What can you readers tell me about the show “Game of Thrones“?
I keep hearing good things about the series.
Please DON’T post spoilers. I (and others) may want to watch it.
Stick to general comments.
I have a POLL open.
Remember: No spoilers in the combox or you shall surely face The Wrath Of The Whatever From High Atop The Thing.
When I see articles about Fr. Hans Küng, I am tempted simply to make popcorn and enjoy the show.
Question to the readers: How long will it take before Fishwrap has some piece which refers approvingly to Küng’s latest?
Here is a taste the reportage from The Guardian:
Catholic theologian preaches revolution to end church’s ‘authoritarian’ rule
Hans Küng urges confrontation from the grassroots to unseat pope and force radical reform at VaticanKate Connolly in Tübingen
One of the world’s most prominent Catholic theologians has called for a revolution from below to unseat the pope and force radical reform at the Vatican. [Remember my post about the nuns with scaling ladders at the Vatican’s walls? HERE]
Hans Küng is appealing to priests and churchgoers to confront the Catholic hierarchy, [Priests are part of the hierarchy.] which he says is corrupt, lacking credibility and apathetic to the real concerns of the church’s members. [In a way, I agree with this. The overriding concern of the clergy should be to keep as many souls out of hell as possible, rather than serving up a steady stream of self-affirming pabulum.]
In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Küng, who had close contact with the pope when the two worked together as young theologians, described the church as an “authoritarian system” with parallels to Germany’s Nazi dictatorship. [I invoke Godwin’s Law!]
“The unconditional obedience demanded of bishops who swear their allegiance to the pope when they make their holy oath is almost as extreme as that of the German generals who were forced to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler,” he said. [ROFL!]
The Vatican made a point of crushing any form of clerical dissent, he added. “The rules for choosing bishops are so rigid that as soon as candidates emerge who, say, stand up for the pill, or for the ordination of women, they are struck off the list.” The result was a church of “yes men”, almost all of whom unquestioningly toed the line.
“The only way for reform is from the bottom up,” [This will send a thrill up the leg of the editor of the Fishwrap.] said Küng, 84, who is a priest. “The priests and others in positions of responsibility need to stop being so subservient, to organise themselves and say that there are certain things that they simply will not put up with anymore.”
[…]
I’m going to miss this guy. I sincerely hope he is crazy so that he doesn’t go to hell.
Leaving aside Clint Eastwood’s rambling at the Republican Convention, the old gag of the empty chair, dusted off and placed in the bright lights, left a huge impression.
In the wake of The First Gay President’s hapless debate appearance, and the subsequent liberal melt-down, here is the cover of the new issue of The New Yorker magazine:
The other day I posted that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbp. Gerhard Müller indicated about the SSPX in an interview with a German radio station that “I don’t think there will be any more new talks” (“Ich glaube, es gibt jetzt keine neuen Gespräche mehr”.)
From CNA:
Archbishop Muller stresses hope as SSPX talks hit impasse
Vatican City, Oct 5, 2012 / 04:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican’s doctrine head says hope must be maintained for full communion between the Society of St. Pius X and the Catholic Church, despite his telling a German radio network that talks with the society are off for now.
“I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church,” Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register in September.
This news comes amidst reports he said there would be no further talks with the traditionalist society, after an interview with North German Radio which was reported Oct. 4 and will air Oct. 6.
The Register’s two-part interview was posted online Oct. 2 and 4. [I mentioned that HERE.]
Archbishop Muller affirmed that the talks are not “a dialogue between two Church partners” and described them as a “brotherly colloquium to overcome difficulties with an authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine.”
“I believe that these problems will be resolved in the long term,” he stated.
The society, the archbishop said, must accept the Pope as head of the Church, “doctrinal pronouncements made since the Second Vatican Council,” and the new Mass as “valid and legitimate.”
The biggest obstacle for the society’s reconciliation has been the teaching on religious liberty in Vatican II, which it claims contradicts previous Catholic teaching.
The Vatican’s head of doctrine said the society has picked up on “a tension arising from the use of terminology,” [“tension”? D’ya think?] and that the texts of Vatican II did not contradict previous teachings.
He noted the importance of a “hermeneutic of continuity” in interpreting the council: “we need an authentic interpretation of the magisterium of the Council,” an interpretation “according to the Tradition.”
In his interview with North German Radio, Archbishop Muller said that “in a pastoral sense, the door is always open” for the members of the society to come into full communion with Rome.
He again affirmed that Vatican II “validly formulated” existing Catholic teaching, and that “there will not be any more new talks” on the faith itself.
He made a similar comment to CNA in a July 20 interview. In that interview he stated that there can be no negotiation of dogmas: “we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; that is impossible.” [I don’t think the SSPX is trying to reformulate or negotiate “revealed faith”.]
[…]
Rex novus in Aegypto.
The other day Archbishop Cordileone was “installed” (a fitting word given the shape of the Cathedral in San Francisco). You may recall that just days before the installation the Episcopalian (Episcopal) “Bishop” of California, Marc Andrus, wrote a hit piece, distorting Catholic doctrine concerning pastoral care of homosexual persons. I wrote about Andrus HERE. Among the ways Andrus bashed the Catholic Church and denigrated Archbp. Cordileone, there was also this:
Claiming that the appointment of Archbishop Cordileone was met with mixed reactions by San Franciscans of “all or no faith tradition,” Bishop Andrus invited Catholics “less at home” with their new bishop to “come to The Episcopal Church.”
At the end of my post about “Bishop” Andrus I wrote this:
I hope Archbp. Cordileone declines the first opportunity to share a worship space with this guy.
Stop the presses!
First, the website of the Episcopal Diocese of California issued a statement. (There isn’t a time stamp on the original post HERE, but the update shows that the Piskies fired the first shot). In that first statement, the Episcopalians explain that Andrus was not allowed to participate at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone.
In an article from local SF press we read that the archdiocesan spokesman says that this was all a misunderstanding. Andrus was late and they were trying to figure out how to get him worked in. However, I have not seen anything on the website of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Another straight news story about the event is HERE, adding that the spokesman spoke with AP.
But wait! There’s more.
Then Andrus, on his blog, subsequently disputes the archdiocesan spokesman’s claim, saying that he was in fact on time, etc. etc. “Bishop” Andrus described on his blog what happened. My emphases.
My experience at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone
A post to clarify my experience at the installation of Archbishop Cordileone at St. Mary’s Cathedral, San Francisco.
I was dropped off at the cathedral at 1:30PM by my assistant. After making my way around protestors and showing my invitation to security guards, I was in the lower level area to which I was directed by 1:40.
The instructions the Archdiocese had given my assistant were that I should be at St. Mary’s by 1:45. The service was scheduled to begin at 2.
I identified myself to an assistant to the archbishop, who spoke to someone through a headset, saying, “Bishop Andrus is here.”
I saw the Greek Metropolitan, a good colleague of mine, who was in the same room with me, several Greek Orthodox priests, archdiocesan employees and security guards. I greeted the metropolitan and we spoke briefly.
An archdiocesan employee attempted to escort me upstairs with the Greek Orthodox group, but was stopped from doing so by the employee to whom I had first identified myself. This person, who appeared to be in a superior role, instructed another employee to stand with me.
At this point no other guests remained in the downstairs area. The employee and I chatted while waiting. I began to wonder about the time holdup. I checked my phone; it was 1:50PM. I asked the employee standing with me if the service indeed started at 2, which she affirmed.
At 2PM, when the service was to begin, I said to the employee, “I think I understand, and feel I should leave.” Her response was, “Thank you for being understanding.” I quietly walked out the door. No one attempted to stop me. No attempt was ever made to explain the delay or any process for seating. I arrived early, before the time given my assistant, and waited to leave until after the service had begun.
My intention for attending the installation was to honor our ecumenical and interfaith relations in the Bay Area.
Regardless of possible misunderstandings or of possible pre-meditated plans, the fact remains that “Bishop” Andrus, who had bashed the Catholic Church just days before, was not seated for the installation of Archbp. Cordileone.
That’s just fine with me.
We need a new approach to ecumenism that does NOT include lying on the ground and letting ourselves be kicked by our partners in dialogue.
UPDATE:
More from the Episcopal Digital Network. HERE
The Tablet (aka RU-486) has a really bad editorial about the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council.
The editorial is an example of cowardice.
There are courageous liberals and cowardly liberals. Courageous liberals come right out and say “The Council was wrong!” about X or Y. Cowardly liberals, on the other hand, pretend that their teachings were embraced by the Council, that their agenda is consonant with the Council. That is why cowardly liberals like to refer to the “spirit of Vatican II”. They argue that “the letter kills and the spirit gives life”. For cowards, literal interpretations of the documents fail to encompass the spirit of the documents. A good theologian, however, like a good exegete, understands that spirit and letter are tied together. The letter tethers spiritual interpretations of texts. The interpretation of the documents by some liberal theologians is as far away from the actual text of the documents as Pluto is from the Sun (and we aren’t even sure if Pluto is a planet at all).
There are so many things wrong with the editorial that I can’t go through them all at once. We can, however, drill into a few points. Let’s look at this paragraph, for example:
It was a fundamentally wise move of Pope Benedict XVI to urge the Church to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the start of the Second Vatican Council by returning to, and studying afresh, the actual texts the council approved.
They don’t mean this. They’re scared to death that people might read the documents. They don’t want Catholics to know what the documents actually say. They’d rather talk about the ‘spirit of Vatican II’.
Going on…
All that sounds simple; it is not. Half a century after the opening ceremony in October 1962, the Catholic Church is not the same as it was. The council changed it. The four subsequent papacies changed it further. The conciliar texts cannot therefore be read now as they were read when they were new…
That’s right, Catholics couldn’t possibly understand written texts about the Church that are 50 years old. 50 years, for heaven’s sake!! What a leap of time! How can people possibly understand texts that are 50 years old?
How can we understand President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”. How can we understand the UN Declaration on Human Rights any longer?!?
The Church has changed. The world has changed. Nuns don’t wear habits anymore. The Mass? Well, it’s a shadow of its preconciliar self. Oh, but wait, liberals aren’t supposed to say that about the New Order of the Mass. What they’re supposed to say – what they want others to believe – is that the New Mass is in complete continuity with the Old Mass. So forget the Mass. It hasn’t substantially changed. But the Church has alright.
Come to think of it, it’s a wonder we can make any sense out of the New Testament, isn’t it? After all, it’s almost 2,000 years old! And the Church has changed since the New Testament was written. So why do liberals trust liberal scripture scholars to be able to tell us what the New Testament texts meant at the time they were written?
Yes, fifty whole years! That’s a loooong time to remember what words like, oh, let’s see…. hierarchy, obedience, Vicar of Christ, authority, infallibility (all found in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium) meant when those words were written. By The Tablet‘s reasoning we can no longer understand terms like ecumenism and religious liberty either.
Gaudium et spes was promulgated in 1965! By The Tablet’s reasoning we soon will not be able to grasp the condemnation in Gaudium et spes of the destruction of entire cities during wars.
Good grief.
Okay… let’s go on with another dopey paragraph.
The council’s brief, as given by Pope John XXIII both when he announced it and when he opened it, was to seek an aggiornamento – an “opening to the world”. While the council was still in being, his successor, Paul VI, endorsed it and made it his own motto. “We want to bring it to the notice of the whole Church,” he declared in 1964. “It should prove a stimulus to the Church to increase its ever-growing vitality and its ability to take stock of itself, and give careful consideration to the signs of the times, always and everywhere ‘proving all things and holding fast that which is good’ with the enthusiasm of youth.”
Funny.
Here’s what Blessed Pope John XXIII actually said in his opening address to the Council:
“What is needed at the present time is a new enthusiasm, a new joy and serenity of mind in the unreserved acceptance by all of the entire Christian faith, without forfeiting that accuracy and precision in its presentation which characterized the proceedings of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. What is needed, and what everyone imbued with a truly Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit craves today, is that this doctrine shall be more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men’s moral lives. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, [Hey Tablistas! Get that?] be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.”
Moreover, a document issued by the CDF in 1973 under explicit instructions from Pope Paul VI, said this:
“Such an opinion is likewise in contrast with Pope John’s assertion regarding Christian doctrine at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “This certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is due, has to be explored and presented in a way that is demanded by our times. One thing is the deposit of faith, which consists of the truths contained in sacred doctrine, another thing is the manner of presentation, always however with the same meaning and signification.” Since the Successor of Peter is here speaking about certain and unchangeable Christian doctrine, about the deposit of faith which is the same as the truths contained in that doctrine and about the truths which have to be preserved with the same meaning, it is clear that he admits that we can know the true and unchanging meaning of dogmas. What is new and what he recommends in view of the needs of the times pertains only to the modes of studying, expounding and presenting that doctrine while keeping its permanent meaning. In a similar way the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI exhorted the pastors of the Church in the following words: “Nowadays a serious effort is required of us to ensure that the teaching of the faith should keep the fullness of its meaning and force, while expressing itself in a form which allows it to reach the spirit and heart of the people to whom it is addressed.” (Mysterium Ecclesiae 5)
This obviously ties Paul directly to John’s agenda.
Let’s go back to the editorial for a last example of how slipshod their reasoning is. Have a look at this howler:
What the texts are, are snapshots taken from a journey, and a great deal of theological territory was covered in the course of it. The early texts are manifestly immature. In some cases – such as, for example, the embarrassingly poor decree on the mass media – they were proceeded with because other texts were not yet ready for debate.
The document on “mass media” is called Inter mirifica. It was one of the first two documents promulgated by the Council. For The Tablet, early documents are “manifestly immature”. The other document promulgated – on the same day – with Inter mirifica was the Constitution on Liturgy called Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Tablet didn’t mention this fact. Does The Tablet even know this?
And in case The Tablet types have forgotten, women’s ordination doesn’t occur anywhere in the documents of Vatican II.
UPDATE:
Fr. Finigan has a good post about this dreadful editorial on his fine blog. HERE.
The National Catholic Register (not the National catholic Reporter, aka Fishwrap) has an interview with the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbp. Gerhard Müller. Part 1 HERE and part 2 HERE. The interview touches on several topics, especially having to do with Vatican II, its anniversary, its interpretation, including the SSPX.
Here is a slice about the SSPX (there’s more which you can find there):
NCREG: In view of all this, are you nevertheless confident and optimistic there will be reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X?
Müller: I’m always confident in our faith and optimistic. We have to pray for goodwill and for unity in the Church. The SSPX is not the only breakaway group in the Church. There are worse ones on the opposite side, too. [That’s for sure!] These movements are worse because they are often denying essentials of Christianity. We must work for unity, and so it is also my task to invite all to come back into full communion with the Catholic Church, which is led by the supreme shepherd, the pope — who is the Vicar of Christ.
NCREG: If they do come back, what positive aspects could they bring to the Church?
Müller: They could underline what Tradition is, but they also must become broader in their perspective, because the apostolic Tradition of the Church is not only about a few elements. The Tradition of the Church is large and wide. On the other hand, there must also be a renewal in the celebration of the liturgy, because we have had a lot of abuses of the liturgy, which have damaged the faith of many people. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
NCREG: Could they perhaps help correct some of the abuses?
Müller: That is not their task, but ours. One extreme cannot be the equivalent of the other. The extremes must be corrected by the center.
At the end, they touch on the situation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR – a subsidiary of the Magisterium of Nuns):
NCREG: Finally, what is the situation regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)? The congregation recently issued a doctrinal assessment calling for a renewal of this American organization. Is there a continuing struggle between the CDF and the organization?
Müller: There is no struggle between the Holy See and this organization, but we do want to help the LCWR in its renewal of religious life — precisely because of the importance of religious life for the Church. In our times, such renewal will only be possible if there is a renewed commitment to the three vows [chastity, poverty and obedience] and a new identification with our Catholic faith and life. We cannot fulfill our mission if we are split, everyone speaking against one another, working against one another, or accepting ideas from outside that don’t belong to our faith. And we cannot accept doctrines about sexuality that don’t respect the fundamental essentials of revealed anthropology. So we must find new ways to serve the society of today, not waste our time with “civil wars” inside the Catholic Church. We must work together and have confidence.
But it is important to remember that at no time in the history of the Church has a group or a movement in one country ever been successful when it has taken an attitude against Rome, when it has been “anti-Rome.” Setting oneself up against “Rome” has never brought authentic reform or renewal to the Church. Only through a renewed commitment to the full teaching of Christ and his Church, and through a renewed spirit of collaboration with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him, will there be renewal and new life in the Catholic Church and a new evangelization of our society. Preaching the Gospel of Christ to a weary world so desperately in need of its liberating truth — this must be our priority.
From a reader:
I converted to the Catholic faith years ago from a Muslim background.
My husband was also Muslim at the time. He is atheist/agnostic now and I don’t see him ever converting. A priest denied me absolution a month ago because I’m not in a proper marriage because I’m not married to a Catholic. Nobody said anything to me about my marriage when I was in RCIA. I haven’t received sacraments since, I really need a canon law reference in hand to give to the priest. Or I could forget what he said and go to someone else, but then I won’t have a convincing answer when this topic ever comes up. Also, I think it’s a catch-22 situation, basically a married person cannot convert from a non-Christian background unless their spouse converts with them? Can you help? Thanks in advance.
Though the information you gave in your email is a little sparse, I think you can rest assured that you are in a valid marriage.
At the time you married, you were not bound to observe canonical form. Thus, your shared act of consent with your husband brought about a true, valid and binding marriage (cf. canons 1055, 1; 1057; and 1060). When you became Catholic (welcome to the Church, by the way), you came in with your valid marriage.
Since your marriage now only involves one baptized person (you), it is not a sacramental marriage (canon 1055) but it is a valid, binding and true marriage. The term usually used for this is a “natural marriage” rather than a “sacramental marriage.” All of the properties and elements of marriage (permanence, exclusivity, partnership…) are there in your marriage as well.
The priest who denied you absolution for the reason you mentioned made a mistake. A pretty big mistake.
I suggest that contact your local marriage tribunal. Ask for a canonist. Lay out your situation. Tell the canonist that you were denied absolution because the priest said you were in an invalid marriage. The canonist may be able to contact the priest and correct him quietly. If there have been other problems with that priest confessor, the canonist may determine that a stronger step is required, such as notifying the local diocesan bishop. Let’s hope that your experience was an aberration, just a mistake on a bad day, rather than part of a pattern of mistakes. He may have simply misunderstood your situation.
In the meantime, seek out another confessor. Don’t let this experience put you off going to confession!
Furthermore, would you be willing to pray for the priest who withheld absolution ?
Pray for your husband, of course. That is one of the obligations of spouses, whether they are in sacramental or natural marriages! Many people we don’t think will ever convert, do so because of the intercession of their loved ones.
Finally, thank God for the gift of Faith!
PLENARY INDULGENCE FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH
Vatican City, 5 October 2012 (VIS) – According to a decree made public today and signed by Cardinal Manuel Monteiro de Castro and Bishop Krzysztof Nykiel, respectively penitentiary major and regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, Benedict XVI will grant faithful Plenary Indulgence for the occasion of the Year of Faith. The indulgence will be valid from the opening of the Year on 11 October 2012 until its end on 24 November 2013.
“The day of the fiftieth anniversary of the solemn opening of Vatican Council II”, the text reads, “the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has decreed the beginning of a Year especially dedicated to the profession of the true faith and its correct interpretation, through the reading of – or better still the pious meditation upon – the Acts of the Council and the articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
“Since the primary objective is to develop sanctity of life to the highest degree possible on this earth, and thus to attain the most sublime level of pureness of soul, immense benefit may be derived from the great gift of Indulgences which, by virtue of the power conferred upon her by Christ, the Church offers to everyone who, following the due norms, undertakes the special prescripts to obtain them”.
“During the Year of Faith, which will last from 11 October 2012 to 24 November 2013, Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of sins, imparted by the mercy of God and applicable also to the souls of deceased faithful, may be obtained by all faithful who, truly penitent, take Sacramental Confession and the Eucharist and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff.
“(A) Each time they attend at least three sermons during the Holy Missions, or at least three lessons on the Acts of the Council or the articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in church or any other suitable location.
“(B) Each time they visit, in the course of a pilgrimage, a papal basilica, a Christian catacomb, a cathedral church or a holy site designated by the local ordinary for the Year of Faith (for example, minor basilicas and shrines dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Apostles or patron saints), and there participate in a sacred celebration, or at least remain for a congruous period of time in prayer and pious meditation, concluding with the recitation of the Our Father, the Profession of Faith in any legitimate form, and invocations to the Blessed Virgin Mary and, depending on the circumstances, to the Holy Apostles and patron saints.
“(C) Each time that, on the days designated by the local ordinary for the Year of Faith, … in any sacred place, they participate in a solemn celebration of the Eucharist or the Liturgy of the Hours, adding thereto the Profession of Faith in any legitimate form.
“(D) On any day they chose, during the Year of Faith, if they make a pious visit to the baptistery, or other place in which they received the Sacrament of Baptism, and there renew their baptismal promises in any legitimate form.
“Diocesan or eparchal bishops, and those who enjoy the same status in law, on the most appropriate day during that period or on the occasion of the main celebrations, … may impart the papal blessing with the Plenary Indulgence”.
The document concludes by recalling how faithful who, due to illness or other legitimate cause, are unable to leave their place of adobe, may still obtain Plenary Indulgence “if, united in spirit and thought with other faithful, and especially at the times when the words of the Supreme Pontiff and diocesan bishops are transmitted by television or radio, they recite … the Our Father, the Profession of Faith in any legitimate form, and other prayers that concord with the objectives of the Year of Faith, offering up the suffering and discomfort of their lives”.
When I worked in the Vatican I developed an insight: In the Vatican we update our equipment every 75 years, whether we need to or not.
I received a note today that Vatican Radio’s English section has – wait for it – a FACEBOOK page now!
How about popping over there and clicking the “like” button?
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
I was dropped off at the cathedral at 1:30PM by my assistant. After making my way around protestors and showing my invitation to security guards, I was in the lower level area to which I was directed by 1:40.