L’Affaire McCarrick: Soon to be “Mister”

This is an interesting development in L’Affaire McCarrick.

From Vida Nueva Digital:

Francisco expulsará del sacerdocio a Theodore McCarrick por abusar de menores

Theodore McCarrick está viviendo quizá sus últimos días como sacerdote. El que fuera cardenal y uno de los hombres más influyentes de la Iglesia católica en Estados Unidos podría recibir en breve el máximo castigo que el Derecho Canónico contempla para un eclesiástico: la dimisión del estado clerical. Según ha podido saber Vida Nueva, la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, encargada de juzgar los ‘delicta graviora’ (delitos más graves, entre ellos la pederastia), está a punto de cerrar el proceso a McCarrick, acusado de abusar sexualmente de tres menores y de varios seminaristas y jóvenes sacerdotes.

La reducción al estado laical de un antiguo miembro del Colegio cardenalicio, del que fue expulsado en julio por el Papa por abusos a un adolescente, es una medida sin precedentes en la historia moderna de la Iglesia. Será el mejor símbolo de que Francisco va en serio en su voluntad de limpiar la Iglesia de pederastas y encubridores antes de que se inicie la cumbre convocada en el Vaticano del 21 al 24 de febrero para hablar sobre cómo proteger a los menores dentro de las instituciones eclesiásticas. Representantes de las conferencias episcopales de todo el mundo están llamados a participar en esta inédita cita que debe marcar un punto de inflexión en la lucha contra la pederastia en la Iglesia.

[…]

Reuters:

Vatican to rule next week on defrocking of disgraced U.S. cardinal: sources

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Vatican officials will meet next week to decide the fate of disgraced former U.S. cardinal Theodore McCarrick over allegations of sexual abuse, Vatican sources said on Friday.

Vatican sources told Reuters last month that McCarrick will almost certainly be dismissed from the priesthood, which would make him the highest profile Roman Catholic figure to be defrocked in modern times.

Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Vatican department that will rule on the case, met Pope Francis on Thursday, according to a public Vatican schedule.

The Vatican did not say what was discussed but one source said it was likely that Ladaria briefed the pontiff on the final stages of the McCarrick case. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.

Francis, who will have to sign off on any dismissal decision, wants the McCarrick case over before heads of national Catholic churches meet at the Vatican from Feb. 21-24 to discuss the global sexual abuse crisis, three Vatican sources told Reuters last month.

[…]

Posted in ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged
22 Comments

When winter gets reeeeeally long

This is the sort of thing we native Minnesotans get into when the winter starts to drag.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

And, in honor of the UM Golden Gophers upcoming defeat of Penn State later today…

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
3 Comments

PODCAzT 169: Bp. Athanasius Schneider on “the only God-willed religion”

The terrific and courageous Bp. Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary in Astana, has sent out for wide distribution an essay entitled

The Gift of Filial Adoption
The Christian Faith: the only valid and the only God-willed religion

Clearly, from the title, this is a response to the poorly worded Catholic/Islamic document signed in the UAE by Francis and an imam. You will recall that that document, inter alia, so badly phrases a statement about God’s will that one could, were one to choose to, read it to mean that God willed a diversity of religions not just by His permissive will but by His active, positive will. That would be contrary to reason and the Catholic Faith.

Rather than simply reproduce it, you can download it.   This is the Word document that was sent around.

HERE

Also, to help you out, I’ve recording a reading of it to make it easier for some of you to benefit from it.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Francis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, The Drill, The Religion of Peace, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , ,
9 Comments

Card. Burke’s new, official website

Word is getting around, but I thought I would help.

His Eminence Raymond Leo Card. Burke has a new, personal website.

https://cardinalburke.com/

You can send him prayer intentions for which he will pray.  And you can sign up for notifications.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío! | Tagged
7 Comments

ASK FATHER: Popes in red rather than white?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Would you like to see the pope (or maybe the next one) resume wearing a red cassock?

Well, this is a truly burning question, isn’t it.

There are conflicting theories about how the pope wound up garbed in white.  Some think that Bl. Innocent V, pope for a few months in 1276, kept his white Dominican habit.  Others think that it was Pius V, 1566-72, who kept his white Dominican habit.  Either way, it seems that Dominicans were involved.

Would I like to see popes in red?  No.

What I would like to see is the proper use of traditional papal garb and vestments, which demonstrates humility and shows respect for the office and God’s people.

There is, by the way, a nickname, the Red Pope, for the head of Propaganda Fidei, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples.   Back in the day, this was an extremely powerful position, especially because of the massive funds the head of Propaganda controlled and the territories he governed.  The “red” here refers to the color of the cardinal’s garb.

However, another “Red Pope” could be the late, great Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, whom some claim was the real pope, truly the one elected in 1958.  The story is that Siri was elected as Gregory XVII but because of massive resistance his election was somehow reversed and John XXIII was elected.   The Siri Theory is the foundation of the claims of some sedevacantists.  Other sedevacantists disputed the 1903 election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pius X.  That conclave originally, or nearly so, elected Card. Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro.  Back in the day, it was possible for secular powers to influence conclaves.  When Rampolla was elected, or nearly so, the Card. Prince-Archbp. of Krakow exercised Franz Joseph’s, the Emperor of Austria’s, veto.  One of Pius X’s first official acts was to abolish the veto right, the ius exclusivae, which was the prerogative of the Catholic monarchs of France, Spain, Austria, and the Holy Roman Emperor and exercised through a cardinal of royal blood.  This veto had been used against papal candidates some dozen times during the 17th-19th centuries.

Let’s just say that had Siri been elected things would have been very different, as they would have under Rampolla.

Various sedevanctist theories have popped up over the years. There are those who say that the 2013 conclave produced an invalid election for a couple reasons. First, some say there shouldn’t have been a conclave at all because Benedict XVI did not properly abdicate and he remains Pope. Second, some say that, because of the machinations of certain people campaigning to manipulate the outcome of the conclave, thus incurring excommunication, the election was void.

All of this demonstrates how important the figure of the Successor of Peter is, the importance of the Petrine Ministry as a constituent feature which God wove into the very fabric of the one, true, Catholic Church He founded.

Catholics take their popes seriously. However, there have been times in the history of the Church when popes have been take too seriously. There have been great popes and relatively insignificant popes, saintly popes and corrupt popes, influential popes and feckless popes, effective popes and useless popes. God the Holy Spirit does not elect popes, men do. Hopefully the men are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the role of the Holy Spirit in the election of popes is, at the very least, to avoid total disaster for the Church.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Lighter fare | Tagged , , ,
8 Comments

St. Francis and the Sultan: What really happened in 1219 in Catholic Muslim dialogue?

The Islamic/Catholic Fraternity document has caused a stir.  I wrote about a neuralgic point in it, yesterday, and some people had a spittle-flecked nutty.

There is more to say about that document.  I’ll get to it again, soon. I suspect more spittle-flecked nutties will result.

Meanwhile, Francis held a Wednesday General Audience today.   Text HERE. During that audience he offered a couple points that deserve attention.

Francis said that, during his time in the UAE, he often thought about the “visit of St Francis Assisi to Sultan al-Malik al’Kamil”.

Let’s review Francis of Assisi and his visit to the Sultan.

Many think that Francis was a bunny-hugging bird kisser.  When they think of him, they start to croon the tune from Brother Sun, Sister Moon or the ditty falsely attributed to him, “Make me a channel of your peace”.   But Francis of Assisi was not a medieval peacenik.   There was only one accord Francis wanted: the accord of one Faith… by their conversion.

Francis went to the Egypt to convert Sultan al-Kamil, a nephew of Saladin.

Here is the account of Francis’ words from Verba fratris Illuminati socii b. Francisci ad partes Orientis et in conspectu Soldani Aegypti (Codex Vaticanus Ott.lat.n.552):

The same sultan submitted this problem to [Francis]: “Your Lord taught in his gospels that evil must not be repaid with evil, that you should not refuse your cloak to anyone who wants to take your tunic, etc. (Mt 5,40): All the more Christians should not invade our land!”.  And Blessed Francis answered: “It seems to me that you have not read the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety. In fact it says elsewhere: “if your eye causes you sin, tear it out and throw it away” (Mt 5 , 29). With this, Jesus wanted to teach us that if any person, even a friend or a relative of ours, and even if he is dear to us as the apple of our eye, we should be willing to repulse him, to weed him out if he sought to take us away from the faith and love of our God. This is precisely why Christians are acting according to justice when they invade the lands you inhabit and fight against you, for you blaspheme the name of Christ and strive to turn away from his worship as many people as you can. But if you were to recognize, confess, and worship the Creator and Redeemer, Christians would love you as themselves instead.”

A long-time reader and participant here, Fr. Augustine Thompson, wrote a good biography of St. Francis.  Francis of Assisi: A New Biography US HERE – UK HERE

Here is the fascinating account from Thompson of the encounter of Francis with the Sultan (my emphases and comment):

[…] Francis was no coward. He soon asked permission to cross enemy lines, enter the Muslim camp, and preach Christ to the sultan al-Kamil. The cardinal [Pelagius Galvani of Albano, leader of the Crusader Forces] flatly refused the request. Death was the usual punishment for those who attempted to convince Muslims to abandon their religion, as it was for any Muslim who apostatized. Francis was undaunted; he and his companion—late sources identify him as Illuminato—continued to harass the cardinal, arguing that since they would go only with his permission, not by his command, he could not be blamed for anything that happened to them. The cardinal, a high ecclesiastical diplomat and administrator, knew little or nothing about Francis or his movement. He had no way of knowing what their intentions were or what result their infiltration of the Egyptian camp might have. He again rejected their request, saying that he had no way of knowing if their project was of God or the devil. Eventually, tired by their persistence, Pelagius said he would not stop them from going, but that they were under no circumstances to tell anyone that he had any connection to their mission.

The cardinal was ostensibly washing his hands of the matter, saying in effect: If you are harmed, imprisoned, or killed, do not expect any help from me. But his primary concern was to prevent al-Kamil from thinking that the friars’ visit implied some change in his hard-line position of no negotiations. The secular leaders of the Crusade may well have hoped that Francis’s journey would reopen the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Francis was probably oblivious to the political implications of his endeavor. In any case, the unarmed Francis and his companion left the Crusader camp, crossed the Nile, and approached the Muslim fortifications. Egyptian guards, assuming that the men were deserters who wanted to renounce their faith and accept Islam, took them in charge. When it became obvious that the two men had no intention of accepting Islam, the guards began to maltreat them. Francis, who knew no Arabic whatsoever, began to shout the one word he did know—“Soldan”—over and over. Finally, the bemused soldiers took him to al-Kamil.

Every report says that the sultan received the friars well, no doubt hoping that they were, in fact, a new embassy charged with reopening negotiations. He would have recognized them as Christian clergy by their tonsure and religious garb. The sultan, undoubtedly communicating with the brothers through a translator, asked if they were an embassy from the Crusaders, or if they intended to accept Islam, or perhaps both. Francis skipped over the question about messages from the leaders of the Crusade and got immediately to the point. He was the ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ and had come for the salvation of the sultan’s soul. Francis expressed his willingness to explain and defend Christianity. This was not at all what the sultan wanted. He replied that he had no time for theological discussions and that he had plenty of religious experts who could show the two men the truth of Islam.

Francis was delighted to find a larger audience for his message and agreed to discussions, saying that if the sultan and his advisers were not convinced by his presentation, they could cut off his head. Some of the sultan’s religious advisers were summoned to present the faith of Muhammad to Francis. He replied by stating his own faith. The reaction was swift: Francis was tempting them all with apostasy and was therefore dangerous. The Muslim experts unanimously advised the sultan to execute both of the Franciscans for preaching against Muhammad and Islam. They warned him not to listen to them, as even that was dangerous. The religious leaders then withdrew. Francis did make some impression, either positive or negative, on one of the Muslim religious leaders present. The jurist Fâkhr ad-Din al-Fârisi had his involvement with al-Kamil in the “affair of the monk” recorded on his tombstone.

Al-Kamil, however, did not execute or dismiss the two friars. Rather, left alone with the two friars and, probably, an interpreter, the sultan seems to have been impressed by Francis’s sincerity and willingness to die for his beliefs. He also probably hoped that once they finished ventilating the religious matter, there might be an opening for political negotiation. Thus there began a long conversation between Francis and the Muslim leader. Francis continued to express his Christian faith in the Crucified Lord and his promise of salvation. Al-Kamil continued listening politely, doubtless occasionally probing to see if the little Italian’s homilies masked a political feeler. In spite of his advisers’ hard line, the sultan had little reason to take offense at Francis’s expression of faith, for, as Jacques de Vitry himself remarked, Muslims had no objection to praising Jesus, who was a prophet for them too, as long as the speaker avoided any suggestion that Muhammad’s message was false or deluded. Francis himself never spoke ill of Muhammad, just as he never spoke ill of anyone. Later, when other Franciscans crossed over the battle lines and preached against Muhammad, they were fortunate to escape with merely a flogging.

After several conversations over a number of days, and finding that this discussion was making no political headway, the sultan decided to end it. He made a final offer: if the brothers would stay and accept Islam, he would see that they were well provided for. Francis and his companion flatly refused, saying again that they had not come to convert but to preach Christ. So, in a typical act of Middle Eastern hospitality, al-Kamil had a table set out with precious cloth and gold and silver ornaments and offered the two men their pick of them as gifts. Much to the sultan’s surprise, Francis explained that their religion forbade them to accept any precious gifts, money, or property. On the other hand, he would be happy to accept food for the day. Whether or not he asked Francis to pray for him, as some Christian sources claim, al-Kamil was pleased to provide them with a sumptuous meal, after which he ordered them deported to the Crusader lines.

Francis may not have converted the sultan, but he and his companions did make a deep impression on the Christian clergy present in Damietta, including Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre. Much to the bishop’s displeasure, Don Ranieri, rector of the Crusader church of St. Michael at Acre, abandoned his master to join the Franciscans. Two other clerics attached to his party, Colin the Englishman and Michael of the Church of the Holy Cross, also joined Francis. In a letter dated later in February or March 1220 to friends at home, de Vitry ascribed the rapid growth of Francis’s movement to their failure to screen and test applicants and to the friars’ willingness to send enthusiastic, if unprepared, men to all parts of the world. In the bishop’s opinion, too many of those attracted to the movement were unstable, enthusiastic youths, unready for the risks of itinerancy and uncloistered religious life. When Francis merely attracted lay brothers in rural Umbria back in 1216, the bishop of Acre had good words for the movement. Now, in light of Francis’s imprudent zeal in crossing enemy lines, and his willingness to take runaway clergy into his ranks, de Vitry’s views were more mixed. He wrote to his friends that it was all he could do to keep his chanter John of Cambrai, his cleric Henry, and several others from joining Francis. These defections are part of the exponential increase in numbers that the brotherhood experienced following the missions out of Italy in 1217.

Thompson, Augustine. Francis of Assisi: A New Biography (pp. 67-70). Cornell University Press. Kindle Edition.

Posted in Francis, The Drill, The Religion of Peace | Tagged , ,
18 Comments

ASK FATHER: The authority of pastors, parish priests, over people

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Dear Father,
My family and I regularly travel to a different parish, in a different diocese, to attend Mass at an FSSP Mass centre. The FSSP Mass centre is served by priests from a nearby personal parish, where the senior FSSP priest is parish priest. We are regulars there, I sing in the choir and so on.

My local parish is orthodox but un-traditional in its liturgy.

If parish priests truly have authority over the baptised Catholics in their territorial parish, are we erring by going to Mass elsewhere without seeking the local parish priest’s permission? If he really is our spiritual father, are we wrong to pass up on his paternal care and go elsewhere?

I consider it a positive good for me and my family to attend the traditional Mass wherever possible and it would be a big sacrifice for us to go to the typical local Novus Ordo instead, but this question of the parish priest’s authority over us bothers me.

GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE: Fr. Tim Ferguson

It’s been centuries really since the Church spoke of the role of a parish priest as having “authority” over his parishioners. The preferred terminology speaks of the pastor’s “care of souls” rather than his authority over them. Certainly, within that umbrella of “cura animarum” there is something to be said of the pastor’s authority over those he cares for. He is, or should be, truly a “pastor” – a shepherd of sorts. Canons 528 and 529 speak expansively (and beautifully) of the role of the pastor – these canons should be part of every pastor’s regular prayer and meditation. The pastor is exhorted, for example, “to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them…”

Absent from the canonical description of a pastor’s duties: coming up with a parish mission statement, filling out endless forms from the chancery office, selecting napkin colors for the next parish social.

In our modern and very mobile world, people regularly choose to worship in places apart from their canonical parish. That’s simply a fact of life today. Very few pastors (if any) put up a fuss when their “subjects” choose to go elsewhere. Is it the ideal? No. Is it the reality today? Yes.

I would say, since your territorial pastor is orthodox, it might be beneficial to set up a meeting with him. Introduce yourself, and explain why you’ve chosen to take your family to a nearby parish for the Extraordinary Form. You needn’t ask his permission to do so, but informing him of your reasons might start a healthy conversation. Since the FSSP church is across diocesan boundaries, it would also be good to establish at least some sort of relationship with your territorial pastor in case, down the road, issues come up with regards to permission for confirmation, marriage, serving as godparents and the like.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law | Tagged , , , , ,
10 Comments

WDTPRS: The new Latin Collect for Paul VI – a key phrase hunted up

In the Bolletino today we find liturgical decrees and texts pertaining to the celebration (in the Ordinary Form) of the recently canonized Paul VI.

His optional memorial will be 29 May, the annivesary of his ordination to the priesthood.  He died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, so that date didn’t work.

DECREE ON THE INSCRIPTION OF THE CELEBRATION OF SAINT PAUL VI, POPE, IN THE GENERAL ROMAN CALENDAR

COMMENTARY BY CARD. SARAH

ADDITIONES IN LIBRIS LITURGICIS RITUS ROMANI DE MEMORIA AD LIBITUM SANCTI PAULI VI, PAPÆ – LATIN [English not available]

Shall we look at the Collect to see what the prayer really says?

Deus, qui Ecclésiam tuam regéndam
beáto Paulo papæ commisísti,
strénuo Fílii tui Evangélii apóstolo,
præsta, quaesumus, ut, ab eius institútis illumináti,
ad civílem amóris cultum in mundum dilatándum
tibi collaboráre valeámus.
Per Dóminum.

Committo primarily regards “to join two things, connect”, or also “bring men or animals together to fight” (which certainly happened in Paul’s day), or “to perpetrate a crime”. Here, rather, we have the meaning of  “to place, commit to” constructed with aliquem alicui.  There are a couple of precedents in the post-Conciliar Missale Romanum. 

Strenuus is “brisk, vigorous, restless”. Illumino gives us illuminatiIllumino means, surprise, “to light up”.  There is a precedent in the new MR on the Feast of the Presentation.   An institutum is an “intention, plan, mode of life, instruction”. Dilato is “to spread out, amplify, extend”.

It might be trick to entangle what the last part means because of two words. Cilivis is “pertaining to citizens, civil, civic” or, digging down into the dictionary page, “relating to public or political life”. Cultus means, “care, a laboring at” or “training, education”, and “an honoring, veneration”, “manner of life”.

VERY LITERAL VERSION:

O God, who entrusted the governance of the Church
to blessed Pope Paul,
restless apostle of the Gospel of Your Son,
grant, we pray, that, enlightened by his teachings,
we may be able to collaborate with You
to make widespread the public cultivation of love.

This prayer is wordy, which is consistent with prayers of modern composition and inconsistent with the Roman liturgical genius.

QUAERITUR: What are we to do with that last bit?

“to spread a political movement of working for love”?

(And, there will be those wags who remind us that amor can mean sex. I’ll head that off here.)

Put that way, it seems that this is a call for some kind of “pacem in terris… peace on earth” is a highly desirable goal, this is not the primary role of the Pope or of the Church.  All you need is luv… luv.  Luv is all you need.  However, our goals are not, primarily, earthly.  Our sights are set on heavenly things, or at least that is what prayer after prayer after prayer in the Roman liturgy has prompted.

Nope, none of that was intended.

What is intended by that phrase, civilis amoris cultum is “civilization of love“, a phrase coined by Paul VI in a Regina caeli address on Pentecost Sunday, 17 May 1970.

È la civiltà dell’amore e della pace, che la Pentecoste ha inaugurato; e tutti sappiamo se ancor oggi di amore e di pace abbia bisogno il mondo! …  It is the civilization of love and of peace which Pentecost has inaugurated— and we are all aware how much today the world still needs love and peace!”

So, we should read at the end…

…grant, we pray, that, enlightened by his teachings,
we may be able to collaborate with You
to spread far and wide a civilization of love.

How did that little phrase – “civilization of love” –  become so tied to Paul VI ? After that first use in 1970, Paul used the phrase in 23 other documents during the last three years of his life, from 1975-1978.

Clearly, Paul wanted that phrase to linked to his teaching as a legacy.

He got it.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged
3 Comments

Francis signed document saying that God willed the “pluralism and diversity of religions”. What’s up with that?

UPDATE 6 Feb 2019

Fr. Hunwicke posted a comment at his splendid blog.  HERE

Fr Zed has given a characteristically fine and intelligent interpretation of PF’s words. As have some others.

Having perused them, I am also rather interested in what some parts of the Jewish Community might think of any suggestion that the Holocaust was willed by God as part of His “permissive will”.

What Fr Zed and others have done is (this is not irony; I mean it) absolutely essential; it is truly necessary. In the great task which some future pontificate will inherit, of putting the Papal Magisterium back up on its feet after the disasters of this pontificate, it wo’n’t do just to say “That man was repeatedly, disastrously, wrong”. Because the obvious corollary of this is that any pope may be horribly wrong. The standing of the Successor of S Peter will need to be restored, for the good of the Chyrch and for however much time there will be before the End. So, surely, it will have to be said that there are ambiguities in his scripts which need to be interpreted carefully and authoritatively in order to rescue them, and him, from apparent heresy.

But I do think it is outrageous that pastors and academics should have to waste their time dreaming up these ‘interpretations’ of yet another PF disaster. By the way: was Cardinal Ladaria shown this text?  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]


Originally Published on: Feb 5, 2019

I have recently paid as little attention as allowable to most of what is coming from the pens of Rome.  However, this needs some attention.

Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahamad al-Tayyib, signed a document on “Fratellanza Umana per la Pace Mondiale e la convivenza comune… Human Fraternity for world peace and living together”.

The document presents some affirmations and aspirations. It contains the following head-scratching statement. Emphases mine…

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Do you get that?  “The pluralism and diversity of religions” is “willed by God”.

We must seek a way to understand this without it sounding like heresy.  Note well that, after that awkward phrase, the continuation speaks to our freedom to believe, etc.  That hints at a solution.

God did not will a diversity of religions in the sense that all religions are equal paths to God.  False religions are evil.  God does not actively will evil.

When we speak of God’s will we make distinctions.  God has an “active or positive will” and a  “permissive will”.    God’s “active will” concerns that which is good, true and beautiful.  On the other hand, God has a “permissive will” by which He allows that things will take place that are not in accord with the order He established.

For example, God created Adam and Eve to live a certain way according to their nature and His will.  However, He foresaw that they would fall and He permitted them to fall.  By His active will they were to live a certain way.  By His permissive will they strayed and fell.  In the end, even all that God permits to go wrong will eventually be righted.

Consider that a multiplicity of languages, which God imposed at the Babel incident in Genesis 11, was a sign of God’s disapprobation and medicinal punishment.  God willed that the people should rely on God, not on their own works.  He permitted them to defy Him and rely upon themselves.  The multiplicity of languages He imposed was a punishment for evil, ultimately meant to correct their behavior and also to foreshadow the Pentecost event.

Did God positively, actively will the evil heart-ripping religion of the Aztecs?   He permitted it.  The greatness of the Mother of God was shown to be that much greater when, by her intercession, that evil came to its end.

Did God positively, actively will the vast multiplication of Christian sects, contrary to Christ’s prayer “that they be one” and His positively willed act to found one, and not many, churches?

God wants certain things by His positive or active will.  God allows the contrary to take place by His permissive will.  In any case, nothing happens outside of the will of God, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

God allows evil and brings forth greater goods from the evil He permits.

Read in this way, namely, that by God’s permissive will there are a multiplicity of religions, etc., that statement in the document, above, is acceptable.

If you read the statement to mean that by God’s positive or active will there are a multiplicity of religions, that’s an error.  That would impute to God the active willing of false religions and, therefore, evil, which is impossible and contrary to reason.

God cannot positively will evil.  God can only, by His nature, permissively will evil.

I don’t know what the writers of the document intended.   I’m just telling the truth about what is written.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged
68 Comments

PODCAzT 168: Concerning the Sermon at Mass

Here is a quick PODCAzT partly to get me going again and partly because the topic really got my mind going.

Today we hear from Martin Mosebach’s wondrous

The Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy (Revised and Expanded Edition) 

It am delighted that is in print again by the increasingly excellent Angelico Press.

May I warmly urge everyone to read this important book US HERE – UK HERE

Mosebach writes about the effects of ruptures in the flow of liturgy, and the moment of the sermon is one of them.

This should be a point of reflection for every priest and bishop.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, PODCAzT | Tagged , , , ,
4 Comments