unity with Rome. This is really interesting.] Regularly, when the SSPX is getting closer to a reconciliation, the leadership breaks up and a period of "cold war" against Rome begins. For example, from 1988 to 2000, there were very few contacts, if any, between Menzingen and Rome. The lack of permanent structures for a negotiation between the Society and the Holy See is most likely one major reason for the regular failure of the talks. It is impossible to work seriously on complex doctrinal matters when you meet briefly at irregular moments.
Q: What do you believe that the future holds for the Fraternity of Saint Pius X? Is there any hope of reconciliation if not in the Benedictine Pontificate?
PERRIN: The bishops of the Society are now saying that "a certain discouragement is coming back" (Bishop Fellay), to quote the most polite statement. Both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais are openly talking of a 30 year delay, and the latter is even excluding frankly any "reconciliation"; Bp Tissier de Mallerais is using words so offensive that he is coming very close to Sedevacantism, [Wow…] though he still refrains to say so. It’s easy to see why there is, to quote Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, "a hardening of the hearts, a blindness of the minds".
Pope Benedict XVI is strengthening the efforts made by his predecessor to interpret Vatican II "in the light of Tradition", which is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre was requesting in 1978, [!] after his meeting with the Polish pope. The thorny question of the traditional Roman Missal was, during a long time, an obstacle but with Summorum Pontificum, this obstacle is de jure – as Bishop Fellay acknowledged in the July issue of The Angelus – removed; there are still many problems to make it real within Church life and parishes, but the legitimate status of the 1962 missal, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite, is now established. [Excommunication remains an issue too, though easier to resolve in some ways than some of the doctrinal points.]
So we are left to face all the other thorny questions as listed by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: religious liberty, ecumenism, Christian spirit of sacrifice, social kingship of Christ; curiously, the problems raised by inter-faith dialogue is not cited. But to be able to work with Roman theologians on these crucial issues, the SSPX would need some qualified experts and to be able to evaluate the achievements of the Church in the past decades with something more accurate than "John Paul II did nothing to rebuild the Faith" or, speaking of Ecclesia Dei communities, "These poor people (priests, religious, lay people) are liberals and pragmatics" (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais). These conditions are hardly met by the Society today. [Right. This is one of the most important things Prof. Perrin has pointed out so far. He puts it well. The SSPX just doen’t have anyone at the level needed to undertake the sort of doctrinal discussions the SSPX demands. I raised this point in other entries when examining the SSPX’s claims. Do they really think that they could go into a theological discussion with Benedict XVI or those whom he would appoint? Really? If so, they have better put on their big boy underwear and eat their Wheaties, because they will have very hard days indeed.]
Bishop Fellay spoke recently of a "road map" to guide the relationship between Rome and Menzingen and this was an excellent idea, keeping open the eventuality of a reconciliation but as a distant goal and with several steps … in between. [Reasonable? Perhaps.] Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos’ five conditions of June 2008 were a way to request from Bishop Fellay to make a first move, at least a symbolical one. [A very important one, too. There were theological underpinnings: Who is Peter to the SSPX? What does "Rome" mean for Catholics?] The June-July 2008 decisions are apparently – the response of Bishop Fellay to the Cardinal has not been published, only an official statement by Fr. Lorans – to store the "road map" in a drawer. [Another period of détente in the Cold War?] When is Bishop Fellay or his successor going to reopen the drawer and give a serious attention to the road map? Will the papal visit to France in September be a providential occasion to do so? What would be the next step if the excommunications are to be lifted ? Providence will tell us. Maybe a Week of Prayer for … Catholic Unity could help.
And excellent piece. Very informative.
I received this from a reader.
Good questions are raised in the wake of Summorum Pontificum and "Save the Liturgy Save the World", as well as "Say the Black Do the Red" and many other of the points I raise on this blog and elsewhere.
I write this note in all sincerity, being a convert of 25 years. I have still never been to anything other than a Novus Ordo Mass but after spending so much time on your site, I am close to finding one to attend. The recent interviews with Fathers Finigan and Paisley were quite compelling. [They will be pleased to know that.]It will take repeated attempts to address this before we get something like clarity. There are tough theological questions at stake.
Even after following so many discussion threads on WDTPRS (over which my eyes often glaze, esp. concerning the status of the SSPX) I have to ask a question about the cultural assumptions your readers make. You, your guests and your readers all posit that when there is a better translation of the Mass, the priest returns to his stance ad orientem, and the liturgy is offered with reverence, devotion and integrity, the laity will revive and the Church will be strengthened. I understand the theory and how grace works.
But…. Didn’t we have all of this before the Council? Strengthened by all these things, the bulk of the flock still embraced the sexual revolution with abandon and jettisoned years of this very foundation that your readers propose to be the answer. In fact, speaking primarily with women over the last 20 years, I find that the older women are the ones still whispering to their granddaughters to “be safe,” delay marriage, to get advanced degrees and mark out their independence. I repeat, it’s not the mothers so much as the grandmothers in so many cases, and they were the ones with a better education, more exposure to the old Mass, and time to mature before the real recklessness gained speed.
One could argue that the Council rattled the faithful at the very time that they needed to stand firm in age-old truths, but the rejection of Humanae Vitae by such a widespread Catholic population (then and now) seems to weaken the case that a better liturgy carries the weight that its worthy supporters propose.
I don’t mean to be irreverent, but I cannot see that it’s a “silver bullet” [okay] to save us from our current trajectory whose coordinates seem to be self-indulgence and willful blindness. Perhaps I’m of a darker mindset, but I rejoice over the restoration of the EF (from afar) realising that we have the potential to carry a better liturgy (and a host of excellent priests prepared to offer it) into the new catacombs, for sustenance in the coming years.
If we experience Christ as Savior in Holy Mass that experience doesn’t remove the reality of who we are – sinners.
It doesn’t matter which liturgy we are participating in, TLM or Novus Ordo or Divine Liturgy or Anglican Use, Holy Church will remain a communion of saints and sinners. Holy Mass can be "perfect" in form or style or execution, but that will not change the fact the nature of man.
Whether the Church is "exalted" in this world or it goes into the catacombs, the fundamental nature of man will not change.
The form of liturgy, however, is critically important because it directs our thoughts about who we are and who Christ is.
I will be writing and speaking on these issues a lot in the future.
You should definitely go over and visit the site of the gentlemanly Sandro Magister.
Today he has provided us with an English version of the speech Walter Card. Kasper delivered at the Anglican Lambeth meeting in his capacity as President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity.
Let’s have look at what he has to say with my emphases and comments, but you need to go to the site and explore.
The speech itself is quite long. It is preceded by Magister’s good comments.
At Lambeth, Cardinal Kasper Calls for Another Newman
He was the most famous of the converts to the Church of Rome. The pope’s representative at the conference of Anglican bishops asks them to return to the model of the apostolic Church. No to women bishops, and to gay bishops. The complete text of the address
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, July 31, 2008 – The Lambeth Conference, the meeting held once every ten years among the bishops of the Anglican Communion from all over the world, heard yesterday from Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the pontifical council for promoting Christian unity.
The complete text of his address is presented further below. Kasper highlighted the growing distance between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, especially since some of the Anglican provinces began ordaining women to the priesthood in 1974, and to the episcopate beginning in 1989.
Another reason for the estrangement emphasized by Kasper concerns the authorization to bless homosexual unions, and the ordination as bishops of persons in same-sex relationships.
But apart from relations with the Church of Rome, these decisions have created dramatic divisions above all within the Anglican Communion itself. The strongest opposition comes from the developing world, especially from Africa. Of the 44 provinces that make up the Anglican Communion – Kasper noted – 28 ordain women to the priesthood, and 17 allow the ordination of women to the episcopate as well. The others do not. Each province decides for itself, and opposes those that decide differently. To such an extent that – in Kasper’s words – "we now need to take account of the decision of a significant number of Anglican bishops not to attend this Lambeth Conference."
The fragmentation within the Anglican Communion is so serious that Casper asks:
"In such a scenario, [...] who will our dialogue partner be? [Exactly!] Should we, and how can we, appropriately and honestly engage in conversations also with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular Anglican provinces?"
In effect, those in the Anglican Communion who do not accept the ordination of women and the legitimization of homosexuality often enter the Catholic Church.
But the attraction to Catholicism is also of a more general nature. It has to do with an overall understanding of the Church and of Christian tradition since apostolic times until today, which some see as being more faithfully realized in the Catholic Church.
In his address, Cardinal Kasper recalled the "ecclesiological arguments" that convinced the most famous of the 19th century converts, Cardinal John Henry Newman, to embrace Catholicism. And he expressed the hope that there might emerge in the Anglicanism of today a new Oxford Movement, [Interesting. This as perhaps Holy Church is readying itself for the beatification of John Henry Newman.] the movement of return to the tradition of the apostolic Church inspired by Newman.
Since 1980, when the Church of Rome established rules for men ordained to the priesthood or episcopate in the Anglican Communion to enter the Catholic Church, it is calculated that more than 80 of them have taken this step, often followed by large portions of their respective dioceses and parishes.
The latest ceremony to welcome an Anglican minister into the Catholic Church took place privately, last December 1 in Rome, in the papal basilica of St. Mary Major.
On one side was the American cardinal archpriest of the basilica, Bernard Law. On the other was the former Anglican (or Episcopalian, as they are usually called in the United States) Jeffrey Steenson, former bishop of the diocese of Rio Grande, which covers New Mexico and part of Texas, accompanied at the ceremony by the Catholic archbishop of Santa Fe, Michael J. Sheehan.
Steenson, 55, married with three children, was ordained a priest in the Catholic Church, which does not recognize Anglican orders as valid. He will teach patristics at the seminary, a subject in which he is an expert.
About a dozen other Episcopalian ministers from the United States are waiting to be welcomed as priests into the Catholic Church. Three of them are bishops emeritus: John Lipscomb, of the diocese of southeast Florida, Clarence Pope, of Fort Worth, and Daniel Herzog, of Albany.
But within the Anglican Communion, there are many more who are sympathetic toward the Catholic Church than those who "cross the Tiber" and convert.
For example, these Anglo-Catholic sentiments were expressed in Sydney by the Anglican bishop Robert Forsyth, who last July 18, welcoming Benedict XVI to his city, described the Church of Rome as "a rock in the rapids." And he explained:
"Were it not for Rome’s strong insistence upon Christ as the only Saviour of the world, upon the ‘Catholic faith’, the nature of the Triune God, the divinity of Christ, the importance of sacred Scripture and of the objectivity of Christian morality, then the life of other Christian churches would have been so much more difficult, certainly for us here in the West."
Another Australian, Archbishop John Hepworth, is primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a branch of Anglicanism that has made the formal proposal to the Holy See to enter into a "corporate reunion" with the Catholic Church. On July 25, the apostolic nuncio in Australia, Giuseppe Lazzarotto, delivered to Hepworth a letter from Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, pledging that the Holy See will examine the proposal with "serious attention." The Traditional Anglican Communion numbers about 400,000 members, in many countries.
Here follows the address from Cardinal Kasper to the Lambeth Conference, delivered on July 30, 2008:
Roman Catholic Reflections on the Anglican Communion
by Walter Kasper
It is my privilege to bring to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to each of you here present, and to all the participants of this highly significant Lambeth Conference, the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI and of the whole staff of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. All of us are with you in these days; we are with you in our thoughts and in our prayers, and we want to express our deep solidarity with your joys, and with your concerns and sorrows as well.
Permit me to begin by extending my thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the staff coordinating ecumenical relations at Lambeth Palace and at the Anglican Communion Office, for the invitation to take part in this important gathering and for the opportunity to offer some reflections on our common concerns. It is a strength of Anglicanism that even in the midst of difficult circumstances, you have sought the views and perspectives of your ecumenical partners, even when you have not always particularly rejoiced in what we have said. But rest assured, what I am about to say, I say as a friend.
When I saw what you proposed as subject, "Roman Catholic Reflections on the Anglican Communion", [So the topic came from the Anglicans.] I thought that you could have chosen an easier one. This is a wide open title encompassing many aspects of history and doctrine, and I can only touch upon some of them. But it seems to me that there is a hidden question in the title, asking not so much what Catholics think about the Anglican Communion, but about the Anglican Communion in its present circumstances. I could imagine a less uncomfortable question. [From the onset he is not dodging problems.]
My paper will be divided into three sections: [1] an overview of our relations in recent years; [2] ecclesiological considerations in light of the current situation within Anglicanism; [3] and a brief reflection on underlying questions beneath current controversies and points of dispute within Anglicanism, especially those which have also had an effect on your relations with the Catholic Church. In the conclusion, I will offer a response to a quite unexpected question posed to me a few months ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which puzzled me a great deal, namely, what kind of Anglicanism do you want? – what a question! I hope that you yourself know the right answer – and what are the hopes of the Catholic Church for the Anglican Communion in the months and years ahead? Here the answer is easier: We hope that we will not be drawn apart, and that we will be able to remain in serious dialogue in search of full unity, so that the world may believe. [Bottom line: if you split into various groups, it will in the long run be harder to attain unity. However, I wonder sometimes if that is the case. For example, if the Traditional Anglican Communion enters into full unity with Rome, would that not create a serious challenge to the rest of the Anglicans of various stripe in the world? Could that not poke the process along? Sure there is value to having one body with which to dialogue, but is that value overriding? I don’t know. I remember, however, that some years back a poorly thought through move was made in signing a joint statement with some Lutherans about justification. Just who were those Lutherans? For whom did they speak? When groups start to split, they tend to fragment again and again and again. So, what Card. Kasper is indicating here, something presaged by Pope Benedict on the airplane to WYD, has serious impact.]
I. Overview of Relations in Recent Years
Let me in this first section refresh our memories, [This is so German. He starts with a status quaestionis.] lest we forget what and how much we have already achieved in the last 40 years. When the Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on Ecumenism, turned its attention to the “many Communions (which) were separated from the Roman See” in the 16th century, it acknowledged that “among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place” (Unitatis redintegratio §13). This statement is grounded in an ecclesiological understanding that from the Catholic perspective, the Anglican Communion contains significant elements of the Church of Jesus Christ. [But not all.] In their 1977 Common Declaration, Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan and Pope Paul VI identified some of those ecclesial elements when they wrote:
"As the Roman Catholic Church and the constituent Churches of the Anglican Communion have sought to grow in mutual understanding and Christian love, they have come to recognize, to value and to give thanks for a common faith in God our Father, in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit; our common baptism into Christ; our sharing of the Holy Scriptures, of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the Chalcedonian definition, and the teaching of the Fathers; our common Christian inheritance for many centuries with its living traditions of liturgy, theology, spirituality and mission." [Not, however, valid priesthood or Eucharist or Apostolic Succession.]
In this text, we can hear Archbishop Coggan and Paul VI pointing to what is the common ground, the common source and centre of our already existing but still incomplete unity: Jesus Christ, and the mission to bring Him to a world [Common mission.] that is so desperately in need of Him. What we are talking about is not an ideology, not a private opinion which one may or may not share; it is our faithfulness to Jesus Christ, witnessed by the apostles, and to His Gospel, with which we are entrusted. From the very beginning we should, therefore, keep in mind what is at stake as we proceed to speak about faithfulness to the apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, [There Kasper introduces what was not in the list of common points.] when we speak about the threefold ministry, women’s ordination, and moral commandments. [valid Holy Orders, the impossibility of ordaining women, and the situation of homosexuals in relation to Holy Orders] What we are talking about is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ Himself, who is our unique and common master. And what else can our dialogue be but an expression of our intent and desire to be fully one in Him in order to be fully joint witnesses to His Gospel. [He has set up an argument: in order to be faithful to Jesus Christ in a full ecclesiological sense, you must work toward having vaild Orders, rejecting ordination of women, and sort out a correct position on homosexuals.]
It has often been said, and is worth restating, that the dialogue was dynamized by the desire to be faithful to Christ’s expressed will that His disciples be one, just as He is one with the Father; and that this unity was directly linked to Christ’s mission, the Church’s mission, to the world: may they be one so that the world may believe. Our witness and mission have been seriously hampered by our divisions, and it was out of faithfulness to Christ that we committed ourselves to a dialogue, based on the Gospel and the ancient common traditions, which had full visible unity as its goal. Yet full unity was not and is not an end in itself, but a sign of and instrument for seeking unity with God and peace in the world. [He keeps coming back to the "mission" of the Church in the whole world. Divisions hamper that mission. I am also thinking about Pope Benedict is, as I see it, working to reinvigorate Catholic identity (especially using liturgy) so that the Church, strengthened, will have something clear to contribute in the public square. It strikes me that what Card. Kasper is saying here is part of a clear program of Pope Benedict. This makes sense.]
With this in mind, when we can look back at what the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has accomplished over the past nearly four decades, we can say with confidence that it has indeed borne good fruit. The first phase of ARCIC (1970-1981) addressed "Eucharistic Doctrine" (1971) and "Ministry and Ordination" (1973), and in each instance, claimed to have reached substantial agreement.
The official Catholic response (1991), while requesting further work on both subjects, spoke of these texts as “a significant milestone” which witnessed “to the achievement of points of convergence and even of agreement which many would not have thought possible before the Commission began its work”. The "Clarifications on Eucharist and Ministry" (1993) produced by members of the Commission were seen to “have greatly strengthened agreement in these areas” according to Catholic authorities. The first phase of ARCIC also produced two statements on the subject of "Authority in the Church" (1976, 1981), the theme at the heart of the divisions of the 16th century.
While the texts of the second phase of ARCIC (1983-2005) have not been put forward for a formal response in either the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion, and have not led to a conclusive resolution or to a full consensus on the issues addressed, they have each suggested a growing rapprochement. "Salvation in the Church" (1986) resonates, in many ways, with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine on Justification signed by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999. Building on the understanding of the Church as koinonia which was first set forward in the introduction of ARCIC I’s Final Report, ARCIC II offered the Commission’s most mature work on ecclesiology in The "Church as Communion" (1991).
"Life in Christ" (1994) was able to identify a shared vision and a common heritage for ethical teaching, despite differing pastoral applications of moral principles. "The Gift of Authority" (1999) returned to the theme of authority, and made important progress on the need for a universal ministry of primacy in the Church. "Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ" (2005) took important and unexpected strides towards a common understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
As you well know, the ordination of women to the priesthood in several Anglican provinces, beginning in 1974, and to the episcopate, beginning in 1989, have greatly complicated relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. I will return to this subject in due course. With this obstacle in mind, and seeking to determine what was nonetheless possible in furthering our relations, [In other words, what can be salvaged after those extremely damaging moves.] an important initiative was carried out not long after the last Lambeth Conference. In May of 2000, my predecessor, Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, and Archbishop George Carey, invited 13 Anglican Primates and the corresponding Presidents of Catholic Episcopal Conferences, or their representatives, to Mississauga, Canada, in order to assess what had been achieved in the ARCIC dialogue, and in light of both those achievements and the difficulties which marked our relations, to offer recommendations for possible steps forward.
I have been to many ecumenical meetings in my life, and I am happy to say that this was one of the best meetings I have ever attended. The spirit of prayerfulness and friendship, the serious reflection not only on the work of ARCIC but also on ecumenical relations in each particular region represented, and the profound desire for reconciliation which pervaded the Mississauga gathering, renewed hope for significant progress in relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. One of the fruits of the Mississauga meeting was the establishment of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM), a commission principally composed of bishops. During the past week of this Lambeth Conference, you have studied IARCCUM’s statement, Growing Together in Unity and Mission. Synthesizing the work of ARCIC, this document offers the Commission’s assessment of how far we have come in our dialogue, and identifies remaining questions needing to be addressed.
Over the past 40 years, we have not only engaged jointly in theological dialogue. A close working relationship between Anglicans and Catholics has grown, not only on an international level, but also in many regional and local contexts. As Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Rowan Williams noted in their Common Declaration of November, 2006, “As our dialogue has developed, many Catholics and Anglicans have found in each other a love for Christ which invites us into practical co-operation and service. This fellowship in the service of Christ, experienced by many of our communities around the world, adds a further impetus to our relationship.”
Indeed, it is not at all a small thing that we have achieved and that was given to us through the years of dialogue in ARCIC and IARCCUM. We are grateful for the work of these commissions, and we Catholics do not want those achievements to be lost. Indeed we want to continue on this path and bring what we started 40 years ago to its final goal.
This leaves me all the more saddened as I have now, in fidelity to what I believe Christ requires – and I want add, in the frankness which friendship allows – to look to the problems within the Anglican Communion which have emerged and grown since the last Lambeth Conference, and to the ecumenical repercussions of these internal tensions. In the second section of this paper, I would like to address a series of ecclesiological issues arising from the current situation in the Anglican Communion, and to raise some difficult and probing questions. But before doing so I want to reiterate what I said when in November 2006 the Archbishop of Canterbury came to Rome to visit Pope Benedict: “The questions and problems of our friends are also our questions and problems.” So I raise these questions not in judgement, but as an ecumenical partner who has been deeply discouraged by recent developments, and who wishes to offer you an honest reflection, from a Catholic perspective, on how and where we can move forward in the present context. ["Allow me to ‘explain the situation’."]
II. Ecclesiological considerations
What I want to say in this second section is – of course – not a magisterial treatise on ecclesiology. Again I only want to remind you of some common insights of the last decades which can be or should be helpful in finding a way – hopefully a common way – forward.
Ecclesiological questions have long been a major point of controversy between our two communities. Already as a young student I studied all of the ecclesiological arguments raised by John Henry Newman, [The 10,000 pound gorilla in the discussion.] which moved him to become a Catholic. His main concerns revolved around apostolicity in communion with the See of Rome as the guardian of apostolic tradition and of the unity of the Church. I think his questions remain and that we have not yet exhausted this discussion. [In other words, you have to cope with his question and his conclusions.]
Whereas Newman dealt with the Church of England of his time, [However, dealing with Newman today is to some extent anachronistic. They didn’t have the problems in his day that you have in ours.] today we are confronted with additional problems on the level of the Anglican Communion of 44 regional and national member churches, each self-governing. Independence without sufficient interdependence has now become a critical issue.
Two years ago, the IARCCUM statement "Growing Together in Unity and Mission" addressed the situation within the Anglican Communion, and its ecumenical implications, as follows: “Since this (Mississauga) meeting, however, the Churches of the Anglican Communion have entered into a period of dispute occasioned by the episcopal ordination of a person living in an openly-acknowledged committed same-sex relationship and the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. These matters have intensified reflection on the nature of the relationship between the churches of the Communion… In addition, ecumenical relationships have become more complicated as proposals within the Church of England have focussed attention on the issue of the ordination of women to the episcopate which is an established part of ministry in some Anglican provinces” (§ 6). In addition to developments in relation to this latter point, we now need to take account of the decision of a significant number of Anglican bishops not to attend this Lambeth Conference, and of proposals from within Anglicanism which are challenging existing instruments of authority within the Anglican Communion.
In the next section, I will address some of these issues more directly, but here I intend to focus specifically on the ecclesiological dimension of these current problems, making reference to what we have said together about the nature of the Church, [That is, valid orders, apostolic succession, Rome as a point of unity, proper moral teaching put into sound praxis,... ] and to initiatives of the Anglican Communion to address these internal disputes.
In March, 2006, the Archbishop of Canterbury invited me to speak at a meeting of the Church of England’s House of Bishops, addressing the mission of bishops in the Church. While the backdrop of that address was the possible ordination of women to the episcopate, the central argument about the nature of the episcopal office as an office of unity is relevant to all of the points of tension in the Anglican Communion identified above.
In brief, I argued that unity, unanimity and koinonia (communion) are fundamental concepts in the New Testament and in the early Church. I argued: “From the beginning the episcopal office was “koinonially” or collegially embedded in the communion of all bishops; it was never perceived as an office to be understood or practised individually.” Then I turned to the theology of the episcopal office of a Church Father of great importance for Anglicans and Catholics alike, the martyr bishop Cyprian of Carthage of the third century. [Interesting.]
His sentence “episcopatus unus et indivisus” [the one and undivided episcopate] is well known. This sentence stands in the context of an urgent admonition by Cyprian to his fellow bishops: “Quam unitatem tenere firmiter et vindicare debemus maxime episcopi, qui in ecclesia praesidimus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus.” [“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the church, that we may also prove the episcopate one and undivided.”] This urgent exhortation is followed by a precise interpretation of the statement “episcopatus unus et indivisus”. “Episcopatus unus est cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur” [“The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”] (De ecclesiae catholicae unitate I, 5). [What Kasper is moving towards seems to be that if you decide to do things to your version of the "episcopate", your are stepping outside of a Christian model rooted in antiquity.]
But Cyprian goes even one step further: he not only emphasises the unity of the people of God with its own individual bishop, but also adds that no one should imagine that he can be in communion with just a few, for “the Catholic Church is not split or divided” but “united and held together by the glue of the mutual cohesion of the bishops” (Ep. 66,8)... This collegiality is of course not limited to the horizontal and synchronic relationship with contemporary episcopal colleagues; since the Church is one and the same in all centuries, the present-day church must also maintain diachronic consensus with the episcopate of the centuries before us, and above all with the testimony of the apostles. This is the more profound significance of the apostolic succession in episcopal office. [Again, Kasper has said that if you do strange things to your "episcopate", then you are out of synch with Christianity, both as it is today but as it has always been.]
The episcopal office is thus an office of unity in a two-fold sense. Bishops are the sign and the instrument of unity within the individual local church, just as they are between both the contemporary local Churches and those of all times within the universal Church.
This understanding of episcopal office has been set forward in the agreed statements of ARCIC, most especially in Church as Communion and in ARCIC’s statements on authority in the Church. Church as Communion (§45) states that:
"For the nurture and growth of this communion, Christ the Lord has provided a ministry of oversight, the fullness of which is entrusted to the episcopate, which has the responsibility of maintaining and expressing the unity of the churches (cf. §§ 33 & 39; Final Report, Ministry and Ordination). By shepherding, teaching and the celebration of the sacraments, especially the eucharist, this ministry holds believers together in the communion of the local church and in the wider communion of all the churches (cf. § 39). This ministry of oversight has both collegial and primatial dimensions. It is grounded in the life of the community and is open to the community’s participation in the discovery of God’s will. It is exercised so that unity and communion are expressed, preserved and fostered at every level — locally, regionally and universally." [He just held under their noses something the Anglicans previously signed.]
The same agreed statement communicates the understanding of both Anglican and Roman Catholic Communions that bishops carry out their ministry in succession to the Apostles, which is “intended to assure each community that its faith is indeed the apostolic faith, received and transmitted from apostolic times” (Church as Communion, 33). [Even though they don’t have valid apostolic succession, nevertheless the model of an "episcopate" must tend toward the Christian ecclesial understanding of what a body of bishops is all about.]
ARCIC’s "The Gift of Authority" developed this further in stating: "There are two dimensions to communion in the apostolic Tradition: diachronic and synchronic. [There are those words again.] The process of tradition clearly entails the transmission of the Gospel from one generation to another (diachronic). If the Church is to remain united in the truth, it must also entail the communion of the churches in all places in that one Gospel (synchronic). Both are necessary for the catholicity of the Church (§26)." [Again, this is something the Anglicans agreed on. Kasper is "reminding" them.]
The text adds that each bishop, in communion with all other bishops, is responsible to preserve and express the larger koinonia of the church, and “participates in the care of all the churches” (§39). The bishop is therefore “both a voice for the local church and one through whom the local church learns from other churches” (§38). "The Gift of Authority" (§37) also underlines the role played by the college of bishops in maintaining the unity of the Church: "The mutual interdependence of all the churches is integral to the reality of the Church as God wills it to be. No local church that participates in the living Tradition can regard itself as self-sufficient… The ministry of the bishop is crucial, for his ministry serves communion within and among local churches. Their communion with each other is expressed through the incorporation of each bishop into a college of bishops. Bishops are, both personally and collegially, at the service of the communion."
While there is not time here to draw out more of the ecclesiology of ARCIC, [I don’t have to hit you with the cricktet bat anymore…] suffice it to say that in our dialogue, we have been able to set forward a strong vision of episcopal ministry, within the context of a shared understanding of the Church as koinonia.
It is significant that the Windsor Report of 2004, in seeking to provide the Anglican Communion with ecclesiological foundations for addressing the current crisis, also adopted an ecclesiology of koinonia. I found this to be helpful and encouraging, and in response to a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury inviting an ecumenical reaction to the Windsor Report, I noted that “(n)otwithstanding the substantial ecclesiological issues still dividing us which will continue to need our attention, this approach is fundamentally in line with the communion ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. The consequences which the Report draws from this ecclesiological base are also constructive, especially the interpretation of provincial autonomy in terms of interdependence, thus ‘subject to limits generated by the commitments of communion’ (Windsor n.79). Related to this is the Report’s thrust towards strengthening the supra-provincial authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (nn.109-110) and the proposal of an Anglican Covenant which would ‘make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion’ (n.118).”
The one weakness pertaining to ecclesiology that I noted was that “(w)hile the Report stresses that Anglican provinces have a responsibility towards each other and towards the maintenance of communion, a communion rooted in the Scriptures, considerably little attention is given to the importance of being in communion with the faith of the Church through the ages.” [diachronic unity] In our dialogue, we have jointly affirmed that the decisions of a local or regional church must not only foster communion in the present context, but must also be in agreement with the Church of the past, and in a particular way, with the apostolic Church as witnessed in the Scriptures, the early councils and the patristic tradition. This diachronic dimension of apostolicity “has important ecumenical ramifications, since we share a common tradition of one and a half millennia. This common patrimony – what Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called our ‘ancient common traditions’ – is worth being appealed to and preserved.”
In light of this analysis of episcopal ministry as set forward in ARCIC and the koinonia ecclesiology found in The Windsor Report, it has been particularly disheartening to have witnessed the increasing tensions within the Anglican Communion. [You have dropped the ball, especially with respect to the synchronic and diachronic dimension.] In several contexts, bishops are not in communion with other bishops; in some instances, Anglican provinces are no longer in full communion with each other. While the Windsor process continues, and the ecclesiology set forth in the Windsor Report has been welcomed in principle by the majority of Anglican provinces, it is difficult from our perspective to see how that has translated into the desired internal strengthening of the Anglican Communion and its instruments of unity. It also seems to us that the Anglican commitment to being ‘episcopally led and synodically governed’ has not always functioned in such a way as to maintain the apostolicity of the faith, and that synodical government misunderstood as a kind of parliamentary process has at times blocked the sort of episcopal leadership envisaged by Cyprian and articulated in ARCIC. [BOOM!]
[Here is an important paragraph:]
I know that many of you are troubled, some deeply so, by the threat of fragmentation within the Anglican Communion. We feel profound solidarity with you, for we too are troubled and saddened [This reminds me the the code language lawyers use: "we are shocked and saddened".] when we ask: In such a scenario, what shape might the Anglican Communion of tomorrow take, and who will our dialogue partner be? Should we, and how can we, appropriately and honestly engage in conversations also with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular Anglican provinces? What do you expect in this situation from the Church of Rome, which in the words of Ignatius of Antioch is to preside over the Church in love? [Again, the necessary role of Rome.] How might ARCIC’s work on the episcopate, the unity of the Church, and the need for an exercise of primacy at the universal level be able to serve the Anglican Communion at the present time?
Rather than answer these questions, let me remind you of what we stated at the Informal Talks in 2003, and have reiterated on several occasions since then: “It is our overwhelming desire that the Anglican Communion stays together, rooted in the historic faith which our dialogue and relations over four decades have led us to believe that we share to a large degree.” Therefore we are following the discussions of this Lambeth Conference with great interest and heartfelt concern, accompanying them with our fervent prayers.
III. Reflections on particular questions facing the Anglican Communion
In this final section, I would like to briefly address two of the issues at the heart of tensions within the Anglican Communion and in its relations with the Catholic Church, questions pertaining [1] to ordination of women and [2] to human sexuality. I it is not my intent to take up these points of dispute in detail. This is not necessary because the Catholic position, which understands itself to be consistent with the New Testament and the apostolic tradition, is well known. I want only offer a few thoughts from a Catholic perspective and with an eye to our relations – past, present and future.
The Catholic Church’s teaching regarding human sexuality, especially homosexuality, is clear, as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2357-59. We are convinced that this teaching is well founded in the Old and in the New Testament, and therefore that faithfulness to the Scriptures and to apostolic tradition is at stake. I can only highlight what IARCCUM’s "Growing Together in Unity and Mission" said: “In the discussions on human sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and between it and the Catholic Church, stand anthropological and biblical hermeneutical questions which need to be addressed” (§86e). Not without reason is today’s principal theme at the Lambeth Conference concerned with biblical hermeneutics.
I would like briefly to draw your attention to the ARCIC statement "Life in Christ", where it was noted (nn. 87-88) [1] that Anglicans could agree with Catholics that homosexual activity is disordered, but that we might differ in the moral and pastoral advice we would offer to those seeking our counsel. We realise and appreciate that the recent statements of the Primates are consistent with that teaching, which was given clear expression in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. In light of tensions over the past years in this regard, a clear statement from the Anglican Communion would greatly strengthen the possibility of us giving common witness regarding human sexuality and marriage, a witness which is sorely needed in the world of today.
[2] Regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, the Catholic Church’s teaching has been clearly set forward from the very beginning of our dialogue, not only internally, but also in correspondence between Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II with successive Archbishops of Canterbury. In his Apostolic Letter “Ordinatio sacerdotalis” from May 22, 1994, Pope John Paul II referred to the letter of Paul VI to Archbishop Coggan from November 30, 1975, and stated the Catholic position as follows: “Priestly ordination… in the Catholic Church from the beginning has always been reserved to men alone”, and that “this tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.” He concluded: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” This formulation clearly shows that this is not only a disciplinary position but an expression of our faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church finds herself bound by the will of Jesus Christ and does not feel free to establish a new tradition alien to the tradition of the Church of all ages.
As I stated when addressing the Church of England’s House of Bishops in 2006, for us this decision to ordain women implies a turning away from the common position of all churches of the first millennium, that is, not only the Catholic Church but also the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox churches. We would see the Anglican Communion as moving a considerable distance closer to the side of the Protestant churches of the 16th century, and to a position they adopted only during the second half of the 20th century. [Do this, and you are Protestants.]
Since it is currently the situation that 28 Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood, and while only 4 provinces have ordained women to the episcopate, an additional 13 provinces have passed legislation authorising women bishops, the Catholic Church must now take account of the reality that the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is not only a matter of isolated provinces, but that this is increasingly the stance of the Communion. It will continue to have bishops, as set forth in the Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888); but as with bishops within some Protestant churches, the older churches of East and West will recognise therein much less of what they understand to be the character and ministry of the bishop in the sense understood by the early church and continuing through the ages.
I have already addressed the ecclesiological problem when bishops do not recognize other’s episcopal ordination within the one and same church, [Catholics recognize the consecration even of the SSPX bishops. It is a theological point: even when there are divisions, the divisions are not as deep as you are making yours.] now I must be clear about the new situation which has been created in our ecumenical relations. While our dialogue has led to significant agreement on the understanding of ministry, the ordination of women to the episcopate effectively and definitively blocks a possible recognition of Anglican Orders by the Catholic Church. [Hang on. I know there is some question today about the ordination of some Anglican clerics, but this was defined by Leo XIII.]
It is our hope that a theological dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church will continue, but this development effects directly the goal and alters the level of what we pursue in dialogue. [Do this, and we will have to deal with you as we do, say, Methodists.] The 1966 Common Declaration signed by Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called for a dialogue that would “lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed”, and spoke of “a restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life”. It now seems that full visible communion as the aim of our dialogue has receded further, and that our dialogue will have less ultimate goals and therefore will be altered in its character. While such a dialogue could still lead to good results, it would not be sustained by the dynamism which arises from the realistic possibility of the unity Christ asks of us, or the shared partaking of the one Lord’s table, for which we so earnestly long.
Conclusion
Anyone who has ever seen the great and wonderful Anglican cathedrals and churches the world over, who has visited the old and famous Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge, who has attended marvellous Evensongs and heard the beauty and eloquence of Anglican prayers, who has read the fine scholarship of Anglican historians and theologians, who is attentive to the significant and long-standing contributions of Anglicans to the ecumenical movement, knows well that the Anglican tradition holds many treasures. These are, in the words of Lumen Gentium, among those gifts which, “belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity” (§ 8).
Our keen awareness of the greatness and remarkable depth of Christian culture of your tradition heightens our concern for you amidst current problems and crises, but also gives us confidence that with God’s help, you will find a way out of these difficulties, and that in a new and fresh manner we will be strengthened in our common pilgrimage toward the unity Jesus Christ wills for us and prayed for. I would reiterate what I wrote in my letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury in December, 2004: In a spirit of ecumenical partnership and friendship, we are ready to support you in whatever ways are appropriate and requested.
In that vein, I would like to return to the Archbishop’s puzzling question what kind of Anglicanism I want. It occurs to me that at critical moments in the history of the Church of England and subsequently of the Anglican Communion, you have been able to retrieve the strength of the Church of the Fathers when that tradition was in jeopardy. The Caroline divines are an instance of that, and above all, I think of the Oxford Movement. Perhaps in our own day it would be possible too, to think of a new Oxford Movement, a retrieval of riches which lay within your own household. [NB: Pope Benedict desires a new liturgical movement as well.] This would be a re-reception, a fresh recourse to the Apostolic Tradition in a new situation. It would not mean a renouncing of your deep attentiveness to human challenges and struggles, your desire for human dignity and justice, your concern with the active role of all women and men in the Church. Rather, it would bring these concerns and the questions that arise from them more directly within the framework shaped by the Gospel and ancient common tradition in which our dialogue is grounded.
We hope and pray that as you seek to walk as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ, the Father of all mercies may bestow upon you the abundant riches of His grace, and guide you with the Holy Spirit’s abiding presence.
This was a very good talk. It hit hard and was clear, while remaining diplomatic.
Card. Kasper laid out the status quaestionis so that he had a basis for showing them what they are already agreed on with the Cahtolic Church, and that they were going against their own statements.
Then he stressed how, if a group is to be Christian, it cannot stray outside certain parameters.
Even though they have questionable Orders, nevertheless their model of "episcopate" cannot devolve from what the episcopacy has always been for Christianity.
There is more to ecclesial/episcopal communion than present day horizontal agreement with each other. We must be in continuity with the past.
The nature of the episcopate is NOT that of a parliament.
In fact, this is probably one of the most important things Card. Kasper stressed:
It also seems to us that the Anglican commitment to being ‘episcopally led and synodically governed’ has not always functioned in such a way as to maintain the apostolicity of the faith, and that synodical government misunderstood as a kind of parliamentary process has at times blocked the sort of episcopal leadership envisaged by Cyprian and articulated in ARCIC.
Also, his strong introduction of John Henry Newman into the speech and his call for a New Oxford Movement was highly charged.
UPDATE: 31 July 15:28 GMT:
I closed the combox here. Go to this entry for the full text and discussion of Card. Kasper’s talk at Lambeth.
_________________________
This just in:
Vatican cardinal: Catholic-Anglican dialog has ‘taken a step backwards’
Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams / Cardinal Walter Kasper.- Catholic Cardinal Walter Kasper on Wednesday afternoon touched on two of the hot button issues rankling the Anglican Communion of late–women’s ordination and sexuality. Due to recent developments, he stated, “dialogue has taken a step backwards” between the two Churches.
“Our dialogue has been made dynamic by the desire to remain faithful to the will expressed by Christ that his disciples should all be one” so that “the world may believe,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, said on Wednesday afternoon.
The cardinal noted that these efforts at dialogue have been “based on the Gospel and on our ancient common traditions” and motivated by “fidelity to Christ.”
And yet, “now it seems that full and visible communion as the goal of our dialogue has taken a step backwards,” Cardinal Kasper lamented.
According to the Catholic prelate, two questions are creating tension between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church: “the ordination of women and human sexuality.” The teaching of the Catholic Church on human sexuality and in particular on homosexuality, said Kasper, is “firmly based on the Old and New Testament,” and what is “at stake is fidelity to Holy Scripture and to the apostolic tradition.”
Cardinal Kasper closed his speech by expressing the concern of the Catholic Church over the divisions currently appearing in the Anglican Communion.
“Our acute consciousness of the greatness and considerable depth of the Christian culture of your tradition increases our concern for you in relation to your current problems and crises, but it also gives us confidence in the fact that, with God’s help, you will find a way out of these difficulties and that in a new way we shall be strengthened in our common pilgrimage towards the unity that Jesus Christ wishes for us and for which he prays.”
Annoying, but sadly true. Here is a story from Kentucky’s Lexington Herald-Leader.
My emphases and comments.
Oh… btw… there is a poll at that newpaper site… if you get my drift.
Be patient…
Jessamine woman to be ordained a priest
By Jim Niemi
Herald-Leader Religion Writer
As a young girl growing up in Milwaukee, Janice Sevre-Duszynska often fantasized [That places it in the right category.] about becoming a priest while helping clean the sanctuary of the church her family attended.
“I’d sit in the priest’s chair, go to the pulpit, make believe I was preaching and giving communion,” she said. “I thought, ‘Why couldn’t I be up here?’” [Make believe is still fun!]
Now, 50 years later, she will get her wish, but it could come with a price — excommunication from the Roman Catholic church. [NB the small "c".] On Aug. 9, in defiance of the church’s 2,000-year ban on women in the priesthood, she will be ordained [No she won’t be.] by Roman Catholic Womenpriests, an activist group that has protested the ban since 2002. [Okay… what language is being used here? So far, its a "ban". Can’t only things that are actually possible be banned? Right there is a ban on importing Cuban cigars in the USA. But it is still possible to smoke them here.]
Sevre-Duszynska, 58, a Jessamine County resident and grandmother of three, has protested the church’s stance [now its a "stance".] for the last decade.
In 1998, she disrupted the ordination of a Lexington priest [classy!] at the Cathedral of Christ the King by pleading with then-Bishop J. Kendrick Williams to ordain her as well. In 2000, she impersonated a reporter [a liar too!] to attend an annual meeting of Catholic bishops in Washington, D.C., where she grabbed the microphone and again called for the ordination of women. And in 2002, she was arrested as part of a group protesting ordination of deacons by the Catholic Diocese of Atlanta. [and stingy! "If I can’t be ordained, no one can!"]
“To refer to God only in masculine terms empowers men but diminishes women,” said Sevre-Duszynska (pronounced sev-ruh duh-SHIN-ska). “It affects how women are treated, how their children are treated. We come from God also.” [This one is a real dinosaur.]
The church’s position [Now it’s a "position".]
But the church remains steadfast in its tradition, arguing that it follows Christ’s example of selecting men as apostles.
“The church understands that in acting this way, Christ was showing his will,” said T.F. Shaughnessy, spokesman for the Diocese of Lexington. “The church does not have the authority to contravene the authority of Jesus.”
But women do fill key positions in the church, Shaughnessy said. In the Lexington diocese, those positions include director of the Tribunal, the local church court; a diocesan secretary, who reports directly to the bishop; and principals in Catholic schools.
“Basically, women can do everything in the church except perform the sacraments,” [And exercise juridiction, I think.] Shaughnessy said. “Men and women both have dignity, but we each have roles. ... The most revered saint in Catholic canon is the Blessed Mother (Mary), so it’s kind of ludicrous to say that the church disrespects women.”
The Vatican reaffirmed its position against women priests in May when it decreed that anyone who participates in the ordination of a woman is immediately excommunicated, meaning that they have chosen to cut themselves off from receiving the sacraments.
But Sevre-Duszynska, who will be ordained at the Unitarian Universalist Church [Yah…. that’s about right.] of Lexington, does not fear excommunication. She expects it. “I’m really waiting for that parchment from Rome,” she said. [That ineffable gibbet of ignorance and arogance.]
She became eligible for excommunication [Good grief! This is this paper’s religion writer?!?] in 2006 when she was [not] ordained a deacon by Roman Catholic Womenpriests. According to Catholic church doctrine, that office must also be reserved for men. Deacons perform many duties of priests, such as baptisms, marriages and funerals, but they cannot say Mass, consecrate the Eucharist [Yah… ‘cause those are really different] or hear confessions. [Or anoint.]
Sevre-Duszynska believes that Catholicism is too exclusive. “Roman Catholic Womenpriests believe in inclusivity — men, women, married, divorced, disabled,” [aardvarks, potatoes, big scary puppets] she said.
A priest on the streets
While she won’t be allowed to lead a parish, [I wonder if she should be allowed out of the house! Sheesh!] Sevre-Duszynska plans to continue her work as a community activist, a role for which she is known nationwide.
In 2001, she served a 90-day sentence after being charged with trespassing at Fort Benning, Ga., while protesting that the former School of the Americas, now the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, was training terrorists. As she completed her sentence, she was fired from her job as a teacher of English as a second language by the Fayette County school district for not fulfilling the terms of her teaching contract. [perhaps she was leaving out masculine pronouns?] Her dismissal was ultimately overturned in a series of court decisions. She retired from the district in 2005.
In 2005, on the 60th anniversary of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, she was arrested again, for trespassing at a Nevada weapons testing site. [Why violate her rights? Let her go anywhere she wants there!]
“My heroes as priests are on the fringes ... they need to challenge the government and the Vatican,” Sevre-Duszynska said.
Sevre-Duszynska began her preparation for the priesthood 10 years ago with night classes at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is working to complete her doctor of ministry [Oooo … the coveted D.Min!] with Global Ministries University, based in California.
She is also considering offers to minister. “I’ve been asked to [pretend] say Mass in September at the Catholic Workers House in Washington, D.C. I will consider that,” she said. “I also plan to continue my peace and justice work.”
She sees herself as an itinerant priest, not a parish priest. [... okay… I guess I can’t say that…]
“I’m happiest as a priest on the streets,” she said. “I will [not] celebrate the Mass, I will celebrate [simulate] the sacraments. But I intend to be out there on the streets being a voice for the voiceless.”
Sooooo… another posterwymyn for wannabes everywhere!
Okay… say you find yourself at someone’s home for supper and one of these kooks is there too.
What do you say?
What arguments do you use
a) to counteract the kookiness for those who are listening and
b) try to penetrate through to reason and snap the loon out of the delusion?
Take a shot!
How about, instead of just pouring more contempt on this whole thing (I did enough of that for you already), briefly stating your case?
I just wrote this for my weekly column, WDTPRS, for The Wanderer.
After an explanation of the theological difference between aeterne and sempiterne Deus, which involved Augustine and Boethius, I paused for a moment and said…
Indulge me, dear readers. Occasionally one of you will write saying that I lose you in what seem to be nitpicking digressions. Let me be clear: I’m not trying to be a psilological doryphore. I drill into these texts to help people understand, after decades of banal prayers purged of content and color, that our language of liturgical prayer is rooted deeply in ancient pondering, man’s great questions before God and the cosmos. The words themselves are treasures, carefully weighed and finely polished, handed down with centuries of love by our forefathers… to you.
Every syllable belongs to you.
Each exquisite term is your millennial patrimony.
This blog ranges far wider than the weekly newspaper column.
But what I wrote for the paper applies here as well.
One of the WDTPRSers sent me a copy of an interesting response to a question put to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
I don’t have the original letter of the sender containing the question(s), but we can perhaps discern what was going on.
Here is the main part of the PCED response:
You raise the question as to whether school children are permitted by right to be exposed to the celebration of the Eucharist in the extraordinary form provided all necessary catechesis is offered. the answer is obviously positive.I am guessing that the question we put to the PCED because someone suggested to the writer that TLMs are too hard for children, that Latin isn’t appropriate for them.
Of course, they are permitted to be exposed to the celebration of the Mass according to the extraordinary form. No doubt, a number of them already assist at this Mass with their parents on Sunday.
We trust the the priests of the Institute of Christ the King and those who collaborate with them will help engage the children’s participation in some way with songs or chants. we would also suggest that the readings for Masses be read in the vernacular as this is in full accord with the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and could further help to maintain their attention.
Today we are joined by the mighty Doctor of Grace, St. Augustine of Hippo (+430).
He preaches to us from sermo 103 about the tension of the contemplative life and the active life, about being attentive to the needs of the poor and about being quiet and reserved, about St. Martha, whose feast today is, and about her sister Mary.
Also, we have another installment of stories about the fictional don Camillo Tarocci, (+ A.D. ... ?) parish priest of "The Little World" created by Giovanni Guareschi.
I began a new project in the last PODCAzT, namely, to read stories from The Little World of Don Camillo. At this point, some thousand or so of you have listened.
These delightful pieces are set in post-war Nothern Italy.
They blend brilliant insight into the human condition with solid applied Catholic Faith.
Today we hear two tales:
08-07-29 St. Augustine on Martha; don Camillo (part II) [42:56m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
The iTunes feed is working again… mysteriously. Check it out!
Some of the last offerings (check out the PODCAzT PAGE):
066 08-07-25 don Camillo (part I): VM - advice on getting TLMs & “pro multis”
065 08-07-19 St. Ambrose “On mysteries”; Interview: Fr. Robert Pasley
064 08-07-15 Bonaventure on Christ “the door”; Interview – Fr. Timothy Finigan
063 08-07-12 Interview: Fr. Justin Nolan, FSSP; consecrated hands, Holy Communion and the Rite of Baptism
062 08-06-26 Interviews with and by Fr. Z; What has Bp. Fellay really said?
061 08-05-17 Pope Leo I on a post-Pentecost weekday; Fr. Z rambles not quite aimlessly for a while
060 08-05-16 Pentecost customs; St. Ambrose on the dew of the Holy Spirit
059 08-05-15 Leo the Great on Pentecost fasting; Benedict XVI’s sermon for Pentecost Sunday
058 08-05-14 Ember Days; Chrysostom on St. Matthias; Prayer to the Holy Spirit
057 08-05-13 John Paul II on the unforgivable sin; Our Lady of Fatima and the vision of Hell
056 08-05-12 Octaves – Fr. Z rants & Augustine on Pentecost
055 08-05-03 Tertullian, again; Fr. Rutler and Fr. Z on Archbp. Marini’s book
054 08-04-29 Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion; St. Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius
His Holiness will be able to relax for his August break in a place well-known to him.
Hopefully he will be able to finish the second volume of Jesus of Nazareth and get something done on the "social" encyclical.
This is where his family came rather often on their vacations and His Holiness has been here many times, as Archbishop, Prefect and now Pope.
Here is a video from SKY TG24 with the very able Stefano Maria Paci on location.
Yes, folks, some things are more central to the Church’s life than others.
For example, what the Vatican police wear.
The gendarme of the Vatican have a new look.
Here is the design. Note that the shape of the hat has changed, as as the color (darker blue than before). The necktie is gone, except on the dress uniform with the jacket.
The Vatican Gendarmeria have accompanied Benedict XVI to Bressanone to help with security during His Holiness vacation.
I got a note by e-mail:
Fr. Z:
Would you mind spreading the word that the TLM will be offered in Oshkosh, Wisconsin at Most Blessed Sacrament Parish St. Mary’s site on August 24th. Rosary begins at 4:00 PM, Mass at 5:00 with Benediction to follow. Fr. Moreau of the Institute of Christ the King will be offering the Mass. This Mass will be offered monthly.
Also, the TLM is now offered every first Sunday of the month by Fr. Moreau at St. Therese parish in Appleton, same times.
So folks in the Fox Valley now have two opportunities to attend the TLM each month.
