Benedict XVI says he never told anyone the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima was incomplete

There has been a bit of a dust up in the last days about the Third Secret of Fatima.  Was the whole of the Third Secret truly released?  Some say that it wasn’t.

One blog recently posted some claims about what Joseph Ratzinger told a German professor about the Third Secret.

Now it seems that Benedict XVI has said he never told anyone that the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima in the year 2000 was incomplete, and he confirmed the document was published in its totality.

A Communiqué was published Saturday by the Holy See Press Office on various articles regarding the Third Secret of Fatima:

“Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete,” – the Communiqué reads – “In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares ‘never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima’, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter ‘are pure inventions, absolutely untrue’, and he confirms decisively that ‘the publication of the  Third Secret of Fatima is complete’.”

Take that for what it’s worth.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark
Posted in Benedict XVI, The Drill | Tagged , | 80 Comments

Explain the Trinity? No problem! WDTPRS Trinity Sunday

This is the Postcommunio of the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity in the 1962MR.

There is a pleasant rhyme herein of susceptio and confessio, three syllable words preceded by words of four syllables and both deserving a little closer inspectio.

POST COMMUNION (2002MR):

Proficiat nobis ad salutem corporis et animae, Domine Deus noster, huius sacramenti susceptio, et sempiternae sanctae Trinitatis eiusdemque individuae Unitatis confessio.

The indomitable Lewis & Short Dictionary indicates that a susceptio is “a taking in hand, undertaking” and “an acceptance”. This is a substantive derived from the verb suscipio. The deponent verb confiteor gives us the noun confessio, which means in its basic meaning “a confession, acknowledgment” and thus also “a creed, avowal of belief” and more specifically in the Latin Vulgate “an acknowledgment of Christ” (Rom 10:10, Heb 3:1) and therefore in the early Church “an acknowledgment of Christ under torture; and hence, “torture, suffering for religion’s sake” (Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 1).

A review of vocabulary is always important and can provide some new insights into the deeper meaning of a prayer, but often the structure or word order can give clues as well.

Today we have one main verb proficiat, coming from proficio (“to profit, derive advantage” and “to be useful, serviceable, advantageous, etc.,”) an old friend of WDTPRS vets. This noun has two subjects, susceptio and confessio. Susceptio is further specified by huius sacramenti (“reception of this sacrament”) and confessio is delineated in two ways, Trinitatis (“of the Trinity”) and Unitatis (“of the Unity”).

Often in Latin we will have a sentence structure of noun and then, frequently at the very end, main verb, with many other clauses and material in between which can be pealed open like layers of an onion. Here, the verb is out front as the very first word and the final subject noun is the last word.

For me, this structure emphasizes the nouns susceptio and especially confessio and the intimate relationship between them as well as the concepts that are attached to them, that is, the intimate bond at the moment of Communion between our reception of Christ’s Body and Blood with our “confession” of a God who is Triune – Three distinct divine Persons having one indivisible divine nature.

Furthermore, the theme of distinct elements in indivisible unity is even carried into the effect we hope for from the act of Communion in Mass: “health” of both “body and soul”. Latin salus is “a being safe and sound; a sound or whole condition, health, welfare, prosperity, preservation, safety, deliverance” and also in Christian contexts such as the Vulgate “salvation, deliverance from sin and its penalties. It can be rendered as both “health” and “salvation”.

OBSOLETE ICEL (1973):

Lord, God,
we worship you, a Trinity of Persons, one eternal God.
May our faith and the sacrament we receive
bring us health of mind and body
.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

May the reception of this sacrament, O Lord our God,
and also the confession of our faith in the holy everlasting Trinity
and of the undivided Unity of the same,
profit us for the salvation of body and soul
.

CURRENT ICEL (2011):

May receiving this Sacrament, O Lord our God,
bring us health of body and soul,
as we confess your eternal holy Trinity and undivided Unity
.

Hmmmm…. you decide.

We have pairs of terms in this Latin prayer which underscore relationships: corpus and anima, susceptio and confessio, Trinitas and Unitas. Each element is necessary for and balances the other.

Humans are by God’s design persons comprised of both body and soul (corpus et anima). By contrast, angels are persons having only a soul but no body. The temporary separation of our body and our soul results in death. Their reunion at the end of time produces the resurrection of the flesh.

God loves us so much that he provides sustenance for both constituent elements.

In Holy Communion we have a food which our body transforms into what it is (flesh and blood) and which transforms our souls in to what It is (more perfect images of the Triune God after the Person of the Risen Christ).

For us to participate in this mysterious exchange of transformations we must both inwardly and outwardly conform to the transcendent reality we seek to embrace and be embraced by.

Thus, before we can receive the transformed and transforming Host in Communion, we must be in an authentic communion of faith both with a larger group of believers and partakers called the Church and we must be interiorly disposed to receive the invisible benefits that the outward signs and actions portend. We must make a true confession and profession of faith consistent with our interior landscape. We must also be physically disposed, which is why we are asked to fast before receiving the Eucharist.

In the mystery of the Unity and Trinity of God we believe that, from all eternity and before material creation and even outside of time itself, the One God who desired a perfect communion of love expressed Himself in a perfect Word, containing all that He is. The Word God uttered was and is a perfect self-expression, also perfectly possessing what the Speaker possess: being, omniscience, omnipotence, truth, beauty, and even personhood. So, from all eternity there were always two divine Persons, the God who spoke and the Word who was spoken, the God who Generates and the God who is Generated, true God with and from true God, Begetter and Begotten, Father and Son. There was never a time when this was not so. These two Persons eternally regard and contemplate each other. From all eternity they knew and loved each other, each embracing the other in a perfect gift of self-giving. And since the self-gift of these perfect and divine Persons, distinct but sharing one divine nature, is a perfect self-gift, perfectly given and perfectly received, the very Gift between them also contains all that each of the Persons have: being, omniscience, omnipotence, truth, beauty, and even personhood. Therefore, from all eternity there exist three distinct divine Persons having one indivisible divine nature, Father, Son and the perfect self-gift of love between them, the Holy Spirit.

This is a foundational and saving doctrine we believe in as Christians. At the core of everything else we believe in and hope for, we will find this mysterious doctrine of divine relationship, the Triune God.

By baptism we images of God are brought into a new relationship with this Triune God.

We become the adoptive children of the heavenly Father, members of the Son our Lord Jesus Christ in the Mystical Person of the Holy Church which He founded. The Holy Spirit makes of us His dwelling so that all the divine Persons are present to us and in us, informing all that we are, do and say. Our membership in the Church opens the way to an eternal relationship of glory and praise with the Trinity.

The promise and token of this eternal reward is how we, as members of a Church of believers professing a common Faith, can take into our bodies, and thus into our souls, the already transformed Body and Blood of the Second Person, the one who unites in His divine Person both the eternity divinity of God and the finite two-fold nature of man.

For this to have taken place and to make it possible for us to “return back” to the Father, the Second Person “went forth” from the Father in a new way, this time in the context of time and space. In taking us up in our human nature, He made an act of self-empyting. In filling us with divine gifts in Holy Communion, Christ renews (not re-sacrifices) His Sacrifice, His giving forth and His taking back up again.

In Holy Mass we are asked to “take up and give forth” (susceptio et confessio). In our confessio we make an exterior expression, giving forth outwardly what we are within. “I confess (confiteor) to almighty God…” is just a scratching of the surface, though an important one.

BotticelliFor St. Augustine in his great prayer and autobiographical “giving forth” (The Confessions) the word confessio carried layers upon layers of meaning. As we learn in the magisterial Augustinus Lexicon, for Augustine confessio simultaneously and in a fluid way bore three main concepts: confession of sin, praise of God, and profession of faith.

For Augustine all created things in the universe, even inanimate things, both give witness to God and give Him glory:

“Respondent tibi omnia: Ecce vide, pulchra sumus. Pulchritudo eorum confessio eorum… All things respond to you, O God: ‘Behold! See! We are beautiful!’ Their beauty is their hymn of praise/demonstration that you are God/admission that they are not God” (s. 241, 2 – PL 38: 1133).

Are we beautiful at Mass?

What we do outwardly in our bodies and what we do interiorly in our souls must conform to the Trinity in whose image we are made.

Receiving Holy Communion is a profound statement of who we are and what we hope to be. The act of reception must be consistent with who we are and what we are about in life. That act of reception must inform and transform all other acts which, in their turn, are a living “confession”, bearing witness, giving praise, and recognizing our true status before God which can often involve confession of sins.

Similarly every act of praise and testimony of the Church in her liturgy should reflect beautifully and accurately all that the Church professes and longs for.

Every liturgical gesture, church building, vestment, musical prayer, text and translation must be like a gift simultaneously coming forth from the Sacred Heart of the Son and given to us for our benefit as well as a response we make to the glory of the Triune God who gives them.

“Their beauty is their praise.”

Posted in WDTPRS | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Thanks and Request for Prayers

First and foremost, I am very grateful for the monthly donations which have come in since the beginning of May.  I have been behind the eight-ball for quite a while and, hence, I haven’t been updating the sidebar where I usually post initials of generous givers.  I have everyone marked down, however, so that when I say Masses for my benefactors, you will be remembered.

Speaking of remembering, on Sunday I head to Rome.

26 May will be my 25th Jubilee of ordination.

Thanks to those who have already sent cards.

Right now, my plan is to say Mass on the 26th at the tomb of St. Philip Neri at the Chiesa Nuova.  I’ll also try to get to the Capella Clementina in the crypt of St. Peter’s where I said my first Mass.

While I am in Rome, I will – for sure – say a Mass for the intention of my benefactors, those who make donations or who send items from my wish list, as well as a handful of others who have been giving important support in other ways.

And so, speaking of remembering, I would ask the readership to remember me in your prayers.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Leave a comment

Wherein Fr. Z asks the readership for information – UPDATE

ORIGINAL Published 11 May 2016

First, where is a good herald when you need him?   I want to do a decent version of my coat-of-arms (I will revert to my family’s which is part of the one I was using).  Hopefully technology has advanced to the point where the image can also be used for machine embroidering, as on vestments, etc.

Second, are there traditionally-minded priests out there who are interested in forming oratories?

Third, for the umpteenth time, this blog needs serious work.

Drop me a line.

UPDATE:

Some of you have written to suggest whom I should contact or to offer me the services of others.

What I need are contacts from the very people who would do the heraldic work or the server/software work.

That said, I want to give one guy a plug.  He reached out to contact me himself!  That’s what I am talking about.

Once I get the arms sorted, this fellow could do embroidery.  HERE

UPDATE 20 May 2016:

I have some good news on the heraldry front!

First, several people reached out to me both about the art (the coat-of-arms itself) and about the embroidery.  Thanks to everyone.

One of you, however, dug right in and got to work.  I think he did a great job.  I have also already put him in touch with a potential client.

So… here is my stemma, which is my family arms without the extra stuff I had added some time back.

16_05_20_stemma_plain_shield_Burkart_01_SMALL

He sent a fairly large version, which I will probably get printed and framed.

The next stage will be to find someone who will do the embroidery!

NB: If you want to contact this herald for some work, drop me a line and I will forward your email to him.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Synodality? Collegiality? Not so much.

16_05_20_rescript_01This morning early I received an SMS: “Parolin announces ‘clarification’ of CIC by which no diocesan institute of religious can be erected validly without Vatican OK.”

“Gosh!”, or words to that effect, “So much for the collegiality and decentralization that libs so crave”, quoth I.

Buried on page 8 of the number of Saturday, 21 May L’Osservatore Romano we read that the Congregation is concerned that there might spring up new institutes which might not have “l’originalita del carisma… originality of (their) charism”.

Does every new institute have to have an “original charism”?  One that no other institute has ever had?  Anyway…

Can. 579  says: “Provided the Apostolic See has been consulted, diocesan Bishops can, by formal decree, establish institutes of consecrated life in their own territories.”

That doesn’t speak to validity.

Looking at the actual wording of the new rescript, as of 1 June 2016, diocesan bishops will have to “consult” with the Congregation in order “validly” to erect a Diocesan Institute of Consecrated Life in his diocese.

NB: The bishops do not need to obtain permission. He needs to consult.

Say Bp. Noble of Black Duck receives some priests from the neighboring Diocese of Libville where Bp. Fatty McButterpants is persecuting traditional Catholics. They set up an Oratory at a sleepy inner-city parish with a fading school, near to the university and a couple hospitals. Bp. Noble “consults” with the Congregation. During the “consultation”, the Prefect, not known to be a friend of things traditional, gives a negative view of the project. Bp. Noble smiles, thanks the Prefect, returns to Black Duck and then sets up the Oratory. He has “consulted”.

I have no idea what the background story is here, but I think that somebody, somewhere, is nervous about the kind of institutes that are springing up, where they are on the ecclesiastical spectrum. I suspect, I don’t know but I suspect, that someone wants slow down a certain type of institute.

Meanwhile, the decision still rests with the diocesan bishop.

Bottom line: This seems to be more of a change of attitude than of law.

UPDATE 21 May:

The esteemed Vaticanista Marco Tossati has a similar view at La Stampa.  HERE

He concludes (my translation):

In brief, this means that bishops, individual bishops are less free; and their authority as successors of the apostles – because that’s what we’re dealing with – is undergoing a severe limitation, in favor of a Roman Congregation, the one that handles religious life.  They have to pass through its consensus to approve new diocesan religious institutes.

 

Good grief!  Haven’t we heard at every turn about decentralization, synodality, and all that jazz?

The Spirit blows, as we know, where He will; but from now on He will have to make a phone call ahead of time to Card. Joao Braz de Aviz.  And maybe even first get a recommendation from a theologian of Liberation Theology….

Tosatti, as you can see, has a somewhat negative view of this move. Also, it may be that, if I am reading this correctly, he misses the point that bishops – provided that they have backbones – are still free to establish institutes of consecrated life, provided that they “consult”… “consult”, not “obtain permission”.

 

Posted in Canon Law | Tagged , , | 20 Comments

WDTPRS – Trinity Sunday: Shared glory, Majesty’s gift

The Trinity is the hardest, most mysterious of all dogmas.

There is a logic to the timing of this feast.

We focus on the Son’s Ascension to the Father, then the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, and then the Triune God the Sunday after.

God the Father created us through the Son who redeemed us and revealed us more fully to ourselves (GS 22). God the Holy Ghost sanctifies us in Christ’s Holy Church so we can enjoy communion in the Trinity in the life to come.

Here is Sunday’s Collect:

Deus Pater, qui, Verbum veritatis et Spiritum sanctificationis mittens in mundum, admirabile mysterium tuum hominibus declarasti, da nobis, in confessione verae fidei, aeternae gloriam Trinitatis agnoscere, et Unitatem adorare in potentia maiestatis.

This is glued together from new material and part of the 1962 Collect.  The phrase admirabile mysterium is used to describe the Trinity in the minutes of the summit of June 411 in Carthage between Catholic and Donatist bishops. St Augustine of Hippo (d 430), whose work On the Trinity was the first great work of systematic theology in Latin, was a major player at that meeting.

SUPER LITERAL VERSION:

O God the Father, who, sending the Word of Truth and the Spirit of sanctification into the world, declared Your astonishing mystery to men, grant us, in the confession of true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and to adore the Unity in the might of majesty.

CURRENT ICEL (2011):

God our Father, who by sending into the world the Word of truth and the Spirit of sanctification made known to the human race your wondrous mystery, grant us, we pray, that in professing the true faith, we may acknowledge the Trinity of eternal glory and adore your Unity, powerful in majesty.

Someone may have been on autopilot in adding that “we pray”.  Our Latin prayers often have some phrase like “tribue, quaesumus“.  This prayer doesn’t.

In this prayer I hear echoes of manifestations (epiphanies) of the Trinity in Scripture: at Jesus’ baptism by John in the Jordan when the Holy Spirit was seen as a dove and the voice of the Father was heard (cf Luke 3) and when Jesus was transfigured before the eyes of Peter, John and James (cf Matthew 17). God “made known, manifested, showed, proclaimed publicly” (declarasti, a shortening of declaravisti, from declaro) the wondrous mystery (admirabile mysterium) that He is Three in One, a Trinity of divine Persons, God the Father, God the Word of Truth, God the Spirit of sanctification, One God.  It is necessary for true Christian Faith (vera fides) that we recognize (agnoscere – “announce, allow, or admit a thing to be one’s own, to acknowledge, own”) that God is Triune, One God having one divine nature in a perfect unity of three distinct Divine Persons. Man can reason toward this truth on his own, as ancient Greek Neoplatonic philosophers did.  They almost got there, too.  Only by the gift of Faith can we profess (confiteor) this mystery in an authentically Christian way.  What reason and intellect straive after, revelation and the grace of faith must complete.

In our Collect we adore the gloria Trinitatis, the maiestas Unitatis. They have “power” (potentia). “Glory” and “majesty” in our liturgical prayers boom with the Last Things.

Maiestas is conceptually related in the writings of the Latin Fathers to gloria, Greek doxa and Hebrew kabod. Maiestas and gloria are more than simple splendor. They express our recognition of God as God.  They also indicate the mighty divine characteristic which God will share with us and by which we will be transformed. The transforming glory we will receive in heaven was foreshadowed in Moses’ meetings with God, when He descended like a cloud upon the tent.  After these meetings Moses’ face shone so brightly that he had to wear a veil.

Declare God’s glory in all you say and do.

Marvel, friends, at the gift that awaits us, when we die in God’s friendship.  We will no longer have to grope for a glimpse God as if through some dark glass, as if through a cleft in the rock.

Face to face we shall meet MYSTERY.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged , | 2 Comments

NEW BOOK on Mother Angelica with never before published information

The other day I chatted for a bit with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN, who stopped at our table at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.  When I got home from DC, I found waiting for me a copy of his new book about Mother Angelica.

UK HERE
ITALY HERE

Grand silence… that is a churchy term which refers to the silence imposed on religious communities during the night after the ringing of a particular bell.  Think about it: grand silence… religious life… a stroke… work that still needs to be done….

Raymond provides some amazing new material about Mother, including details about a trip she made to the far East after she had her stroke and about torments by the Devil in her cell.

Mother was an amazing woman and she accomplished so much of great benefit to many.

Here is an important point: some of the proceeds of the sales will go to supper Mother’s community of sisters.

Meanwhile, check out Storyented!

Raymond also interviewed an interesting Catholic author, N.D. Wilson:

The author wanted to create a mythos for American children.   So much magnificent literature comes from English authors.  Perhaps an American mythos is needed?

He works real evil into his books for children, he wants to scare, because children need to get it.  He wants to equip kids for reality.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , , | 19 Comments

Reason #74 for Summorum Pontificum

This was sent by a priest friend.

“OUCH!” doesn’t quite capture my reaction.

Let me preface your viewing by saying that the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite is not susceptible to this sort of madness.

BTW… the real hurt-locker starts at about 5:30. We’ve seen it before on this blog, alas, but not juxtaposed to solemn Divine Liturgy.

Talk about Liturgy Science Theatre 3000!

After watching this, we might be a bit clearer about why the Orthodox are leery of Rome.

Another example of how Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity!

Posted in Benedict XVI, Both Lungs, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , | 45 Comments

My realistic solution to the problems in Amoris laetitia

I am trying to think back through the Church’s long history for an instance in which a Pope has withdrawn one of his own teaching documents, on faith and morals.

Of course Popes have superseded previous documents by issuing their own.

But has a Pope ever withdrawn one?  How would that work?  In my mind’s eye I see a Pope giving a presser on an airplane (which in the future may become the Roman Pontiff’s official cathedra):

POPE WITH MICROPHONE: Okay, everyone, listen up!  That document I issued a while back… you know the one… okay, that’s all over now.  No more document, okay?  It’s gone. I’m withdrawing it.  It’s like… like an annulment, a rendering of something that was something into nothing, right?  Got it?  It’s not going to be on the website anymore.  We are not going to twitter about… tweet?… tweet about it.  We are asking everyone to just, like, throw it away.  If you love Vatican II, just stop talking about it.  Okay?  Thanks in advance everyone.

PRESS SECRETARY: Okay, folks, that’s it for today.

Anyway, I can’t think of an instance of a Pope withdrawing a document.

And yet, that is precisely what one group, which met recently in Rome, wants Pope Francis to do.

LifeSite reports that attendees of the Voice of the Family conference in Rome wanted Pope Francis to zero-out the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.

ROME, May 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — Over 100 pro-life and pro-family leaders from all over the world leapt to their feet in applause at a meeting in Rome on Saturday after hearing a call for Pope Francis to withdraw his controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

At LifeSite are the text of the speech given by John Smeaton of SPUC and addresses people can use to write letters.  A video of Smeaton’s talk is posted.

Look… a lot of those people at that conference were serious people.  There is a growing sector of the Church’s serious people who find problems in Amoris laetitia.   The lack of universal enthusiasm (or at least quiet indifference) and the increasing vocal and written criticism of the problems in the document clearly have shaken some of the usual suspects in the Roman sphere.

Digression: That explains in part, I think, the bitter, peevish, angry comments Fr. Rosica made the other day when he vented his spleen about the Catholic blogosphere, thus doing exactly what he accused others of doing.  But I digress.

Meanwhile, speaking of something that needs to be withdrawn, over at The Catholic Thing, my good friend Fr. Gerald Murray has an essay about Amoris laetitia.  He concludes:

Any approach that would further confuse the sinner by telling him that the Church now has decided that he can be absolved and receive Holy Communion because for various reasons (“mitigating factors”) he is not considered guilty of mortal sin for future acts of adultery is unacceptable – and frankly untruthful.

The shepherd’s duty is to lead the sheep into the good pasture of truth, where God’s grace strengthens the repentant sinner’s resolution to live according to the law God gave us. A “permission slip” to keep committing adultery is a serious failure of pastoral charity by the priest advising someone who is living in sin.

The permission given in footnote 351 of Amoris Laetitia poses a dilemma for the priest/confessor who knows the Church’s constant sacramental discipline, based upon her unchangeable doctrine. The practical solution to the dilemma is to ignore the unwarranted permission.

The greater problem for the Church is that such permission was ever given. It must be withdrawn, for the good of souls.

So, Fr. Murray, too, clearly sees problems in Amoris laetitia. His solution is, also, that something must be withdrawn.  Murray, however, limits himself to the Infamous Footnote™… 351, which contains the imprudent, unjustifiable permission that he discerns within it.

Of course Francis is not going to withdraw Amoris laetitia.  That’s not going to happen.

But that doesn’t mean that nothing can be “withdrawn”, so to speak, from the Exhortation.

Fr. Murray’s request is reasonable and doable and, frankly, not out of the realm of imagining.

My solution: Make necessary changes to Amoris laetitia, such as elimination of, or reworking of, the Infamous Footnote, etc., and then publish the final, official version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.  And then TELL PEOPLE about the version in the Acta.

This leads me back to something I have pointed out in the past.

The Holy See’s official instrument of promulgation of documents is the publication Acta Apostolicae Sedis… “The Acts of the Apostolic See”.  

Digression: For the last few decades, when an important document is to be issued, there is a presser during which some churchy experts talk about the thing.  Journalists get copies in modern languages a little in advance along with print outs of the dull speeches they must endure listening to before a too brief Q&A dominated especially by Europeans who don’t know how to ask a question without a several minute intro.   So, at the time of the presser, the document is released in various languages.  Some years back, Latin was one of those languages, and then the next day the Latin would be printed in L’Osservatore Romano.    These days?  Latin?  Not so much. The problem today is that documents are not being written in Latin.  They are translated into Latin from whatever language was the original or from the Italian, which itself might have been a translation of the original.  You might not believe this, but it is true.  When the Catechism of the Catholic Church was produced in Latin, it had to be translated from the Italian, which was itself a translation from the original working language French.  Can you imagine what that did to quotations that were originally in Latin or French?  It was a mess.  Eventually staff at the Augustinianum had to clean the whole thing up and correct all the errors in citations.  But I digress.

Between the time that documents are released and the moment that they appear in the Acta changes are often made to them.  The official version of the document is the version in the Acta which nobody bothers to consult.  Newsies and scholars and priests and bishops and students and deaconette wannabes refer to the modern language versions which were released at the time of the initial presser.  Those modern language versions are put on the Vatican website and published in booklet form and sold all over the world.  They are not revised in light of the changes in the Acta version.

Therefore, virtually everyone is quoting a document that isn’t really the official document.

Could it be that the first released version and final official version coincide?  Sure!  But you don’t know that until you look, right?

Again my solution to the problems in Amoris laetitia?  Make the first version a draft of the final version.

Make necessary changes and then publish the final, official version of it in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

I can imagine the presser on the plane with the Pope:

POPE WITH MICROPHONE: Okay, everyone, listen up!  That document I issued a while back… you know the one… okay, we’ve got some news about that.  We made some changes and the final, official version is being posted on the website as I speak.  It’s also being sent out 140 characters at a time on my Latin Twitter account.  Ha ha!  Gotchya!  I’m here all week.  And be sure to tip your flight attendants.  [barely audible muffled question]  No, John, I don’t write those Tweets, c’mon.  So, it’s… you know… we listened to the people of God and, like… we got some marriage counseling for the Exhortation instead of an annulment.  See what I did there?  Huh?  Yeah?  Anyway, we are asking everyone to just, like, to stop listening to Card. Schönborn and Card. Kasper and just look at the website.  Okay?  You’re going to see some really great changes because you spoke and we listened and because we – unlike Fr. Z – all love Vatican II and that’s what Vatican II really wanted, right?  Thanks in advance everyone.  [barely audible muffled question]  No, John, he’ll never be a Monsignor.  Not on my watch.  And another thing….

PRESS SECRETARY: Okay, folks, that’s it for today.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , | 45 Comments

Kerknet – the portal website of the Catholic Church in Flanders – attacks Ordinatio sacerdotalis

How do you say Fishwrap in Flemish?

My first thought was, this antic trumpery would not have been attempted in the pontificates of St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI.

A Belgian Catholic newspaper, what seems to be the official Flemish language catholic newpaper – Kerknet – has an editorial by the editor-in-chief Luk Vanmaercke against Ordinatio sacerdotalis.  HERE

The original text:

“Dat vrouwen nog steeds worden uitgesloten van het priesterambt, valt niet langer te verantwoorden. Pogingen tot theologische onderbouw van het exclusief mannelijke priesterschap rammelen aan alle kanten en overtuigen de overgrote meerderheid van de gelovigen niet langer.

Als vrouwen tweeduizend jaar geleden geen priester konden worden, was dat om cultuur-historische redenen.

Dat de Kerk vandaag vrouwen als tweederangsgelovigen blijft behandelen, is niet enkel betreurenswaardig, het is onrechtvaardig en niet langer aanvaardbaar.”

English:

“That women continue to be excluded from the priesthood, is no longer justified. Attempts to theologically defend the exclusive male priesthood are shaky on all grounds and aren’t convincing for the vast majority of believers anymore.

If for two thousand years women could not become priests, it was for cultural and historical reasons.

That the Church today continues to treat women as second-class believers, is not only unfortunate, it is unjust and no longer acceptable.”

I thought everyone should know what sort of things are being published – seemingly with some kind of official approval – in Belgium.  Who runs and oversees this publication?  HERE

It is described as the “portal website of the Catholic Church in Flanders”.  The “Dioceses of Flanders” are among those who founded the portal.

Registered office and contact

Kerknet 2.0 vzw
Halewijnlaan 92, 2050 Antwerp
Tel. 03 210 08 82 contact@kerknet.be

Chairman of the Board of Directors: Herman Cosijns
Coordinator: Sim D’Hertefelt

Posted in Liberals, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged , , | 15 Comments