Rome 24/10 – Day 37: Wherein Fr. Z rants

Morning sun movement became visible at 06:47. It will disappear from view at 17:00.

Thank you for this day, Lord.

The Ave Maria rings at – according to the errant curial calendar – 17:30. But that’s wrong.  It should now be in the 17:15 cycle.

On this dies non I said a Daily Requiem for Poor Souls. As a matter of fact, I just got that intention yesterday, so I brought it to the head of the line.

The Requiem Mass is so beautiful with the Dies Irae.

Quaerens me, sedisti lassus:
Redemisti Crucem passus:
Tantus labor non sit cassus.

Welcome registrants:

TomasDelRio
marcolajolla62

The tail end of some “premium content” sent out to Roman Donors. I am so grateful to them.

In churchy news…

Catholics voted for the President-elect over VP Harris by a margin of 56% to 41%. pic.twitter.com/8tV5NoneZg

— Father V (@father_rmv) November 6, 2024

In Florida the abortion amendment was defeated! HERE I know that a great many churches – and there are a lot (of different kinds, splinters) – had NO! signs out.

The late, former Exorcist of Rome, Fr. Gabriel Amorth, said that demons try to possess politicians. HERE Well… duh! Shall we talk about leaders in the CHURCH?

At National Catholic Register, there is a piece about the mainly American (I think) phenomenon of moving priests so often, allowing a man to be pastor for maybe 12 years and then shoving him out. HERE In the Latin Church’s Code of Canon Law, can. 522 says,

Can. 522 – Parochus stabilitate gaudeat oportet ideoque ad tempus indefinitum nominetur; ad certum tempus tantum ab Episcopo dioecesano nominari potest, si id ab Episcoporum conferentia per decretum admissum fuerit.

So…“A pastor must enjoy/have stability and therefore is fitting that he be appointed for an indefinite period of time”. However, in the next part: “He can be appointed by the diocesan bishop only for a specific period if the conference of bishops will have permitted through a decree.”

The clear intent of the law is that pastors, “the parish priest”, in normal circumstances have a long time in his parish.

Most of the priests I talk to think this appointment for 6 years, with another 6 possible years is terrible. They are just getting into the place and they get moved. When they get to baptize the children of the children they baptized… then they’ve gotten settled. Will some have other opinions? Sure. Are parishes different from each other? Sure. Are there bad fits that have to be adjusted? Sure. But you get the idea.

Most priests I know think that this term limiting of pastors is also a dodge that bishops use so they don’t have to work things through with pastors who are perhaps “troublesome” for them. They just wait them out and move them.

Most priests I know think that moving priests so often over time gives people the idea that the priest isn’t really in charge. They come and go. The lay staff is the stable element.

Therefore, there is no “father” in the parish. This is also part of a war on men and boys, which manifests also in the sanctuary.

Take a look at that piece.

At a substack called WM Review, there is a provocative piece about whether or not, because of the change to the rites of ordination after the Council, we will have validly consecrated bishops in the future.

This question comes up once in a while because it is an important issue and there were significant changes to the rites of ordination of priests and of bishops under Paul VI.  The changes to the ordination for priests were concerning enough that John Paul II in 1990 put things back into the rite that Paul VI took out.  Rites should make explicit exactly what they are supposed to do.   For example, the post-Conciliar Book of Blessings has “blessings” that don’t explicitly bless things with a constitutive blessing (as opposed to an invocative blessing).  The forward to the Book of Blessings states that it is trying to eliminate the distinction.   Change the rite, you just might change the effect.   And WE ARE OUR RITES.  How we pray impacts what we believe and, hence, how we live, and vice versa in a complete intertwined loop of influence.

The rites of ordination were significantly changed after Vatican II, so it is entirely normal that one might wonder about them.

HOWEVER… in view of the ordination of priests the late great Michael Davies wrote a book called Order of Melchisedech: A Defence of the Catholic Priesthood – US HERE  Davies tackles the changes to the rites after the Council, pointing out the problems.  However, he argues that the rites DO ordain validly despite the changes.   That said, he also brings up the issue of the intent of the ordaining bishop.   Folks… I am working from my memory about Davies’ book, which I read a long time ago.   If I put my foot wrong there, please correct me.  Davies argues (I think) that so long as the bishop has the correct theology of priesthood, ordination, etc., then the rite is just within the bounds of valid.  However, if over time the theology of priesthood and ordination is eroded through modernist machinations – and believe you me that is EXACTLY what they tried to do to us in seminary in the 1980’s! – then all bets are off.   In any event, the WM Review pieces comes down on the side of invalidity.  I don’t agree.

However, this is a question that will not go away easily.   Why?  I mentioned my seminary in the USA.  I did two years of hard time at the hell-hole that was the Saint Paul Seminary in the late 80’s.  I finished in Rome.  However, we were not to use the word “priest” (which we called “the P word”), because we are all “ministers”, some ordained and some non-ordained.  In our class which was supposed to be on Priesthood and Eucharist, but which was called something like Ministry and Symbol, we were told, that – I am not making this up –

“when the ordained minister says the words of institution [not consecration] over bread and wine no real change takes place – they become a symbol of the unity of the community gathered there in that moment.”

Yup.  Really.

How many things are wrong with that?

I objected.  I asked how that jived with transubstantiation.  The heretic priest – who left the priesthood to shack up with a female seminary faculty member after celebrating the invalid marriage ceremony of disgraced musician David Haas – replied that the Church no longer teaches transubstantiation.   I asked when that happened.  Vatican II.   I asked why Paul VI, after Vatican II, wrote in his 1965 encyclical Mysterium fidei said the opposite and that we have to use “transubstantiation”.  He became furious.  He said I was locked up in irrelevant Aristotelean categories, blah blah blah.  I responded: “I grew up Lutheran.  Even Lutherans believe more than you.”   Soon after, the rector had a heart attack.  This heretic became rector.  He threw me out the next day.  It was after that, on the advice of a priest friend, that I pray to the Little Flower St. Thérèse for help.  The next day I received signs of roses all day long.  That night, the Auxiliary Bishop (now a retired Archbishop) called me with the news that I was not being thrown out.  (This is why I have a wreath of roses on my chalice.)

But did you get what that heretic said?  For him, the Eucharist symbolized, but not in a real way, the unity of the community (not the Body Blood Soul Divinity of Christ), gathered there (just localized) in that moment (not in an enduring way such that you would reserve it in a tabernacle).   That’s worse than Rahner’s bizarre ideas about sacraments celebrating pre-existing realities!

But that’s not all!   What danger could these heretic jerks have had for the knowledge and faithful of future priests and future bishops?

Channeling his inner Schillebeeckx, there are no priests in the sense of sacramentally ordained.  The community calls forth presiders for their “eucharist” (see above for what he believed about eucharist!) who embody who the community is.  As the community changes, or the one called forth changes, that person returns to the assembly and another is called forth to preside.

THAT’s what we got in seminary in the 1980’s.

So … is there any reason ever to wonder about the intention of some men who were formed for priesthood in those years?

Yes.  However, those notions I wrote above are so weird, so far out, that very few men indeed would buy them and remain a priest for any length of time after ordination.  Very few.  And it would be unlikely that men believing that complete crap would be made a bishop.

It certainly has happened that there were some – maybe now are – some bishops with such  screwy ideas.  I have in mind one in the Amazon…. and I don’t mean my wish list.  But are there bishops who have zero connection to authentic Catholic theology of priesthood and ordination. It would have to be demonstrated to me with solid proofs and not just claims because the bishop is … sub-optimal in some ways.

Jesus founded our Church.  Jesus will take care of our Church.  That doesn’t mean that the Church will survive “woke” in the USA or in the Amazon or in Rome!   It means that Jesus will maintain the Church in some form with valid sacraments – valid Holy Orders – no matter what is inflicted on her from without or from within. Christus vincit!  Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

In chessy news… HERE

From Paul VI’s  Mysterium fidei.  My emphases:

REASONS FOR PASTORAL CONCERN AND ANXIETY

9. There are, however, Venerable Brothers, a number of reasons for serious pastoral concern and anxiety in this very matter that we are now discussing, and because of Our consciousness of Our Apostolic office, We cannot remain silent about them.

False and Disturbing Opinions

10. For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on Masses celebrated in private or on the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.

11. To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible to extol the so-called “community” Mass in such a way as to detract from Masses that are celebrated privately; or to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism—which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist—fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ’s presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than “transignification,” or “transfinalization” as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.

12. Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist.