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{]:¬)

Card. Müller on authority of Popes, possibility of others correcting contradictory papal teachings

Posted on 16 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Back in December, First Things published a piece by the former Prefect of the CDF, Gerard Ludwig Card. Müller on the sacrament of penance. His observations on objective sin and subjective guilt, about knowledge, etc., are germane to a whole raft of questions being raised today, from the admission of the civilly remarried to Communion (some claim that with Amoris laetitia this is now permitted), to the celebration of funerals of manifest sinners (I wrote about that today in another post).

Today I see a new piece by Card. Müller in First Things about the Pope’s authority and teaching.

How do the pope’s Magisterium and the Tradition of the Church relate? When he interprets the words of Jesus, must the pope be in continuity with the Tradition and the previous Magisterium, including that of the most recent popes? Or is it rather the Church’s Tradition that has to be reinterpreted in the light of the pope’s new words? What if there are contradictions?

Really good questions. Several Cardinals respectfully offered questions in this vein to the Pope about how certain aspects of Amoris laetitia seem to contradiction earlier, crystal clear teachings of Pope St. John Paul II.

Read the whole thing, but here is the last part…

[…]

What has been said above refers to the teaching of the Church, but also to the administration of her means of grace in the sacraments. In its Decree on Holy Communion, the Council of Trent declares that the Church has the power to determine or modify the external rites of the sacraments. [For example, after the Council a new form of the sacrament of Confirmation was introduced.] At the same time, the Council denies that the Church has the right or ability to interfere with the essence of the sacraments, insisting that “their substance is preserved.” [For example, the Church cannot say that rice cakes and sake can be used for the Eucharist. No Pope can change that.] When the Council of Trent defines that there are three acts of the penitent that form part of the sacrament of penance (repentance with the resolve not to sin again, confession, and satisfaction), then the popes and bishops of subsequent ages, too, are bound by this declaration. [NB] They are not [NOT] free to grant sacramental absolution for sins, or to authorize their priests to do so, when penitents do not actually show signs of repentance or where they explicitly reject the resolve not to sin again. [No expression of sorrow for sin committed, no expression of firm purposes of amendment… no absolution. It must not be given.] No human being can undo the inner contradiction between the effect of the sacrament—that is, the new communion of life with Christ in faith, hope, and love—and the penitent’s inadequate disposition. Not even the pope or a council can do so, because they lack the authority, nor could they ever receive such authority, because God never asks human beings to do something that is both self-contradictory and contrary to God himself. [Those who do not have a firm purpose of amendment of their lives cannot be validly absolved and, hence, cannot be admitted to the Eucharist, which is to be received when the communicant knows she is not in the state of grace, and the minister must not administer when there is a PUBLIC manifestation of sin and probability of scandal.]

One must keep in mind that doctrinal statements have varying degrees of authority. They require varying degrees of consent, as expressed by the so-called “theological notes.” The acceptance of a teaching with “divine and Catholic faith” is required only for dogmatic definitions. [The controversial bits of Amoris are no where near that level. Nor are innovative interpretations of those controversial bits.] It is also clear that the pope or bishops must never ask anyone to act or teach against the natural moral law. The obedience of the faithful toward their ecclesial superiors is therefore no absolute obedience, and the superior cannot demand absolute obedience, because both the superior and those entrusted to his or her authority are brothers and sisters of the same Father, and they are disciples of the same Master. Therefore, it is harder to teach than to learn, because teaching is associated with a greater responsibility before God. The affirmation “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) has its validity also and especially in the Church. Against the principle of absolute obedience prevailing in the Prussian military state, the German bishops insisted before Bismarck: “It is certainly not the Catholic Church that has embraced the immoral and despotic principle that the command of a superior frees one unconditionally from all personal responsibility.” [Earlier, Müller had introduced his topic with a review of Bismark and the Kulturkampf and the reaction to the Church’s teaching about papal infallibility.]

[NB] When private opinions or spiritual and moral limitations enter into the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, then sober and objective criticism as well as personal correction are called for, especially from the brothers in the episcopal office. Thomas Aquinas will not be suspected of relativizing Petrine primacy and the virtue of obedience. All the more elucidating is the way in which he interprets the incident in Antioch, culminating in Paul’s public correction of Peter (Gal 2:11). According to Aquinas, the event teaches us that under certain circumstances an apostle may have the right and even the duty to correct another apostle in a fraternal way, that even an inferior may have the right and duty to criticize the superior (cf. Commentary on Galatians, Chap. II, lecture 3). This does not mean that one may reduce the magisterium to a private opinion, so as to dispense oneself from the binding power of the authentic and defined teaching of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 37). It only means that one must understand well the precise meaning of authority in the Church in general and the role of Peter’s ministry in particular. This is especially true when the conflict does not arise between the pope’s teaching and one’s own vision, [HERE IT IS…] but between the pope’s teaching and a teaching of previous popes that is in accordance with the uninterrupted tradition of the Church. [That’s it. There is a seeming conflict between what Pope Francis taught in Amoris and what St. John Paul taught in Familiaris consortio, 84, Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 34, Sacramentum caritatis, 29, and Veritatis splendor, 56, 79 and 81, etc.]

As Pope Benedict XVI explained during the Mass on the occasion of his taking possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome on 7 May 2005, “The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith.” He continues, “The pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: The pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”

Thus, Card. Müller.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Drill | Tagged Amoris Laetitia, Gerhard Ludwig Müller, sacrament of penance, theological notes
7 Comments

ASK FATHER: If I remember a sin after confessing, should I interrupt the priest and tell him?

Posted on 16 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

If in Confession I forget a mortal sin (I do examine my conscience but my memory is bad), but then remember AFTER having told the priest that I have finished confessing, and he is talking, should I interrupt him with my sin or be quiet? If I should interrupt, does that go also for remembering during the act of contrition, or during absolution?
Basically, how late can/should I interrupt?
I always end up leaving the confessional worrying that my Confession isn’t valid and it’s quite distressing…

I’d be very grateful if you could keep this anonymous! Thank you for your help.

I always try to anonymize!

If you remember some mortal sin, and if Father hasn’t given you absolution, then I think it is okay to interrupt and say that you remembered something.

If the sin you remember is merely venial, you don’t have to.

If, after receiving absolution, you can be assured that all your sins were forgiven.

I recommend not suddenly shouting, “WAIT! THERE’S MORE!”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged confession, sacrament of penance
10 Comments

Slithery misdirection from the National Sodomitical Reporter: Bishops who avoid scandal commit scandal

Posted on 16 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The National Sodomitical Reporter (aka Fishwrap) is at it again with a particularly dreadful defense of sodomy.

While not many people will bother to read it (it’s really long and rather boring), it contains landmines.

From the title – and from its length – you know from the get go that the content that follows is going to be a slippery twisting of Catholic moral teaching:

The scandal may be in not holding funerals for gay spouses, theologians say

Written by … Michael G. Lawler is the emeritus Amelia and Emil Graff Professor of Catholic Theology at [Jesuit run] Creighton University. He is married to a woman and has several children. Todd A. Salzman is a professor of theology at Creighton University.

They are the co-authors of The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology. ([Jesuit run] Georgetown University Press).

BTW.. when you see the word “toward” in a title of an academic book, be on your guard.

Their sex book, was sharply criticized by the USCCB’s Doctrinal Committee chaired by then-Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC. The committee issued a 24-page statement which faulted Lawler and Salzman for their treatment both of scripture and of natural law. Their approach, it said, represents “a radical departure from the Catholic theological tradition.” Story in the Fishwrap.

According to these guys, “nature” is a social construct.

And “the only thing Lawler and Salzman leave intact about natural law is the name.”

So, you can guess that this new Fishwrap piece is a full-throated defense of sodomy.

They do so through an attack on the Code of Canon Law, can. 1184 that requires the denial of funerals to manifest sinners unless they had shown some sign of repentance.

Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics; []
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. [This would include homosexuals who publicly marry or who make known their relationship widely, etc.]
§2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals.

They start with dog-whistle calls to attack against upholders of the law, Bp. Paprocki of Springfield and Bp. Morlino of Madison.

They proffer a long, distracting fan-dance about what scandal is, with definitions. But they add:

“What is not clear, however, and what is not defined, is what constitutes scandal and how are claims of scandal to be justified.”

See what they are at? “It’s not clear!”

Going on:

While the two bishops [Paprocki and Morlino] assert that permitting a church funeral for a deceased same-sex spouse would give scandal for seeming to condone same-sex relationships, other Catholics assert that denying a church funeral to a deceased same-sex spouse would give scandal for seeming to justify discrimination against homosexuals. Which claim to scandal is justified? [Very clever. They want you to buy that these view have equal standing.]

Scandal is a personal moral judgment that the immoral behavior or attitude of one person leads another to do evil, and is therefore, we suggest, in the eye of the beholder. We ask, however, are there any objective criteria for determining whether or not the beholder is making an accurate moral judgment of an attitude or behavior that would cause him scandal and lead him to do evil?

The assertion that an attitude or behavior would cause “public scandal” is precisely that, an assertion, not an ethical argument and, like any assertion of right or wrong, it needs to be justified by ethical argument. [As if everyone doesn’t know what the argument is.] In the following we argue, in three points, that there are ethical and canonical guidelines for justifying claims to scandal and, further, that public scandal in the case under consideration is more likely to be caused by the bishops’ attitude and behavior than with the permitting of a church funeral to a deceased same-sex spouse.

Here’s a good one about “attitude”:

The catechism’s definition of scandal rightly distinguishes between an attitude and a behavior. This is a common distinction made in Catholic theological ethics, between the goodness or badness of a moral agent, her attitude, disposition or character, and the rightness or wrongness of a behavior or act. [Keep going.]

Why the distinction? Because an attitude and a behavior do not always coincide morally. The classic example is giving alms (a morally right behavior) for vainglory (a morally bad attitude). We morally evaluate behavior on how it impacts relationships and human dignity. [Would that they would admit that homosexual behavior violates human dignity.] In the case of almsgiving everything else being equal, it improves human dignity. The act, therefore, is right. Vainglory, however, is a morally bad attitude that, according to Thomas Aquinas, makes the act morally bad but does not necessarily make the behavior wrong. A bad attitude, being unmerciful or uncharitable, for instance, always makes a right or wrong behavior morally bad. A wrong behavior, however, engaging in a homosexual act, for instance, is not always morally bad if it is done with a good attitude. [Uh huh.]

There’s more… watch the next step.

Behavior norms, however, though they may be absolute like the norm prohibiting homosexual behavior, [it just one of those “norms”] do not necessarily make a behavior morally bad. Depending on the attitude, as well as a well-informed conscience, a wrong behavior may not be morally bad and may even be morally good. If the behavior is not morally bad, it follows that there is no grave sin and, therefore, no legitimate public scandal.

See? Wasn’t that easy? And they tossed that “well-informed conscience” as it it meant the same as “well-formed” conscience, that is, in line with the Church’s teachings.

The argument:

If homosexuals are well-informed – and who isn’t informed about the Church’s teaching these days? – and if you have the right “attitude”, then inseminating another man’s colon isn’t a problem. Hey! It could be morally good!

Next, if it’s morally good (and they have established that as a premise you are supposed to accept), then their acts aren’t a scandal.

Next, if their acts aren’t scandalous, they can’t be denied a funeral on the basis of scandal!

See?

Problem:

Maybe insemination of colons isn’t scandal to the well-informed homosexuals who commit the acts – but those acts are scandalous to right-thinking people who adhere to the truth of natural law and the teachings of the Church which condemn such acts.

That’s the sort of whopper that probably got their book condemned.

Then go pull out the numbers card saying that “the majority of U.S. Catholics (67 percent) support same-sex marriage”.

So the hell what? After decades of simply dreadful catechesis, I’ll bet that 67% of Catholics can’t tell you what a sacrament is. After decades of simply dreadful basic education, I’ll bet that 67% percent of young people can’t read a single page of text with comprehension or balance their checkbook… if they had checkbooks.

Furthermore it is a non sequitur. How is it a good thing to give tacit approval to same-sex acts by giving openly homosexual, active, public sinners (marriage is public) funerals and thus contribute to that number going for 67% to 68%. Shouldn’t that number be going the down, and not up?

And they wanted “objective criteria” before. I’d say that the numbers are objective enough.

Later they get into the morass surrounding “grave” sin and “mortal” sin, as if they are different.

I’ll quote from John Paul II’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia. And we all know that no one ever quibble with a single word or footnote in any Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation. Nosirreee! Read carefully:

During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ” fundamental option”-as is commonly said today-against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. [even if your conscience is “well-informed”?!?] In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.

[NB:] While every sincere and prudent attempt to clarify the psychological and theological mystery of sin is to be valued, the church nevertheless has a duty to remind all scholars in this field of the need to be faithful to the word of God that teaches us also about sin. She likewise has to remind them of the risk of contributing to a further weakening of the sense of sin in the modern world.

That’s what these guys and the National Sodomitic Reporter are doing.

They are weakening the sense of sin in the modern world.

That’s called SCANDAL.

That’s why faithful bishops uphold the law and the Church’s teachings: to avoid SCANDAL.

That’s why faithless clerics and agents of the demonic in the lib catholic press “struggle” against these bishops much as the Red Guards did in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

The authors go one to make a mess of the “primacy of conscience” and, this time “well-formed” conscience with the grand peroration…

Understanding Catholic teaching on the authority of conscience, Pope Francis has correctly stated that we, that is, Catholic pastors and faithful alike, “find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations.”

We have been called, he adds, “to form consciences, not to replace them” (Amoris Laetitia, 37).

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Amoris laetitia.

That phrase is trotted out to justify anything.

We might ask, how many Catholics out there know their basics and have a properly-formed, well-formed conscience?

Do you see the creepy mess presented in the Fishwrap?

It’s all for for sake of the advance of sodomy and, eventually, lowering the age of consent.

Posted in Liberals, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill | Tagged Bp. Paprocki, Bp. Robert Morlino, Fishwrap, homosexuality, National Sodomitical Reporter, scandal
12 Comments

An Armenian bishop “ordains” a deaconette

Posted on 16 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

My inbox is being pelted with a story that some Armenian Orthodox bishop in Tehran “ordained” a female deacon. For example HERE and HERE.

To which I respond:

Ho hum.

First, I’m not sure that we care much about a single Armenian bishop does in Tehran.

Secondly, the claim in the story is that Armenians had a long tradition of ordaining deaconettes. Oh, really? Then why is this a big story?

Thirdly, if they had them, and then they disappeared… maybe there’s a good reason.

Fourthly, you can’t simply declare something to be a long-standing tradition.

The best thing written to date about women and the diaconate, Deaconesses: An Historical Study by Aime G. Martimort (French 1982 & English – Ignatius Press, 1986) [US HERE – UK HERE] has a chapter: “Were there deaconesses among the Armenians and Georgians?”

The answer is as you have already guessed.

As Martimort explains, there isn’t any reliable evidence for their early practice. Moreover, they were explicitly forbidden from the 5th century onward. In the 12th c. there was discussion of deaconettes in strict cloisters, but reading on in Martimort we find that even that seems dodgy. Martimort concludes:

“Even though it is not always easy to fix the exact date of its desuetude in the various churches, it does seem pretty clear that, by the end of the tenth or eleventh centuries, deaconesses had pretty much disappeared in the East, even though the memory of them continued, anachronistically, to be revived in the recopying of liturgical books, and – in a defective and imprecise fashion – in the tradition of canonists.”

“But Father! But Father!”, you libs bellow from your fainting couches and behind your quivering fans, “You are always talking about TRADITION! Here they are using their tradition! Right? So, you are a hypocritical, patriarchalist who clings to laws and … and … YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

Deaconettes… nope.

A former professor of mine in Rome, Fr. Giles Pelland, SJ explains:

In order to speak of a “tradition” or “practice” of the Church, it is not enough to point out a certain number of cases spread over a period of four or five centuries. One would have to show, insofar as one can, that these cases correspond to a practice accepted by the Church at the time. Otherwise, we would only have the opinion of a theologian (however prestigious), or information about a local tradition at a certain moment in its history—which obviously does not have the same weight.

In a nutshell, it is possible to find any number of isolated incidents of this or that aberrant practice in the ancient Church. We see this in our own day. Just because some group does or says X today doesn’t mean that it is accepted Catholic practice or teaching. A serious problem arises when you try to found your arguments on those isolated aberrant practices as if they were accepted.

Everyone… just refer the promoters of deaconettes to Martimort. It is a little dated, now, but it is at least sober and fair.

US HERE – UK HERE

The Pelland quote, by the way, comes from a discussion of ancient marriage and divorce practices, but it is entirely appropriate for other discussions of ancient practice as well. Gilles Pelland, S.J., “Did the Church Treat the Divorced and Remarried More Leniently in Antiquity than Today?”, L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, February 2, 2000, p. 9. Quoted in the magnificent, highly useful, deeply influential, hated by libs, stolen from Synod mailboxes, Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (in English by Ignatius Press HERE – UK link HERE).

UPDATE:

Not everyone is on board. HERE

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", Deaconettes, You must be joking! | Tagged Aime G. Martimort, Armenians, deaconettes
11 Comments

Two seriously ugly signs of the times involving papal honors and the silencing of bells

Posted on 15 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE:

What sort of person is this Ploumen, to whom the papal honor was given? Ed Pentin has more extensive information. HERE

Ploumen’s work in support of abortion has been monstrous: In protest at President Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy last year which ended federal funding international organizations that perform or promote abortion, Ploumen set up an NGO called “She Decides” which sought to continue funding many of those organizations. By July 2017, “She Decides” had raised $300 million; it now has a war chest of $390 million, most of it going to UN agencies. It is backed by 60 countries, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Her campaigning has also gone beyond abortion to include being a radical supporter of homosexual rights. In 2010, she urged homosexuals to disrupt Mass in a Dutch cathedral after an openly homosexual man was denied Holy Communion. Last September Ploumen was a prominent speaker at the LGBT’s Core Group at the United Nations. The Vatican statement made no explicit mention of her political activism in that area.

In 2015, and also in her capacity as a Dutch minister, Ploumen had a private audience with the Pope to discuss climate change. The Dutch government had co-organized a Vatican conference on the issue ahead of the intergovernmental climate change talks in Paris later that year.

So… radical homosexualist as well as a radical infanticide.

Jesuit educated?

___ Originally Published on: Jan 15, 2018

Signs of the times.

This first item struck me as being right up there with someone in Hawaii pushing the wrong button, or maybe a prime example of fake news.

A few days ago I saw tweets and a report that the Holy Father had awarded the papal honor of St. Gregory to an infamous promotrix of abortion in Holland, Lilianne Ploumen. She is the Dutch Ministrix of Development. She had, inter alia, worked to fill the gaps of funding for abortions overseas after Pres. Trump cut funding.

“It can’t be true”, I thought. “Or if it is, then someone pushed the wrong button.”

I was amazed. However, what was more amazing about it is that even she seemed amazed.

Watch the video below as she talks about getting the award. Transcript:

BNR – And this is the umpteenth prize that Lilianne Ploumen observes, won in 2017 and from whom they came.
Ploumen – Yes, it is a high distinction from the Vatican; from the pope.
BNR – From the pope.
Ploumen – Beautiful.
BNR – Yes.
Ploumen – It is Commander in the order of St. Gregory.
BNR – And that despite that you are pro-abortion. [Note how amused they are here.]
Ploumen – Yes you can check.

The Card. Eijk of Utrecht jumped in to say that he had nothing to do with this papal honor. Usually local bishops are involved when they are bestowed. They put in requests, the mandarins in Rome go through their gyrations and honors are awarded.

The Holy See’s Press Office issued a statement over the signature of one of the collaborators of the office, not over Greg Burke’s (he’s off to S. America with the Pope and in this age of social communications, with inboard wifi, etc., that leaves him out of the loop). The press office statement says that this award was part of a routine exchange of honors for diplomatic purposes during a state visit. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Ploumen’s advocacy of abortion.

Huh?

Yes, I’m afraid that it does!

I know that the Pope himself is not bothered with most of these awards. This is handled in the Secretariat of State. But you’d think that someone in SecState, who knows the situation in Holland, would have said something like, “Ummm.. guys? Maybe we should pick someone who isn’t famous for being pro-abortion? I’m jus’ sayin’.”

I keep circling back to that video….

Does this not fit the definition of scandal?

Does this action in some way diminish the Church’s moral authority in defending human life, fighting abortion, and even working on the world stage to prevent abortion in developing countries?

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.

The flip side of this is, of course, that when an authority fails to act to prevent or diminish scandal, that authority is negligent, perhaps sinfully so.

Think, in another context, of a Catholic school inviting an infamous homosexualist advocate to speak. Even it the Jesuit is going to talk about something that has nothing to do with homosexuality, every one there knows that he and his primary message – set aside for tonight – is tacitly being approved by the fact that he has been whitelisted to speak.

Nudge… wink.

Shifting gears…

The Religion if Peace is invading Europe. It is a form of jihad involving immigration called hijra. It is intended precisely to spread Islam. Build up your numbers in a region and then move against the infidel, now powerless to defend.

Nearly all our pastors seem to be prone in the face of the OBVIOUS.

Pam Geller’s site reports that practitioners of the Religion of Peace in near Genoa, Italy, have demanded that church bells be silenced.

“Before Christmas we received a letter from a lawyer who, in the name of his client, ordered to stop the bells of the church of the Blessed Sacrament,” said Fr Michele De Santis, the Chancellor of the Curia, [i.e., the chancery] ” so we advised the parish priest to stop them. ».

So, the parish has curtailed the use of their bells.

Hmmm… the blessing of bells is nicknamed “baptism”. They are washed with holy water, annointed with chrism and given a name. They speak, and remind us to of God and remind us when to pray, as at certain times of day they ring the Angelus and Mass times, alert us to 3 o’clock on Fridays, let us know of burials and marriages, etc.

It’s okay for muslims to have calls to prayer from the tops of towers, but not Catholics.

Shutting down bells in Catholic church towers is like disarming a population before the imposition of tyranny.

I am sure, however, that the catholic Left will be sympathetic both to this anti-bell movement as well as the award to the Dutch abortion promotrix. How sophisticated they will strive to sound as they explain how the delicate work of diplomatic circles can be, the need to make friends, not stir the pot too much. How thoughtful they will appear, as they, with a slightly sad smile explain that bells are, in the end, not such a big deal. We have to be respectful of different ways. We have to welcome the immigrant and – hey! – they aren’t used to bells. They don’t have them where they come from! It would be inhospitable to cling to the unnecessary trappings – in fact old and probably outdated practices.

Abortion… hijra … jihad by immigration/invasion.

Can’t we all just get along?

UPDATE:

As per a request in the comments…

Everyone, please read

Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War by Sebastian Gorka.

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOK RECEIVED about Martin Luther (not King but by “King”)

Posted on 15 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It seems appropriate to post this today.

I recently received a hardback copy of a new book about Martin Luther by Richard Rex (“King”), professor of Reformation history at Cambridge.

The Making of Martin Luther (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017)

US HERE – UK HERE

The contents:

He sets out, as he states, “to explain Luther’s ideas – to explain what they were, what was distinctive about them, and how he worked them out.” He wants to avoid caricatures.

I am assured by a correspondent:

I have known its author since he was an undergraduate at Trinity College, Cambridge, England in the early/mid 1980s. He is a practicing orthodox Catholic, and the father of six children. Fr. Hunwicke commented on the book HERE. [Very funny, btw.]

If you are interested, these two websites provide more information about the book’s author HERE and HERE.

The book is not “polemical” in the way that Luther and His Progeny ed. John Rao is – not that Rao’s collection (which I am currently reading) is not a fine work as well – but I do not see how the discerning reader can come away from the book without some distaste for the figure whose intellectual and theological “development” it analyzes. And with such a founder as Luther (just as with Joseph Smith for the Mormons or Francis Hodur for the “Polish National Catholic Church”) it may make one question the credibility of “Lutheranism as an -ism.”

That said, since I read the polemic book, I will will read what is promised to be a non-polemical.

A comment in the preface drove me right away to look first at a specific chapter. In the preface:

The key to Luther’s theology is his notion of certainty. Luther, who might in some ways by regarded as the intellectual progenitor of the “masters of suspicion” (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud), called a great deal into doubt.

So, I turned immediately to Chap. 4: The Quest For Certainty. It was rewarding.

BTW… the other Luther book mentioned, above, is:

Luther and His Progeny: 500 Years of Protestantism and Its Consequences for Church, State, and Society, edited by John Rao.

US HERE – UK HERE

Let’s just say that these writers are not about to become Lutherans. Fr. Hunwicke, who reviewed Rex, penned an essay for Rao.

Posted in REVIEWS | Tagged Martin Luther, Richard Rex
Comments Off

ASK FATHER: How do I find out which territorial parish I live in?

Posted on 15 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

A recent post of yours got me wondering, how do I know what my territorial parish is? I live in a medium city and there are three parishes almost equidistant to my house.

My wife and I actually go to a fourth parish only slightly further away (the cathedral) because of the preaching.

How do I know which one is my territorial parish, and what are my responsibilities to it? Am I doing anything wrong going somewhere else?

You are not doing anything wrong by going to another parish. However, when it comes to receiving certain sacraments, the local, territorial pastor shouldn’t be ignored.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law starts out describing a diocese as a “portion of the people of God”. Dioceses are usually circumscribed by borders, indicating territory. You belong to your diocese because you dwell in the diocese in a relatively stable way. (There are exceptions, as in the case of the Archdiocese for the Military, to which members of the military and their dependents belong). The Code also says that parishes – which could also be described as “portions of the people of God” -are usually territorial (can. 518): if you live in the boundary of the parish, you probably belong to that parish. (There are exceptions for parishes with boundaries that could stretch to the diocesan boundaries for ethnic or language groups, etc.)

So, in the main, you live in the geographically described territory of some parish. In general if you live really close to a parish church, that’s probably your parish.

However, now parishes are being consolidated. You may live close to St. Joseph Terror of Demons Church, which was formerly its own parish. A couple years ago, it might have been consolidated with the parish Our Lady Mournful Mother Weeping Church to form a larger parish with two churches in it, the new consolidated parish now being called “Through My Fault Through My Fault Through My Most Grievous Fault Catholic Community”.

That’s the sort of name I would come up with, by the way, although on my planet, these consolidations would be as rare as hen’s teeth. Alas, these days the usual consolidation names are more like “Sing A New Faith Community Into Being Faith Community” or “Engendering Togetherness Community of Welcome”.

To get a handle on what your territorial parish is, you could call what you think is your local parish. If that doesn’t produce results, call the diocese. Tell them your address and ask which is your official territorial parish.

Mind you: You may have a problem finding someone who knows a) that there are such a thing as parish borders and b) what those borders are.

Some dioceses make it easy. For example, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia provides a way to enter your address on their website to find out your territorial parish. Not all dioceses do that.

This could take some perseverance.

Slowly but surely – at least in developed countries where people are highly mobile – the practical effects of parish boundaries are dissolving and resolving themselves into a dew.

In law people belong to St. Idealia in the Diocese of Libville where with the acquiescence of Bp. Fatty McButterpants the ultra-liberal Fr Bruce Hugalot commits all manner of liturgical abuse and preaches outright heresy, but in practice they are receiving all their services from Msgr. Zuhlsdorf at St. Ipsidipsy, across the diocesan border over in the Diocese of Black Duck!

This isn’t far-fetched. Say you live near your diocese’s border, and there is a far superior option over there in the other diocese. A person might drive from N. Illinois up to Madison WI. Someone might take the subway from Brooklyn (a diocese), into Manhattan (a different diocese).

It’s confusing, but that’s life these days. People are voting with their feet.

It may be that the law will be changed to reflect new realities. It is hard to know what that might look like, however, since the world isn’t homogeneous.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged can. 518, parish
16 Comments

Who cares what libs think? Boldly recover and use great traditional items and vesture of yore.

Posted on 14 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At the newish blog LAJ, Shawn Tribe has a good post about boldness in regard to some traditional vesture and other items of yore.

In the 60s Paul VI abolished quite a lot of good things. That was a mistake. However, with the rise of Summorum Pontificum, and with the slow but steady demise of the aging-hippy tyrants brainwashed in the halcyon days of Vatican II, some of our riches are returning to use.

Tribe mentions, among other things, the tufted fascia, buckled clerical shoes, the mantelletta, etc.

He touches on the ridicule heaped by libs on those who enjoy traditional things.

He doesn’t not avoid that there are some who get way too involved with the ecclesiastical gizmos and tat.

However, he also rightly observes that younger people who are discovering our rich traditions, the patrimony that was cruelly kept from them, don’t have the baggage still lugged about by the aging-hippies and their kind. They like and want this old stuff.

Who cares what libs think? They are always wrong.

Here is his peroration:

If there were advice to be given to clergy in the light of all this, it would seem to be this:

Don’t politicize these things of course but don’t shy away from them either. Stop feeling sheepish about them — you may as well feel sheepish about all Catholic traditions and teachings if so. There’s no need and it’s certainly not how many of your younger flock tend to look at these things, not to mention many others besides. Keep things in perspective of course, making the sacred liturgy your first priority, but be confident in our Catholic patrimony.

Will some mock? Yes, you can absolutely count on it. Christ didn’t shy away from mocking however. [NB] The reality is that ideologues and enemies will always find one way or another to mock and deride and if it is not one thing, then it’s another. If anything, acceding to their mockery only invites more derision, demonstrating weakness, and that doesn’t invite respect. You can also be assured, however, that many others, even those outside the Church, find these things of interest and appeal.

In short, we beg you, please stop ‘blinking.’ Instead, be bold and confident in our patrimony and start to lead the conversation again.

I agree.

A few notes.

It can be argued that the vesture used by prelates in 1962 can and should be used when they participate in Masses in the traditional Roman Rite. I wrote a post about this: HERE.

Paul VI changed a bunch of things in 1969. For example, he “abolished” the mantelletta, the sash with “fiochi” (I have those in black and in paonazza for when I’m MC in Pontifical Masses), the red tabarro, galero and plush hat, the colored stockings and shoe buckles for lesser prelates, the red pom on the birettas of prelates of honor, the mantellone for lesser prelates, etc.

Frankly, I think that suppression of articles of clothing is, how to put it… lana caprina.

Moreover, I think that in the context of the use of the 1962 liturgical books they can be used. When in choir monsignors can and should dress as monsignors dressed in 1962. Must they? Are they obliged to? No. I won’t go that far.

Another thing… shoe buckles.

Since we Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists like manuals, we consult Trimeloni, (US HERE – UK HERE).

In the section on “Ceremonies of Mass, ch. I, “The Read Mass”, I. “The Celebrant”- “In the sacristy” (p. 397 – my translation):

Use the footwear that clerics of the place are used to wearing publicly and wear the cassock.

I can’t bring myself to wear flip flops, golf shoes or crocs. Sorry.

But wait! There’s more.

In a footnote:

D. 3268, 3. [Cf. Naifa, Costume of the Prelates of the Catholic Church, Balitmore, 1925: “According to the Roman ceremonial, all clerics and those who serve in church, as cantors, sacristans, etc., ought to wear shoes with buckles (It. fibbie). The buckle is of shiny steel for members of the inferior clergy and servers, in silver for priests, monks and prelates belonging to religious orders. Gold and gilded silver are reserved for secular prelates.”

That means that I really should have shoes with buckles. Right?

If someone wants to get me clerical shoes with silver buckles – silver, mind you, not just polished silver colored metal – I’m open to using them. Maybe we should start a fund at Gammarelli: “For Use By Fr. Z”. (They really need to update and offer gift cards, etc.)

I don’t feel obliged to use buckles.

However, I think that Tribe is right.

Let’s use our traditional items, as they were properly used back when.

Let’s just do it. After all, in this age of mercy where laws don’t have meaning and all can discern for themselves what their state is (I’ve discerned in the internal forum that I’m now an Internal Forum Monsignor)… who is anyone to judge?

So, maybe I could put the detachable silver buckles on my normal winter footwear for Mass.

Silver buckles might spiff up my cadillacs.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Be The Maquis, Brick by Brick, Decorum, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Just Too Cool, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The future and our choices | Tagged buckles
18 Comments

ACTION ITEM! Petition against removal of historic Cross where Fr. Marquette died

Posted on 14 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I received this request from TFP. It is a good cause.

Liberals and atheists are now trying to bring down another historical cross. This one is particularly important to our American heritage.

The Father Marquette Memorial Cross in Ludington, Michigan, was erected at Ludington, Michigan, on the site where Father Jacques Marquette died. Father Marquette was a French missionary from the late seventeenth century who explored the Mississippi. [Fr. Marquette is a monumentally important figure for the history of the region. He deserves an appropriate monument. Nothing is more appropriate than a Cross, in which name he worked, where he died.]

The large, white Cross has stood near Lake Michigan in Ludington for over half a century. And now atheists want it torn down!

Sign the petition urging the Pere Marquette Township to keep the Marquette Cross standing

According to reports:

An iconic West Michigan monument honoring Father “Pere” Jacques Marquette has come under fire recently, and now the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists is calling for the Christian cross to be removed.

“The cross is in a hilltop memorial park on a small peninsula in Pere Marquette Township. The peninsula separates Lake Michigan and Pere Marquette Lake, and the cross is visible from either side. It was erected in 1955 on the spot where Marquette reportedly died.”
(MLive.com)

How could anyone even conceive of taking down this important marker?

This is not only an attack on our American heritage but on Christian civilization.

Please sign our petition, telling the Pere Marquette Township the Father Marquette Cross must be allowed to remain

We must take a stand! We cannot allow our country’s links with Christianity to be destroyed.

Please take the time to sign our petition, asking the Township of Pere Marquette to let the Marquette Cross stand.

Posted in ACTION ITEM!, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged atheists, Fr Marquette
3 Comments

ASK FATHER: We want our children to have reverent Masses. Can we go to the SSPX chapel?

Posted on 14 January 2018 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

We are in a desperate situation. We have looked very deeply into the matter, and feel very strongly that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is the most reverent. We are morally accountable to bring our four beautiful children to the most reverent Mass possible. We live in a rural area, and the only Novus Ordo Masses within an hour driving distance are not reverent — they have liturgical abuses and other irreverent practices. There is a SSPX chapel 45 min. from our home which offers the Latin Mass twice per month. Is it permissible and prudent to go there twice per month? We have pleaded with our bishop and after years, have only been able to get the Latin Mass offered once per month in our diocese.

I have great respect and sympathy for parents who are trying to raise their children in today’s secular and today’s ecclesiastical environments. What challenges you face, both from outside and – woe to us! – within the Church. God is offering you great graces as you face the mounting trials of your state in life.

You have pretty much equal distances to drive, it seems. You have to haul your family a hour each way, which is not insignificant.

The irreverence and abuses at the Novus Ordo Masses you mention, and your sense of responsibility to your children, could constitute a moral impossibility to go to that Novus Ordo only parish for Sunday Mass when there is an decent alternative.

The decent alternative presents itself twice a month in the SSPX chapel.

There is a great deal I don’t know about your situation. For example, if the preaching at the Novus Ordo parish is sound, or if the preaching at the SSPX chapel is harsh or aimed with hostility against legitimate ecclesial authorities, etc.

All things being equal, however, I think that you can in good conscience go to the SSPX when Mass is offered there. You fulfill your Sunday obligation in doing so. You may receive Communion if you wish. You can, in justice, contribute to the collection, since you are receiving a service from them. You can go to confession to SSPX priests…. now.

That said, remember that even though step by step we all seem to be coming towards greater formal unity, you should not weaken your own unity with your local pastors, including your parish priest and your bishop.

When Mass is not offered at the SSPX chapel, you should go to your local parish. All things being equal, your local parish is your default choice.

The SSPX chapel may present excellent Masses, preaching and catechesis, but you are still within the bounds of the official parish, which is something that an SSPX chapel cannot, by law, be. The parish priest has the faculties and duties assigned by the local bishop. Do not forget this when making choices about where to go for sacraments, etc.

I would double-down on your prayers and even fasting for the local pastor and for the bishop.

Continue respectfully to make your concerns known. Keep every scrap of correspondence.

If there are serious abuses in the Mass in the official, Novus Ordo parish, then make them know to the bishop and, beyond him, the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. You would need to send proofs of what you claim is happening, of course. Also, having more than one person sending information to the bishop or to Rome is helpful. You have the right to make your concerns know. Review the whole of the document Redemptionis Sacramentum, especially the very end, where your rights and obligations are described.

Meanwhile, perhaps all those couples who are also raising children out there, and perhaps in a similar situation, might chime in with their own experiences… together with a promise of reciprocal prayers.