Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

My View For Awhile: home again edition

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Having sampled “Nakatish” Meat Pies, and having jawed endlessly with clerics, and having delivered talks and having mactated the Victim in a solemn manner, I head home to a colder clime.

My thanks to the nice people I met in Natchitoches.

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged Natchitoches
7 Comments

“In varietate concordia”, E pluribus unum” and “In necessariis unitas”

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the slimy, slithery scrawl of the head of catholics for Choice to Hell’s Bible (aka The New York Times – HERE) cites a Latin phrase “in varietate concordia” which he renders as “unity in diversity.”

What the writer, dissident Jon O’Brien, doesn’t tell you is that in varietate concordia is the motto of the European Union.

Quite a different concept than that expressed in the secular “e pluribus unum“. The former implies conformity.

The European Union renders the Latin as “United in Diversity”, which has its origins as a Communist slogan from the 1960’s to 80’s to reconcile differences within European Communism as the Soviet Bloc became shaky.

It doesn’t surprise me that this faux-catholic, Soros-funded pro-abortion disaster of an organization would revel in a Communist slogan.

But that is not the real point of this post.

The phrase in varietate concordia, reminded me of the old chestnut sometimes attributed, incorrectly, to St. Augustine of Hippo: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. I wrote about this phrase years ago, HERE.

At that time, 2006, I pointed out that the phrase appeared in a 1959 encyclical of Pope John XXIII entitled Ad Petri cathedram. HERE.

Then I pointed out that it seemed to appear for the first time in Germany, in 1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines In England, and that its authorship had been traced to Rupertus Meldinus.

I received an email with more information:

The information you post there is out of date, given that in 1999 a Dutch scholar named H. J. M. Nellen stumbled on the phrase in a 1617 work by the renegade Catholic bishop De Dominis.

He referred me HERE.

This informs us that the an apostate catholic bishop, Marco Antonio De Dominis, used it in a work in 1617 in De republica ecclesiastica libri X, London/Hannover 1617-1622) “on p. 676 of the first volume published in London in 1617, at the end of chapter 8 of book 4, which treats of the papacy” (H. J. M. Nellen, “De zinspreuk ‘In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas,'” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschidenis 79, no. 1 (1999): 106, 104 (99-106)). Cf. HERE.

In any event, it is also hard to have a lot of pride in the origin of this phrase.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Linking Back, The Drill | Tagged in necessariis unitas
3 Comments

‘c’atholics for Choice and Can. 915

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The head of the faux-catholic, pro-abortion, Soros-funded “Catholics for Choice”, Jon O’Brien, ought to be publicly corrected by our bishops in these USA and then denied Holy Communion according to can. 915 until he publicly recant his spiritually dangerous positions.

His recent letter to the New York Times (Hell’s Bible) contains a falsehood.

The Opinion Pages|LETTERS

Being a Catholic in the Time of Francis

To the Editor:

Peter Manseau raises several important issues in “What It Means to Be Catholic Now” (Op-Ed, March 10), not least the question “Who is a Catholic?” Catholicism has long been defined by the Latin phrase “in varietate concordia” — “unity in diversity.”

All Catholics are connected by the requirement to follow our consciences as the ultimate arbiter when it comes to moral decision-making. That leads many of us to disagree with our bishops while still retaining our Catholicism. [I am sure you readers see what is wrong with this. Catholics must form their consciences according to the mind of the Church and, even when they struggle to understand and grasp the Church’s difficult teachings, they must accede to what the Church teaches.]

There are no political benchmarks, attendance records or litmus tests for being a Catholic. We are Catholic because of our baptism, and nothing can ever change that.

JON O’BRIEN
President, Catholics for Choice
Washington, March 10, 2014

This is a purposely misleading statement. It calls for a correction.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Emanations from Penumbras, Francis, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill | Tagged can. 915, Catholics for Choice, Jon O'Brien
34 Comments

Bp. Egan (D. Portsmouth): denial of Communion can be act of mercy, love

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It is time for happy and articulate culture warriors to rise up and speak out.

The Bishop of Portsmouth, England, Most Reverend Philip Egan, explained clearly what every bishop and priest ought to be able to repeat in public with sincere charity for their deeply confused and demoralized flocks.

If you vote in favor of or support redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions, you should extract yourself from the Communion line and not receive. If you are support pro-abortion laws and the politicians who make them, you should not go forward for Communion. If you are a widely recognized public figure and you support things that are contrary to nature and to the Church’s clear teachings, then pastors of souls should help you, in charity, to see your error and, while protecting the flock from your scandalous bad example, deny you Holy Communion.

From Life News:

UK bishop: Denying Communion to anti-life/family politicians is ‘an act of mercy’

PORTSMOUTH, England, March 13, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church on such a central thing as the value of life of the unborn child and also in terms of the teachings of the church on marriage and family life – they are voting in favor of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion,” said Portsmouth Bishop Philip Egan in a wide-ranging on-camera interview with LifeSiteNews last week.

Bishop Egan explained that rather than a punitive measure, the denial of Holy Communion is “always an act of mercy.” It is done, he said, “with the hope and prayer that that person can be wooed back into full communion with the Church.”

“Nobody is forced to be Catholic. We’re called by Christ and He’s chosen us, it’s a free choice. We live under the word of God. It’s not my truth, its God’s truth,” he said. [As it has been said, I am just the mailman. I don’t get to edit the mail.]

“One would hope that in that case it would encourage someone to come back to seek communion with the Lord with the truth and say I’m sorry I got lost.”

The difficulties faced by Catholics and other Christians in an increasingly secular and intolerant Britain are keenly felt. Bishop Egan has been outspoken in his defence of life and family, writing to the Prime Minister and speaking eloquently on the issues. He has himself experienced backlash both in terms of “unpleasant correspondence” and even a confrontation at the Cathedral.

For him, however, the duty to witness to the truth in love is not an option despite the persecutions that may come. [And they will come!] Christians, he says, “are bound to come into conflict” with the secularized culture. [It has ever been so.]

We must not go looking for a fight, “but we will, being Christian, have to suffer, and have to go to the cross,” he said. “This is one of the ways, particularly as a priest or a bishop, in which that cross is going to come out, because you have to witness to the truth.”

[…]

Read the rest there.

Fr Z kudos for Bp. Egan.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged Bp. Philip Egan, culture wars, D. Portsmouth, denial of Holy Communion
38 Comments

The 3 days of darkness – underway

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Religious Ed Conference is being perpetrated in Los Angeles.

Watch LIVE…. it’s a hoot. Right now they are dancing with bowls of burning stuff while singing about themselves.

I haven’t heard any mention of Jesus yet.

It’s a real blast from the past.

HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Los Angeles, Religious Education Congress
130 Comments

Will reaffirmation of teaching on divorce and Communion be ignored?

Posted on 14 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At his fine canon law blog, canonist Ed Peters, sober, offers a rather scary view of a scary trend. He has no combox over there.

Why the gathering storm over divorce might be worse than was that over contraception

Interesting parallels are being suggested between, on the one hand, Paul VI’s dithering over contraception in the 1960s (which, though reversed by his reassertion of Church teaching in Humanae vitae, contributed to widespread repudiation of that teaching by Catholics), and Francis’ recent mixed signals (or what are widely perceived as mixed signals) over the future of Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage and the reception of holy Communion. Notwithstanding some important differences between the two men and situations, I write to suggest that the stakes for all might actually be higher this time around.

Consider two points:

First, Church teaching against contraception had to be teased out over the centuries from natural law theory and what we call now ‘theology of the body’. It rests today largely on conclusions of logic, philosophy, and theology. Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage, in contrast, is expressly proclaimed in the New Testament and any literate Catholic can read Jesus’ strong words about it in the Bible. This teaching was heatedly and repeatedly defended by the Church Fathers, was reiterated consistently in numerous Councils, and has been expounded by all major theologians.

Second, short of personal admission, there is no way to tell whether this Catholic couple or that is practicing contraception, and so there are virtually no ecclesiastical consequences possible in the external forum for disregard of Church teaching by pew Catholics. Indeed, with exceptions too rare to mention, there weren’t even official consequences for high-profile Catholics defending contraception in the ’60s. But cohabitation and post-divorce ‘marriage’, in contrast, are public acts falling squarely with the parameters of well-established (if inconsistently applied) public consequences (withholding of Communion being the best known). Millions of Catholics abide by this consequence. The millions of others who do not abide by it pretty much know they do not.

What does this mean?

It means, I suggest, that the complexity of the arguments underlying Church teaching on contraception allowed for the ecclesial equivalent of “plausible deniability” in regard to acceptance of that teaching by rank-and-file faithful, and the nature of the contraceptive act virtually excluded public enforcement measures. [NB:] But Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage is utterly obvious to any but the deliberately blind and the appropriateness of public consequences for public violation of that teaching has been unanimously upheld, and usually observed, for two millenia. Those factors combine to imply, I think, higher stakes in the divorce debate today than those confronting the Church over contraception a generation ago. [Couple all that with today’s increasing antinomian spirit and plummeting ability to think clearly.]

Now I think Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage will, in the end, be squarely upheld in principle. My concern is different: what if Church teaching is duly upheld but, as happened after Humanae vitae, that teaching is allowed to twist slowly in the wind? For ecclesiastical officialdom to look the other way on contraception was, in a sense, possible; [Because of its more hidden, private nature.] but for it to do so in regard to divorce, remarriage, and the reception of holy Communion would be immediately recognized as the practical abandonment of a major doctrino-disciplinary point.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged canon law, divorce, Ed Peters, marriage
44 Comments

A deacon’s blog suppressed

Posted on 13 March 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I want everyone to know about this.

This was posted at the blog Protect The Pope, which was run by Deacon Nick Donnelly.

Diocese of Lancaster’s statement about Deacon Nick Donnelly
BY M DONNELLY, ON MARCH 13TH, 2014
The Bishop’s office of the Diocese of Lancaster has kindly sent Nick the statement they issued to the press about him and Protect the Pope which is copied below.

“After learning that a notice had been placed upon the Protect the Pope website on 7 March saying: ‘Deacon Nick stands down from Protect the Pope for a period of prayer and reflection’ the Bishop’s Office at the Diocese of Lancaster was able to confirm that Bishop Campbell had recently requested Deacon Nick Donnelly to voluntarily pause from placing new posts on the Protect the Pope site.

Meanwhile, it was also confirmed that the Bishop asked Deacon Nick to use this pause to enter into a period of prayer and reflection on the duties involved for ordained bloggers/website administrators to truth, charity and unity in the Church.

Deacon Nick has agreed to the Bishop’s request at this time”.

I, for one, can imagine that a lot of pressure was exerted on the Bishop of Lancaster to have gone to such an extreme as to command a cleric under his charge not to think aloud in public.

I see now, however, that “M Donnelly” is posting at the blog. I take it that this is Missus Deacon. Good for her.

Go get ’em.

In the meantime, every click HERE to visit their blog and to give them a spike in stats.