Welcome registrant:
Chas.84
Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links. US HERE – WHY? This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, and now also my late mother’s place. At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.
A new endeavor: Mom’s Stuff Page – What is it? What’s it worth?
In a nutshell, my late-mother left a boat load of stuff in her house and I simply have to get rid of it. I don’t know for sure, but some things could be valuable. You readers are really good at information from study and life experience. HELP FATHER! HERE
White mates in 4.
NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.
We are hearing chatter that Leo XIV dropped discussion of Just War Theory from the upcoming consistory. GOOD! The last thing we need is people who can’t walk an imaginary dog spitting into the bucket about something that has been worked over by geniuses for centuries. You might check out the article at NCReg by an old prof of mine John Rist, an serious scholar of patristics and also a famed writer in the field of ethics. If there is anyone anywhere who does know what the Just War Theory is about, it is he.
This is very cool. Two new sermons by St. Augustine have been found and confirmed. HERE There’s a lot of stuff hidden in the corners and nooks of old places.
There’s a lot of stuff now hidden in this blog, too, since the migration. Links to photos and podcasts changed. I am not sure what to do about. So, in the face of your inquiries… “Where did it go?”… I humbly ask your patience.
Please renew your prayers that the SSPX and Pope Leo can come to some positive agreement before the consecration of bishops on 1 July.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.
Many thanks for the link – I was wondering where I could find anything substantial and reliable about these newly-rediscovered sermons! The description reminds me of something by St. Augustine – I think maybe De cura pro mortuis gerenda. What Professor Tornau said about St. Augustine’s apparent approach in this sequence of two sermons reminded me (in a general way) of Frederick van der Meer’s delightful Augustine the Bishop (1961). I wonder of John Rist will have anything to say about them, when they appear?
What’s been so unfortunate is that when Cardinal Fernandez (whom neither of us are fans of) stated the objective in the hopeful future meetings of defining what was the minimum requirements of communion…Pagliarani went back to his council and they shut down the opportunity based on statements such as:
1) You only wanted to talk when we made a threat to consecrate bishops!
2) Thank you for the offer but we “already know where this is gonna lead
to”, so forget it.
To the first I would respond: So what? They wanna talk Father…go and talk to them.
To the second would respond: I’m more sympathetic to that argument because it’s a reasonable application of behavioral pattern recognition. But there’s a new sheriff in town and you need to give him a chance and simply try.
When I was young I had the opportunity to win the merit badge (Boy Scouts) for archery but I was afraid I’d fail, so I didn’t even try. Obviously I failed the week long class.
Next year I tried and while asking God to help me (I was never a good shot) I got 153 points out of the necessary 150.
Fr. Pagliarani…he’s gotta try again.
What pope Leo can do (though not ideal because I just want everyone to be happy), is to resend the invite that he initially sent and leave it at that.
Then we wait and see what happens.
I’m sure Rist will comment.
@PatriotPoohBear – to be fair, the additional stipulation was made “You will not consecrate any new bishops and will not take any steps to plan or prepare for the consecration of any new bishops.” You can take the SSPX at their word or not, but they’ve clearly stated they have a real need for more bishops, and Tucho, without offering ANY reassurance that there was ANY path forward regarding getting additional bishops for the SSPX required they completely and totally refrain from doing the one thing they’ve clearly stated they need to do.
So you can color it both ways. On the one hand, you can paint the SSPX to look like jerks who refused to even bother to try to talk. On the other hand, you can point out that Tucho offered them nothing but the possibility of more talking while demanding they concede on the one point that was most important to the SSPX at this time while they line up to discuss on what other points they could also make concessions on in the future. Tucho did this while also making no concessions or assurances from the Vatican’s side whatsoever.
Given the history of Vatican / SSPX relations, no one should be surprised that neither side mistrusts the other. And given that the FSSP still doesn’t have a bishop, skepticism about the generosity of the Vatican powers-that-be on that count is warranted.
At this point, if Pope Leo can’t bring himself to make the concession to at least meet with them face-to-face and talk, I don’t understand how the Vatican doesn’t WANT negotiations to fail and WANT to excommunicate the SSPX. The refusal to even meet with them is inexplicable, especially given what he chooses to fit into his schedule. Even better would be a gesture of good faith to go ahead and give approval for the consecrations with the request that this is the first step in serious talks on how to reconcile the SSPX within the governance of the Church. If the SSPX turned that down, it would be a clear cut case of them just being jerks. And if this was done, Pope Leo would lose nothing while potentially gaining much.
I pray things don’t go along the trajectory they clearly are following, but I cannot see how the SSPX is the only guilty party in this failure at reconciliation.
1. N-f6+ . . g7×f6
2. N×f8+
If . . . . . . . . K-h8
3. R-g8#
So . . . . . . . . K×f8
3. R-g8+ . . . K-e7
4. R×a8
But that’s not Mate!
To bounce off of WVC’s comment, I fail to imagine what more-effective course of action the Vatican would take if “the Vatican” were not, contrary to public assertion, eagerly looking to dispatch the SSPX once and for all.
And meanwhile, many in the Church eagerly push the idea, without correction or discipline, that the Church has indeed irrevocably broken with what came before and can more or less freely contradict whatever She said between ~100 AD and 1960s AD, which, if nothing else, serves to show that the SSPX has a fair point at the very least, even if they are not correct in every regard. And then there’s the piddly little matter of that reckless or malicious pastoral malpractice of bishops unnecessarily upending TLM communities because “duhhh Vatican said to.”
It is a tension I find very uncomfortable, and I have to think there will be a reckoning for it, sooner or later. Maybe in my lifetime, given the decades the Lord may give me based on life expectancy statistics. But I probably shouldn’t hold my breath.
waalaw: This is actually a cool problem. I had help solving it so don’t want to post the solution.
However, a hint: After your correct first move and black’s forced response there’s a non-obvious Knight move that allows white to force black to box his King into the corner.
Thank you revueltos76.
I shoukd have asked my grandson for help.
After
1. . . . . . . . g7×f6
2. N-e7++ . K-h8
3. R-g8+ . . R×g8
4. R×g8#
Yes, a very cool problem!