From a reader…
In Great Falls, Montana, there are only 4 parishes where there used to be eight. The reasons are partly a drop in the city’s population, partly a drop in the number of observant Catholics, and mostly (I think) a shortage of priests. However, some good news.
One of the new parishes is Corpus Christi (a consolidation of St. Luke’s, St. Joseph’s, and Blessed Sacrament). The pastor, Fr. Ryan Erlenbush, says all Masses ad orientam and in Latin. The Novus Ordo Masses are said in Latin, and the parishioners are taught the Latin responses. Just thought you might be interested.
Fr. Z kudos to Fr. Erlenbush.
Ad orientem is needed more than ever. In many places it will be a first (or third) step toward recovery of our Catholic identity.
I’d very much like to visit that place sometime.
And then there’s this.
From Eye of the Tiber:
Explaining his frustrations at not being able to properly do the red and say t
he black in his missal during Mass, local color blind priest Father Richard Wendell asked congregants to try as best as they can to just ignore him.
“…quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opera strike breast three times, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa,” Wendell said aloud, realizing he had made yet another mistake as people began to murmur.
“You gotta feel for the guy,” local parishioner Brenden Horn told EOTT after Mass. “At one point he said, ‘Kyrie eleison. the Gloria is omitted on Sundays in Advent and Lent. Stand at High Mass. Gloria in excelsis Deo.’ Yeah, it was painful to watch.”
At Fr. Z’s Blog we are famous for liturgical diversity if we are famous for anything at all. I think that as on demand publishing technology changes, we should be able to craft missals for the color blind which are tuned to the precise shades of color needed for celebrants. Alternatively, perhaps the rubrics could be underscored or provided in a different typeface.
Flexibility, folks! Just as I always say, “Flexibility!”
Francis presided at a canonization ceremony for Paul VI on 14 October.
Reactions vary. Some are over the moon with Team Francis Joy. Others are harshly critical. Most sort of shrug.
At First Things there is a piece by Jake Neu – “Paul VI and the Canonization of Vatican II” – which has two illuminating paragraphs. My emphases:
Of the three canonized popes who reigned in the years 1958-2005, Paul VI is the one most directly tied to the implementation of Vatican II. He oversaw the issuance of its most important and influential documents. He was responsible for implementing its reforms for the ensuing thirteen years. Unfortunately, he failed to promote a standard interpretation of Vatican II, allowing broad confusion as to what exactly the Council permitted. He exercised little control over the Curial departments involved with the reforms. Though Humanae Vitae courageously and indispensably reaffirmed the Church’s ancient teaching on contraception, the reception of that encyclical so scarred Paul that he refused to write another for the last ten years of his pontificate. Despite reports of widespread and grave emotional and psychosexual problems in the clergy as early as 1972, Paul VI did nothing to address such concerns or instruct bishops on the proper handling of abuse cases. In 1985, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lamented that the period after the Council seemed “to have passed over from self-criticism to self-destruction” and had hardly “live[d] up to the hopes of John XXIII, who looked for a ‘new Pentecost.’”
By canonizing John XXIII, John Paul II, and Paul VI, Pope Francis is embracing Vatican II and the changes it wrought in religious practice, devotion, the liturgy, administration, external relationships, and general outlook. Francis has expressed that these canonizations reflect a new age of openness to the Spirit brought by Vatican II. Yet given the institutional failures and instability that pervade the last sixty years, the frequency of post-Vatican II papal saint-making may be viewed not as a mark of vitality, but rather as an effort to assert the value of Vatican II in the face of the Church’s potentially permanent decline.
Something needs to change, wouldn’t you agree?
Let’s say you are in Chicago and you want to drive to New York City. You get into your car and head off. However, after a while you see an exit for Kansas City. You might get the idea that you’ve been going the wrong way. If you really didn’t care all that much about NYC and are okay with KC, well, who cares. If, however, you really did want to go to NYC, then your best option is probably to stop driving in the wrong direction, turn around and retrace your route to the point where you went wrong and then start over. That is, if you care.
I suppose we could use another analogy. Say you want some fresh air in your house. You throw open the windows and prepare to breath deeply. However, in the next county there is a bad forest fire and you get a strong does of smoke. Not refreshing at all. Do you say, “Oh well!”, and walk away leaving the windows open?
On the 9th anniversary of his coronation (he was the last Pope to have one) on 29 June 1972, Paul VI described the situation in the Church.
“Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God.”
Fr. Hunwicke posted a prayer:
Saint Paul VI, pray that the smoke of Satan which entered the Church may, by your intercession, be driven back. Pray that the the whole Church may hear with docile obedience the moral teachings which, handed down by your predecessors, you handed down to our generations. Pray especially for your successor Pope Francis, that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, he may devoutly, powerfully, and joyfully set forth the tradition received through the Apostles, the Deposit of Faith.
If Paul wasn’t particularly successful as Pope, which is a horrifically complicated job in the best of times, and he did not by any stretch of the imagination have even okay times, he could, perhaps, exert himself on that side of the divide in a “clearing of the air”.
Peter Kwasniewski at OnePeterFive is decidedly not over the moon about Paul VI. He penned closely argued piece against the canonization. HERE One of the things he said caught my attention:
There is no serious cultus of Paul VI, nor has there ever been, and it is doubtful that papal fiat can create a cultus ex nihilo.
Part of the process for causes of saints is that it must be demonstrated that there is a real, sustained, growing “cult” or devotion to the Servant of God.
What does the SSPX think? Let’s read their statement HERE
The Priestly Society of Saint Pius X reiterates the serious reservations it had expressed during the beatification of Paul VI on October 19th, 2014:
— These beatifications and canonisations of recent popes, with an accelerated procedure, dispense with the wisdom of the Church’s centuries-old rules. Is not their aim more to canonise the popes of the Second Vatican Council, rather than to note the heroicity of their theological virtues? When one knows that the first duty of a pope – successor of Peter – is to confirm his brethren in the faith (St Luke 22:32), there is a good reason to be perplexed.
Nothing surprising there.
What the rest of the Communiqué stresses is how many bad things happened on his watch and how he did nothing to stop them.
That does raise an issue: Can one divorce the fruits of a Pope’s pontificate from how he lived he vocation as Pope? If, one your watch, things fly apart because of your decisions or else because you didn’t correct them, then can it truly be argued that you have properly exercised the auriga virtutum, the virtue of prudence? Prudence is the virtue which governs the other virtues. Prudence disposes reason to determine the true good in different circumstances and then to choose the right path to achieving the good. By prudence we take counsel with ourselves and with others so as to be properly informed, we then make correct judgments based on the evidence we have, and finally direct our efforts according to the judgments made. Some would say that the fruits of Paul’s pontificate show that he didn’t exercise well the virtue of prudence. If he didn’t then he didn’t live a life of “heroic virtue”. That would be a problem for a cause for beatification. However, the Congregation issued a decree on that.
Anyway, it seems to quite a few people that the canonization of Popes of the 20th c. seems, in fact, to be a canonization of their policies, or rather, the policies of the holder of the See at the time.
Along these lines Jesuit Thomas Reese writes at ultra-lib RNS:
I find this rush to canonize recent popes unseemly at a time when the church needs to showcase lay examples of holiness to inspire ordinary Catholics in their lives. Canonization is often an attempt to put a halo over all the activities of a pope. For example, conservatives have noted that Pope Paul’s canonization takes place on the 50th anniversary of the publication of Humanae Vitae.
So, libs are okay with all the other B as in B, S as in S that went on in the 60s and 70s, but when it comes to Humanae vitae, not so much.
Anyway, those a few of the not-so-hot reactions to the canonization. Time will tell (if it hasn’t already) whether devotion to him will grow and be stable.
Loading ...
“Can one divorce the fruits of a Pope’s pontificate from how he lived he vocation as Pope”
calls to mind a bible verse”
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.” Mt 17 15-20
without making any judgement, who am I to judge? I it is difficult to argue much good fruit has come out of vatican II. And I think it was possible that good fruit could have some of it had it not been hijacked and sprayed with poison.
Let’s not forget that it was Benedict XVI who, 2012, declared Paul VI lived a life of “heroic virtue”.
The Causa’s Positio is NOT re-examined when he’s declared Blessed or Saint.
I must admit to being among the ranks of people who have a problem with this canonization. Maybe this incident will prompt, in some not-too-distant-yet future pontificate, the solemn definition of whether canonizations are infallible. When it comes to infallibility, Pope Francis raises a lot of questions about whether the lines are where we thought they were.
I have one son that is colour blind and three that are borderline colourblind. I suppose this would be a good argument for memorizing those parts of the Mass.
Back in the ’70s, drowning hard-identity Catholics like us said about Paul vi things very like what we now [despairingly] say or think about Francis. I recall the chaos and abandonment as objectively worse then, but we could not even dream that right around the corner was St John-Paul ii and [St] Benedict xvi. Now we can point to and pray for papabili who could turn back the flood again.
The men who run the church will continue on their path until they run the entire church into the ground. Nothing known to man is going to cause them to pause and reflect, and certainly not divert from their path. To them, this is what success looks like. Every possible thing they can do to move away from Catholicism and into the dark territories they have marked out for us is going to be done. This is why very little has been left untouched. They are diligent. To canonize these popes when the time is so short from their passing made no sense whatsoever except to canonize VII, but what has escaped their notice. They’ve tampered with quite a bit. We are in the midst of a crisis of their making. But our crisis is their victory, so on it goes, and on it is going to go unless God intervenes.
The statement by the SSPX was weak. The West is going to be in a lot of trouble because Islam has far more zeal than Christendom, and lack of zeal is going to cost us in this battle as well. We need to stop giving Catholic leaders a pass if all they can muster up is a weak defense. Been there. Heard that. What good is that to us? We have listened to measured protestations of what this man and his group have done for five years now. Thus far, the only person who has really brought it has been Abp. Vigano, God bless him. I am not talking about priests, their power in this is limited.
The SSPX has turned in some way. There was no zeal at all in their statement, nor anything they have said recently, and they have grown more and more quiet in the last few years. What use is that to us? It is possible to smell capitulation from a long way off, and it’s nauseating, every time.
Anita, I always thought that canonizations are infallible. Is there still room for uncertainty about the eternal state of these souls?
For those who may be interested or are looking for more traditional Catholic content, Fr. Erlenbush posts reflections and some essays newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com, and he also uploads homily and conference audio at https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Father+Ryan+Erlenbush%22
Seems to me that if a person is to doubt the validity or actuality of the canonization of a saint they had better have more than the evidence, but a rational and accepted modus operandi. Such accusations against the canonization of a saint, whether Pope Saint Paul VI or any saint, is otherwise arrogant and a grave sacrilegious sin. My or anyone’s opinion matters little in such matters. Unless there is a clear violation of procedure that can be proven to “nullify” such a canonization, one had better be careful what they say. This is about the Church and her saints and not about my personal likes or dislikes. I leave it up to the qualified and those with legitimate authority to make a judgement. Unless it changes, I trust in the Church and pray that Pope St. Paul VI prays for us and the Church!!
I think, percusio, that the m.o. here is the long list of other “confusing revelations” associated with the pope who fails against clericalism and then cannonizes clergy of questionable merit.
Show me simplicity and I will recognize truth, show me confusion and I betcha a beer the ole father of lies is nearby. . .
Rails, not fails. I really hate phone keyboards. . .
Can critics of the critics point to a dogmatic definition of the infallibility of canonizations?
Opinions of theologians, however exalted, do not count. Even Aquinas turned out not to have it quite right about the Immaculate Conception.
Can critics of the critics point to a dogmatic definition of the infallibility of canonizations?
No. There is no such dogmatic definition.
However, dogmatic definitions are not the only way to get infallible teachings in the Church. There is also the method of long term, or universal, agreement by the bishops in teaching as coming from the Apostles. But I don’t think we have THAT method on the infallibility of canonizations. Because, for one thing, “canonization” didn’t even exist as a Vatican-run process until LONG after the Patristic period.
John Lamont in the Rorate Coeli article makes a lot of good points, but I will mention just one: canonization used to start with a local cultus about the holy man (praying TO him, rather than FOR him), and eventually Rome got involved insofar as it was Rome that decided whether to “universalize” that cultus so that it was extended to the whole Church. The act of canonization was an act of approval of his cult being universal. The thing to note about this is that (a) it CLEARLY is not a matter of whether this man’s sanctity is expressed – hiddenly or openly – in Divine Revelation, and (b) it is not particularly arguable that knowing whether the guy being in heaven is necessary for morals. So the accuracy of the proclamation “he is in heaven” does not seem to be critical to either faith or morals – the usual context claimed for papal infallibility. So if not knowing for certain whether he is in heaven or not damages neither faith nor morals, in what way does it arise to a matter about which the pope’s charism of infallibility has any traction?
Be that as it may, for the last 300 years or so most theologians held the opinion it the pope’s proclamation is infallible. They must have given reasons for this. Can we see the best of the reasons, please? Can someone come out and point to a truly eminent, highly respected theologian of the 18th or 19th century, who laid out the argument that convinced HIM, clearly and without defect, so it can convince us too? Until then, I withhold any conclusion.
But remember, just because the popal infallibility may not be at stake, doesn’t mean that we can simply disregard the canonization. We are still supposed to give the pope’s teachings due attention. We should respect it in the form it is justified.
Sigh. Well, this is not the first time a pope has canonized whose pontificate was less than helpful for the Universal Church. St. Celestine V. Disaster as a pope and not just because he resigned. Being a failed pope does not mean one is not in heaven, as Celestine proves. Whether such canonizations aid the Church in these time is another question.
Is it possible, since canonizations used to require a devil’s advocate and three(?) clear miracles during the time canonizations were considered infallible, that they’ve changed the process so much that they are no longer infallible? I’ve even heard that Pope Francis doesn’t consider his canonizations infallible?!
Weird times.
Dear Holy God, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, please keep me in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Amen.
Holy Priests in locations / situations where there are too few priests have maximum opportunity to exercise the privileges of Summorum Pontificum! Use them. Be examples to your brother Priests!
In looking over documents, it is the general consensus of theologians over hundreds of years that canonizations are infallible. That said, I think it can be argued that they would not fall into the category of papal ex cathedra infallibility but rather stem from an exercise of the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium enacted/ratified by the Pope. Remember also that both Pope Benedict XVI and St. Pope John Paull II taught a very limited scope for papal infallibility, yet raised many to the altars.
Adding to what TonyO said above, it is a bit of a problem that there lacks a strong and well-developed cultus for many (perhaps most) of the modern individuals raised to the altars. The point of raising someone to the altars is not really in holding them up as socio-ethical or political role models but recognizing universally a fact that such and such now intercedes before the throne of God. Thus the necessary evidence that people have prayed to the individual, prayers (cult) has developed, and those prayers have been effectious is needed and something which the magisterium must prayerfully ponder before universalizing and making public a private cult.
It should also be pointed out that if one considers that a particular canonization is, let us say, not a statement of objective fact, one should not take the position that “such and such is not in heaven” but instead simply continue to pray that such and such might enter into heaven.
When a Pope canonizes someone to sainthood, say like a few Popes who have done away with Catholic Tradition etc, does God always accept that the person is a saint regardless? Or is Matthew 18:18 the answer to my question?
“The Church” should be understood and defined as “The Mystical Body of Christ”. Christ the King is the Head of the Church and the world. His Words are the “thoughts” and commands of the Head of the Church, and thus the Mystical Body of Christ should act in accordance with those thoughts and commands Mind of the Head of the Church.
If the brain commands the leg to kick, it should do so. Etc.
The Church has been politicized into (as Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said) a type of tennis club.
Many parishes have also done this; parishes have been conquered by laity or priests who then turn these individual parishes into a Leftist/liberal political body which then idolizes homosexuality, contraception, abortion, “multi-culturalism”, etc. They attempt to make Christ the King serve their political idol.
Relatedly, it is true that many priests regularly profane the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and thus reverence needs to be restored. Ad orientum worship (with the requirement that the tabernacle is in the proper place) is definitely a condition necessary for reverence. But ultimately what is needed is heeding the Ten Commandments and instilling Fear of the Lord, fear of hell, and an accurate definition of “the Church”, which is that it is the Mystical Body of Christ given to us so that we may be a part of it and work out the hope of salvation with fear and trembling.
Let’s say you want to go to NYC, and another passenger wanted to stay in Chicago, but the driver wanted to go to San Francisco. What then?
How about we all join in a litany to Paul VI for the suppression of the modernist liturgy and the restoration Catholic tradition? Given that much damage happened on this Pope’s watch, we ought to put him to work!
How about we all join in a litany to Paul VI for the suppression of the modernist liturgy and the restoration Catholic tradition? Given that much damage happened on this Pope’s watch, we ought to put him to work!
How about we all join in a litany to Paul VI for the suppression of the modernist liturgy and the restoration Catholic tradition? Given that much damage happened on this Pope’s watch, we ought to put him to work!
How about we all join in a litany to Paul VI for the suppression of the modernist liturgy and the restoration Catholic tradition? Given that much damage happened on this Pope’s watch, we ought to put him to work!
I just realized that colourblind article was from Eye of the Tiber. Yuk. Yuk. Yes, you got me.
Pingback: Yet another brand new shinny saint from Vatican 2 – Traditional Catholic Crusader
A color-blind priest can say the TLM. Let’s take Carlos Ibay as example (cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O-inilnkxc). His mom’s doctor wanted her to abort him; she refused. He was born premature at just over a pound, blind (which he is to this day). He knows seven languages, and is a world-famous singer and piano player; has met two Popes, and played in Vatican city. The human spirit can overcome almost anything.
There ought to be a 75 year or 100 year rule on canonizing saints after their death. That way you avoid the “santo subito!” emotional push, and you have a new generation doing the investigation who do not remember them personally and who have a more balanced perspective on their life and works. The push to canonize the popes of the last 100 years seems almost self-congratulatory (see how holy our leaders are!) rather than a real, critical overview of their life and their sanctity. There is no rush, and there is no reason that during the intervening 100 years you couldn’t ask for their intercession if you feel so moved. But this push to canonize quickly feels political, which does the Church no favors on our credibility for determining genuine holiness and sanctity.
On a practical note, someone could underline the red for father, and he would be able to then distinguish what’s what.
The Church doesn’t canonize men and women for their “work” or for their “opinions.” She canonizes them for their devotion to God, in spite of their mistakes and failures.
Even after being consecrated a bishop, Saint Peter denied Our Lord, while the other Apostles – all saints (except one, of course) – abandoned Christ. Saint Peter had to be corrected by Saint Paul about the requirements for Gentiles entering the Church. And an apocryphal account has Saint Peter trying to evade his martyrdom by leaving the City of Rome.
Some great saints supported anti-popes against other saints who supported true popes. (Saint Vincent Ferrer was one of these.) And Saint Hippolytus (170-235) is a special instance in Church history: Not only was he the first antipope, but he’s the only antipope to be canonized.
And popes – even saints – are by no means infallible in all that they say and do. Some, far from it!
Regarding Color Blindness:
See https://enchroma.com/pages/technology
Enchroma sells glasses to correct many forms of color blindness.
Also has a neat on-line color-blindness test.
I want to make clear that by saying I have a problem with canonizing Paul VI, I am not saying I think the man is in hell. I am saying there are other purposes to canonization beyond just declaring that someone is in heaven, and I question whether those other purposes are served by canonizing this particular man.
Regarding saints who were not effective while they lived, St Knud, King of Denmark, was a terrible king. He failed to rule effectively and was killed after massive revolts all over his country. He was killed while praying in a monastery’s chapel. Lack of prudence doesn’t mean a lack of heroic virtue.
Why was Pope Paul VI elected over all the other [Italian] cardinals? What if he was elected specifically because he wasn’t a savvy administrator?
I have always seen him as a tragic figure, utterly out-maneuvered on all fronts. I recall Fr. Z writing that Pope Paul VI wept over the loss of the Octave of Pentecost.
The first 53 out of 54 Popes were canonized and there were all sorts of Heresy’s floating around. However, there hasn’t been a run of three Pope saints since about the mid-800’s (Nicholas I). Three saints in a row, but still not enough to fill an inside “straight” in the Curia?
Father Corapi was based out of the Kalispell, Great Falls, White Fish area i think…
My last comment might have been uncharitable. Sorry.
We are all frustrated, TMC. The most we can do is pray for divine intervention, and to survive said intervention.
When the Church canonizes someone a Saint, it declares that the person is in Heaven. That’s all we must believe.
The purpose of canonization is something else, of course. The Saint’s life is in some way considered exemplary and something the faithful should emulate. We may have our doubts about what kind of example a saint’s life makes for us without doubting his or her sanctity.
The Church’s attitude has changed over the centuries. Many prominent leaders of the Church opposed the canonization of Saint Dominic Savio because they considered him to have lived too short and uneventful a life. Fortunately their view did not prevail. Not too long afterward Saint Maria Goretti, who died at an even younger age, was canonized.
The consecrated virgins of today owe their vocation directly to Pope St Paul VI and Vatican II. These women belong to the ordo virginum; they live the secular life and are not normally connected to a religious institute. The word ordo (order) in this context means a distinct group of persons in the Catholic Church, as in order of bishops, order of priests.
After centuries of dormancy, requests for the rite of consecration of virgins arose again in the early 20th century. As the rite had not been celebrated for such a long time, bishops were unsure whether they could confer the consecration on virgins living the secular life, even though the rite remained in the Roman Pontifical. When Cardinal de Cabrières, Bishop of Montpellier, consulted Pope Benedict XV, the Pope merely said, “You have the Pontifical; it’s up to you.” Later, someone else consulted Pope Pius IX, and his response was: “As Pope, I say nothing, neither for nor against.”
Then in 1927 some bishops posed the question to the Congregation for Religious who gave a negative response, which was confirmed by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Sponsa Christi when he restricted the consecration to nuns in enclosed convents.
A merely twenty years later, in 1970, the unexpected happened; the consecration rite was restored to virgins living the secular life, the very group of women for whom the consecration was originally designed in the fourth century. Nothing in the documents or debates of Vatican II anticipated such restoration. Yet it happened.
I’d like to be cheeky and say that the Holy Spirit had to convene an ecumenical council because the Congregation for Religious and Pope Pius XII failed to read the “signs of the times”. :- )
Today there are around 5,000 consecrated virgins in the world; they are present in about 80 countries over five continents.
Re my post on Vatican II and consecrated virgins, the restoration of the consecration rite to secular women was the direct result of the revision of the rite as directed by Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 80 which only required that the rite be revised.
My Wife and I attended a Sunday Mass, said at his parish. Praise to him as he said a beautiful Mass, choir sang Aspergus Me, Misse Orbis Factor. It was one of the better Novus Ordo Masses said that we had been to, when we have traveled.
I still prefer the Latin Mass (TLM) we had before bugnini did his damage.