Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

BOOK: Nothing Superfluous: An Explanation of the Symbolism of the Rite of St. Gregory the Great

Posted on 26 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It is sometimes observed that elements of the Roman Rite, both traditional and revised, accrued as if my accident. Liberals contemptuously squint at gestures (especially the reverent ones) as if they were barnacles on the hull of a ship that should be scraped off. These medieval accretions don’t really offer anything important.

They misunderstand … well… a lot.

I bring to the attention of the readership an intriguing book by Fr. James W. Jackson, a priest of the FSSP Nothing Superfluous: An Explanation of the Symbolism of the Rite of St. Gregory the Great US HERE UK HERE

These days there are several ways in use to refer to the traditional form of the Roman Rite. Variously, we hear Extraordinary Form, Usus Antiquior, Gregorian Rite, Pian Rite, etc.

Fr. Jackson addresses the fact that, yes, many elements crept into our rites over time and, yes, on the surface it seems that they got in there by accident or habit. However, they are not superfluous. They mean something. They have their own beauty and impact. Considered together, they communicate something important.

Jackson goes through the Mass and comments on the particulars. I found quite interesting his brief presentation of St. Charles Borromeo’s ideas about church architecture, what a church should have and look like and, hence, what a Church means.

Seminarians would benefit from this book, as would priests.

Fathers, learn the traditional Roman Rite. You will accrue to yourselves a deeper understanding of who you are as a priest at the altar. The very fact that antinomian liberals, squishy on doctrine, hate the older form of Holy Mass is reason enough to embrace it and make it your own. It stands like a bastion against their hateful iconclasm and murky notions of priesthood and Church.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged Extraordinary Form, Nothing Superfluous, Roman Rite, Usus Antiquior
5 Comments

WDTPRS – Conversion of St. Paul: Comparison 1962MR & 2002MR Collects

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In honor of the Apostle to the Gentiles let us make a rapid comparison of the Collects for today’s feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.

We’ll look first at the 1962 Missale Romanum and then the 2002 edition.

The Collect is nearly the same in both.

COLLECT (1962MR):

Deus, qui universum mundum beati Pauli Apostoli praedicatione docuisti: da nobis, quaesumus; ut, qui eius hodie Conversionem colimus, per eius exempla gradiamur.

This prayer is ancient. It is found already in the 8th century Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis (Angoulême) and the 9th century Augustodunensis (Autun) as well as the Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae ordine excarpsus, but with the variation in the Engolismensis “multitidinem gentium” in place of “universum mundum”.

Our precious Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary (UK HERE) informs us that the deponent verb gradior is “to take steps, to step, walk, go;” and in ecclesiastical Latin “of the conduct of life, to walk, live, conduct one’s self”. The French source for liturgical Latin I call Blaise/Dumas (UK HERE) indicates that gradior is “to behave oneself”.

An exemplum is, “a sample for imitation, instruction, proof, a pattern, model, original, example….”

For the Fathers, so steeped in Greek and Roman rhetoric and philosophy, exemplum could mean many things. First, an exemplum brings auctoritas to your argument, “authority”, inter alia the moral, persuasive force of an argument. When we hear this prayer with ancient, Patristic ears, exemplum is not merely an “example” to imitate. It brings deeper moral force. The historic event of Paul’s conversion is a reason for hope. It is an incitement to lead the kind of life which will lead ultimately to being raised up after the Risen Christ, the perfect exemplum. The core of this exemplum is St. Paul’s response to the call of the Lord to turn his life around, his conversio or in Greek metánoia.

I especially like the word gradior in this prayer. It invokes the image of St. Paul trudging the byways (without a horse off of which to fall).

LITERAL VERSION:

O God, who instructed the whole world by the preaching of the Blessed Apostle Paul: grant us, we beseech You, that, we who are today honoring his Conversion, may walk according to his examples.

Many (many many) of the prayers of the pre-Conciliar form of the Missale Romanum, were cut up and changed for the Novus Ordo, if they made the cut at all. Today’s prayer is a case in point.

COLLECT (2002MR):

Deus, qui universum mundum
beati Pauli Apostoli praedicatione docuisti,
da nobis, quaesumus,
ut, cuius conversionem hodie celebramus,
per eius ad te exempla gradientes,
tuae simus mundo testes veritatis.

LITERAL VERSION:

O God, who instructed the whole world
by the preaching of the Blessed Apostle Paul:
grant us, we beseech You,
that we, walking in life toward You according to the examples of him
whose conversion we are celebrating today,
may be witnesses of Your truth in the world.

Some may argue that the newer Latin version makes the point of “witness” more clearly.

I am not convinced the ancient prayer needed these “improvements”. Are you? Were these improvements? Did the prayer really changing? Did the good the Catholic faithful really call for that?

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged Conversion of St. Paul, exemplum, gradior
12 Comments

Is the Vatican City State annexing the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta?

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Holy See issued a press release about the SMOM (aka Knights of Malta) dust up. HERE

Traduzione in lingua inglese

Yesterday, 24 January 2017, in audience with the Holy Father, His Highness Fra’ Matthew Festing resigned from the office of Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

Today, 25 January, the Holy Father accepted his resignation, expressing appreciation and gratitude to Fra’ Festing for his loyalty and devotion to the Successor of Peter, and his willingness to serve humbly the good of the Order and the Church.

The governance of the Order will be undertaken ad interim by the Grand Commander pending the appointment of the Papal Delegate.

[00139-EN.01] [Original text: Italian – working translation]

This leaves me perplexed.

Let’s break it down into manageable bites.

So, it seems that, the Grand Master offered his resignations to Pope Francis.
Then, Francis accepted the Grand Master’s resignation.
Now, Francis will appoint a delegate to lead the SMOM.

On the other hand, the SMOM is SOVEREIGN. It is the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta. They are a separate entity from the Holy See that, like Vatican City State, has sovereign nation status.

Moreover, as I have been instructed, article 6 of the constitution of the SMOM says that the Sovereign Council alone accepts or rejects the resignation of the Grand Master.

In fact, the Pope is informed only by the Council, for validity of the acceptance or rejection of the resignation. The Pope does not accept the resignation.

In addition, the SMOM’s Constitution does not foresee a “pontifical delegate”. There is no such critter in the life of the SMOM. There is a pontifical delegate in canon law for religious institutes. But, though there are aspect of the religious life to the SMOM, the SMOM is not a religious institute. SMOM is a sovereign nation.

Is this a play by one state to take over the SMOM?

How would His Holiness react were, say, Italy to decide that it is time to absorb the Vatican City State. “Your Holiness, we are appointing a ‘civil delegate’.” If you erode the sovereignty of one, is it possible that you are eroding your own sovereignty?

I could use some schooling by someone who is well-versed in international law and who understands the SMOM.

Surely in the vast readership here, there is somebody who gets this.

Is it a play for the money they control?

I just read that there is involved in this mess a bank account with many millions. HERE

Is it a play to suppress another “tradition?

I call the readership’s attention to a tweet from a sycophantic writer for La Stampa:

Com’era la storia che Francesco non decide?
Ordine di Malta ok.
Ora le cappe magne.

— Giacomo Galeazzi (@oltreteveregg) January 25, 2017

Did you get that? Decoded: “What was that talk that Francis doesn’t decide? Order of Malta – check. Now – cappae magnae.” Get it now? This is a dogwhistle. No? Someone of that writer’s ilk mentioning the cappa magna can only be a reference to Card. Burke, other Cardinals near him, and others who uphold traditional doctrine, identity, customs, worship, everything. These are the next targets to be “absorbed”. Knights of Malta: CHECK Card. Burke, Patron of the Knights of Malta: ___ ..?

A few years ago I saw a magnificent exhibit at the British Library on the monstrous Henry VIII. In that exhibit were stunning primary documents, including Thomas Cromwell’s hit list, in his handwriting, of names of people who were to be disposed of, including Thomas More and John Fisher. Their names were crossed off.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged SMOM, Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta
36 Comments

Canonist Ed Peters: What does can. 915 really say?

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

CLICK ME

Some people on the Kasperite side (give Communion to the divorced and remarried who have no purpose of amendment, etc.) have a spittle-flecked nutty when can. 915 is brought into the discussion.

Distinguished commonsense canonist Ed Peters has offered us yet another extremely helpful observation about a wild suggestion made by a Kasperite that can. 915 could be “adjusted”.

The other day, Peters explain that certain folks deal with can. 915 by 1) ignoring it, 2) belittling it, or 3) violating it. None of these are acceptable. HERE

Now, Peters, in his surgical way, makes clear what can. 915 says to those who think that it can be “adjusted” so that it is no longer a obstacle to Communion for pretty much everyone, anywhere, at any time for any reason. HERE

He is addressing something written by a guy named Walford. Thus, Peters with my emphases and comments:

[…]

Walford makes one comment in passing that is illustrative, I think, of the dangers to which amateurs’ suggestions about law are prone. Walford says, “I accept that canon 915 may need adjusting if the Holy Father sees fit …”

Oh, really? Canon 915 “may need adjusting”, may need changes in its wording, I take this to mean. Alright, let’s think about that. [This is fun!]

Canon 915, as has been explained many times, restricts the basic right of the Christian faithful to receive holy Communion. Like all restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights, the terms of Canon 915 must be read ‘strictly’ so as not to curtail illegally the rights of the faithful. [odiosa restringenda]Every one of the five qualifiers in Canon 915—obstinacy, perseverance, manifest-ness, gravity, and sinfulness, as those precisely refined terms have been used by the canonico-moral tradition (and not necessarily as non-specialists might understand them)—must be satisfied before holy Communion can and must be withheld from a member of the faithful. [Did you get that? Read it again.] Remove any, let alone several, of the qualifiers from the criteria set out in Canon 915 and, as a matter of law, [NB] the restrictions on access to holy Communion expand, not contract. [This is what those who denigrate can. 915 – or who won’t uphold it – don’t get.]

So which word or words, one wonders, might Walford like to see changed in Canon 915?

If we drop, say, the word “sin” from Canon 915, we would authorize ministers to withhold holy Communion from would-be communicants whose, say, mannerisms or attitudes irritate us.

If we drop the word “grave” from the law, then those in light or common sin need also to be rejected.

If we drop the word “manifest”, then even occult sinners (a concept Walford blurred above) would have to be publically banned from holy Communion.

If we drop the notion of “perseverance”, then those in one-time or occasional sin must be prevented by ministers from taking holy Communion.

And if we do not care whether public sinners have actual or construed knowledge of the wrongness of their conduct, we could eliminate the word “obstinate” from the law.

Which of those adjustments to Canon 915 might Walford support? I hope, none. [See? That was fun, wasn’t it?]

But perhaps Wolford has in mind not changing Canon 915 (so much for his call to “adjust” the law) but rather, effectively supports repealing CCC 2384[CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church, btw] and the tradition behind it such that post-divorce civil remarriage is no longer understood as “permanent and public adultery” (and thus is not a sin, and thus Canon 915 does not apply). [But, wouldn’t that also “repeal” the teaching of Christ, who is God?] I trust it is obvious, though, that this approach strikes not at sacramental discipline as reflected in Canon 915 but at the sacramental doctrine being protected by the canon. Such a proposal, in any case, would need to go to someone higher in the Church than a blogging canon lawyer.

In sum, Canon 915 summarizes many centuries of ministerial reflection on doctrine and pastoral practice. That accumulated wisdom is not available to ministers and faithful, though, if its terms, singly and in combination, are subject to tweaking by people who seem inadequately to understand them and who seem to appreciate only in part what lies behind them.

[…]

Wasn’t that a great lesson in how the precise language of law expands rights? This is one reason why priests should be well instructed in the law. They can use it to ease people’s consciences.

But, to the antinomian, this is an utter surprise.

God bless Ed Peters.

Fr. Z kudos.

Click me.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, 1983 CIC can. 915, Canon Law, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged can. 915, divorced and remarried, Ed Peters
9 Comments

Maltese Catholics take out newspaper ad, plea to bishops

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

You will want to see this. HERE

Some of the faithful in Malta are making their case in the open.

The other day a priest friend said to me: “Let bishops start treating the faithful the way they treat us.”

Today Veri Catholici, the International Association of Catholics for the Defense of the Faith against the Errors of Cardinal Kasper, (!!! What times we live in where we have such organisations in the Church!) published in the Times of Malta Newspaper, on p. 29, an Open Letter to the Bishops of Malta and Gozo regarding their recent pastoral document, in which they have openly approved of communion for those living in public sin.

This is a picture of the advert:

HERE

A readable copy can be viewed here

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
14 Comments

My View For Awhile: White Knuckle Edition

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Having braved the snow storm, I white knuckled it to the airport. Half an eye was on my phone as I anticipated a cancellation or delay notice. None was forthcoming.

The ramp was as jammed as I have ever seen it, the lines longer than I’ve experienced at this time of the day. Where’s everyone going?!?

So, I arrived at my gate while they were boarding my zone.

The boarding process has been smooth, which suggests to me that there aren’t many rookies.

Time to fire up the earplugs and the Kindle.

UPDATE

MASSIVE DELAY as they deice and close runway and deice again.

Connection? I don’t think so.

We been sitting in a 90F cabin for over an hour.

UPDATE

As this becomes more and more irritating I’ve switched from the 13 Hours in Benghazi soundtrack to Lute Music in Rome at the Time of Caravaggio.

UPDATE

Finally some AC. It was getting brutal in here.

UPDATE

Again…

Are you kidding?

UPDATE

A few more minutes and we’ll be haulin’ the mail!

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

Is ‘Amoris Laetitia’ being twisted in such a way that real blasphemy results?

Posted on 25 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The moderation queue is definitely ON for this one.

Initial notes.

Blasphemy involves words or gestures, also thoughts, which show contempt for God or dishonor God regardless of whether the person intends that contempt or dishonor or not. Blasphemy is against the virtue of religion and a mortal sin. Blasphemy is direct when it is aimed at God. It is indirect when aimed at Holy Church or the saints or any sacred thing or person or place. A deadly sort of blasphemy concerns the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 12, 31-32). This ghastly sin denies to the Holy Spirit the power or will to purify, forgive, lead to penance, etc., resulting in final impenitence and hardness of heart. That sort of sin, the “unpardonable sin” cannot be forgiven because the person rejects forgiveness.

Fr Hugh Somerville-Knapman OSB, a Benedictine monk and priest at Douay in England, writes a blog called Dominus mihi adiutor (the motto of Douay Abbey from Ps 117:7). He put his finger on something that I have worried about constantly since the ongoing controversies erupted over the objectively unclear content in Amoris laetita concerning Communion for the divorced and remarried who seemingly have no firm purpose of amendment.

There is an antinomian wind ripping tornadically through the Church. There is a lot of dangerous talk about exoneration by a “conscience” not formed in harmony with Natural Law and the Church’s teachings that yawns like a sink hole under the Church’s law and doctrine.

“What has been proposed about matrimony is an ideal! It’s impossible! We have to be merciful to those who can’t live according to some pie in the sky ideal!”, some of the turncoats say. “Laws are unmerciful and papal teachings that are over thirty years old are lacking in compassion!”

One of the things that has bothered me greatly is that this debate over Communion threads back to other matters central to the Church’s very identity, indeed Christianity’s core beliefs. For example, if Christ was wrong about marriage and remarriage and adultery, then He isn’t God. If Christ isn’t God, then we are idolaters and we are in a very bad way indeed.

Fr. Hugh has another approach which is like to mine. He points out that they commit blasphemy who say that the ideal of marriage as proposed by Christ can’t be lived by ordinary people. It is tantamount to saying that, not only was Christ wrong, but that burdens were placed on people but the graces to live the vocation were not given. This is a variant on the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit.

Let’s see some of the post that Fr. Hugh offered… I’ll cut to where he really gets to it. My emphases and comments:

[…]

So when some start twisting the admittedly woolier and imperfect parts of Amoris Laetitia to make the case for allowing civilly divorced and remarried Catholics to continue in a state that Christ calls adultery, and to allow them at the same time to receive Holy Communion, surely they commit a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Implicit in their approach is the assertion that some baptised and confirmed are somehow unable to live as Christ commanded, and that these people form an exception that charity, yea mercy, must accommodate. If some, then potentially all are unable. Christ is made at best a liar, and at worst a tyrant in imposing on all humanity a precept some, apparently, cannot obey.

Do you see the blasphemy? Christ’s law on marriage is beyond us, even a burden to us, and so God is denied the good that he has done, and implicitly we attribute to God responsibility for the failure of some to live up to the teaching, because their natural state and even their re-created state after baptism and confirmation is still not able to live up to Christ’s commandments. So if that is how he has made us then we cannot be responsible for our failings. The gift of the Holy Spirit is not, then, really the gift that it is made out to be.

The blasphemy is compounded when those in such adulterous unions are effectively encouraged to remain in adultery, without the necessary requirement that they live as brother and sister, and yet still receive Holy Communion. Given St Paul’s inspired teaching on Holy Communion in 1 Corinthians 11, such an indulgence is an atrocity. It encourages such unhappy sinners to eat and drink judgment upon themselves. In effect, the libertines would have the adulterous eat and drink what would be for them only poison for their souls.

The bishops of Malta: Archbishop Charles Scicluna (l) and Bishop Mario Grech

It is hard to see how those such as the two bishops of Malta have become anything other than abetters of spiritual poisoning and blasphemers against the Holy Spirit. Our Lord’s judgment on those who persist in such a sin is clear. It is still hard to believe that they have one so. However, it seems they have.

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
Mark 9:42

Not my words, but Christ’s. But they still have to time to repent. So do we. Best not to waste it.

You see, dear readers, there is more, far more, to this debate than whether a really rare, heart-string pulling case about abandonment and “luv” and divorce and a remarriage that’s really great and all manner of sentimental stuff can be scraped up to fling into the faces of those who uphold the Church’s teachings rooted in the Deposit of Faith going back to the Lord and the Apostles. The ramifications of being able to go to Communion without a purpose of amendment about any sin, because ideals are tooo haaard, undermine Christology, Sacramental Theology, Ecclesiology… the whole ball of wax, the whole nine yards, the whole… you know.

By the way, the whole of Ps 117:7 is: Dominus mihi adiutor et ego despiciam inimicos meos.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged Amoris Laetitia, blasphemy, Fr Hugh Somerville-Knapman
38 Comments

Monday was a good day, so was Tuesday

Posted on 24 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Monday was a Good News day. HERE

I read that the US House of Representatives passed a bill today. Among other things, this bill also chips away at Obamacare.

From CNA:

US House votes to permanently ban federal abortion funding

Washington D.C., Jan 24, 2017 / 03:28 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. House of Representatives passed its first major pro-life bill of the new year [first!] on Tuesday, one which would solidify in law the current policy of no federal funding of abortions.

The bill would “protect Americans’ conscience rights by ensuring that their hard-earned tax dollars are not used to fund the destruction of innocent life,” Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said on the House Floor before the vote.

Federal funding for abortion is largely prohibited under the 40-year-old Hyde Amendment, named after its original sponsor Rep. Henry Hyde. However, that amendment has to be passed by Congress every year as a “rider” to appropriations bills, clarifying that the taxpayer dollars cannot abortions.

The amendment enjoyed decades of bipartisan support. The most recent Democratic National Committee platform, however, called for its repeal. [aka The Party of Death]

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, passed Tuesday by a 238-183 vote and sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), would solidify this policy in law, so that it does not need to be annually reapproved by Congress.

It would expand on current protections against taxpayer funding of abortion to other areas, such as federal employee health plans. It would also extend to the Affordable Care Act, ensuring that no federal subsidies fund abortion coverage in plans offered on the exchanges.

[…]

So, if in Holy Church we have a string of bad days and grim stories, we have at least this.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras | Tagged federal funding, religious freedom, religious liberty
9 Comments

Recently Received BOOKS

Posted on 24 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Quickly, here are a few of the books which I have lately received.

First, when Anthony Esolen writes something, we should pay attention. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but the intro is great.

US HERE – UK HERE

And there is a volume from TAN which I have yet to explore.

This has a nice binding, imitation leather like the two manuals which I posted on a while back. HERE These are nice gift choices.

US HERE – UK HERE

TAN also sent me a book about the Lion of Munster, Bl. Clemens August von Galen. I really look forward to this.

US HERE – UK HERE

And there is this…

I have read around in this book and it is often moving and provocative. In 2007, Our Lord and Our Lady began to “speak” to a Benedictine monk during adoration. He wrote down what he received.

US HERE – UK HERE

Finally, I want to remind you that Card. Sarah’s newest book, Le Force du Silence (US HERE – UK HERE), hitherto only in French, is now available to PRE-ORDER in ENGLISH. It will be released on 15 April. A great reading gift to yourselves or friends.

US HERE – UK HERE

And, as the theological, canonical, fraternal bella intestina intensify, as those in authority begin more and more to suppress defenders of the perennial teachings and practices of the Church, you will want to read…

And of course, to keep your head and your prayer clear and focused…

US HERE – UK HERE

Posted in REVIEWS |
6 Comments

Resignation of head of the Knights of Malta

Posted on 24 January 2017 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At the Spanish site InfoVaticana we read:

ÚLTIMA HORA: Dimite el Gran Maestre de la Orden de Malta a petición del Papa

Según ha podido saber InfoVaticana, el Papa Francisco le habría pedido que presentara la renuncia. Matthew Festing fue elegido príncipe y Gran Maestre de la Orden en 2008.

El culebrón en la Orden de Malta se resuelve con el cese de su Gran Maestre, Matthew Festing, que ha presentado su renuncia de un puesto vitalicio tras 9 años en el cargo. Festing, de 68 años, deja la Orden tras un conflicto a raíz del cese del gran canciller, Albrecht von Boeselager, acusado de tibieza.

[… my version …]

As InfoVacticana has learned, Pope Francis asked him [the Grand Master] to submit his resignation. Matthew Festing was elected head and Grand Master of the Order in 2008.

The soap opera in the Order of Malta is resolved with the cessation of office of its Grand Master, Matthew Festing, who presented his resignation from a post for life after 9 years in office. Festing, 68, leaves the Order after a conflict following the dismissal of the great chancellor, Albrecht von Boeselager, accused of tepidity.

[…]

I am sure that more will be forthcoming.