"L'Église, C'est Moi"

Pope Francis to Slovak Jesuits: "There is a large Catholic television channel that has no hesitation in continually speaking ill of the pope. I personally deserve attacks and insults because I am a sinner, but the Church does not deserve them. They are the work of the devil." https://t.co/F3nQ9oDb5M

— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) September 21, 2021

If the patriarchate of Rome is hurt or offended or "scandalized," it is because of their adherence to erroneous Latin ecclesiology.

“I hope that with the decision to stop the automatism of the ancient rite we can return to the true intentions of Benedict XVI & John Paul II…But there are young people who one month after ordination go to the bishop to ask for it. This phenomenon indicates we’re going backward” https://t.co/iIRqrzHFbP

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) September 21, 2021

Latin Obeisance

“Since Pope Francis issued Traditionis custodes, I have been grieved by certain disrespectful responses; some have even included slanderous attacks on the Pontiff..."
--@ArchCordileonehttps://t.co/gKPj6id2Yo

— National Catholic Register (@NCRegister) August 6, 2021

When Reform is Constrained by Clericalism

and Latin ecclesiology, one gets articles like these...

In the Catholic Church, no enduring reform can happen without a purified commitment to the gospel on the part of the clergy.https://t.co/stxN75Eyej

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) August 5, 2021

As the Benedictine scholar Jean Leclercq once said, “there [can] be no reform of the Church without reform of the Christian.”https://t.co/stxN75Eyej

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) August 4, 2021

The challenge of Traditionis custodes is the enduring challenge of ordinary Catholics to stand for the pope’s authority even when they behold the man as corrupt, politicized, or simply misguided.https://t.co/IfL5OuzKcJ

— Crisis Magazine (@CrisisMag) August 5, 2021

In the Reign of Francis, Ultramontanism Is Alive and Well

Such slavishness and idolatry, if limited to the individual, wouldn't be my problem. But they pride themselves on thinking them more "orthodox" than you.

America may be a republic, but the Church is a monarchy. https://t.co/lPjyMNbOvX

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) July 7, 2021

Latin Ecclesiology is a Dead End

Conservative Catholics are in a ghastly situation. Confronted by a malicious pope and pro-abortion Biden loyalists, they’re being offered Integralist sectarian fantasies or Vigano Mark of the Beast paranoia. I despair.

— Damian Thompson (@holysmoke) June 26, 2021

The Consequences of Bad Canon Law and Ecclesiology

The distortion of apostolic activity.

"When the Church speaks against violations of human rights, it is articulating her faith in the public square. From womb to tomb, humans have rights. Proclaiming that is more than prophetic. It is our existential identity,” Cardinal Bo told @PillarCatholic https://t.co/rMM7Y0inDJ

— Ed. Condon (@canonlawyered) February 11, 2021

Canon 747

Canon Law and Political Discourse: What the Church Can and Must Offer Politics https://t.co/uG26AcDVAX

— Ius & Iustitium (@iusetiustitium) August 24, 2020

If Canon 747 §1 and §2 apply to the Church as a whole, and not just to the bishops, then the canon taken by itself does not imply any sort of Latin integralist theory regarding the authority of the bishops (or the pope) in relation to the political community. As it stands the canon does not tell us what qualifications are needed to "announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it." Not all Latins are experts in moral theology, and this is true of Latin bishops as well. And a knowledge of the basic laws or commandments of God does not guarantee that one can reason well from them to derive secondary, positive human legislation or even policy positions.

He Needs to Find a Better Way to Win Hearts and Minds

Letters, statements, videos, and tweets are not acceptable.

NCRep: Bishop Barron hosts invite-only meeting to discuss 'rad trads,' online vitriol (via Fr. Z)

Latin bishops, including the bishop of Rome, will have to reconsider the distinction between dogma and theologoumena, including what they have accepted as dogma concerning their own authority. Until that happens, there will be no ecclesial reform.

Can. 747 §2, Again

CWR

The institutional default positions in Vatican diplomacy do not reflect two lessons taught by the late 20th century, says George Weigel.https://t.co/nhxvQQntVu

— Catholic World Report (@cworldreport) July 22, 2020

In The Next Pope: The Office of Peter and a Church in Mission (recently published by Ignatius Press), I suggest that the institutional default positions in Vatican diplomacy do not reflect two lessons taught by the late 20th century: the only authority the Holy See has in world politics today is moral authority; that moral authority is depleted when the Church fails to speak the truth to power, especially totalitarian and authoritarian power. The truth can be spoken prudently and in charity; but it must be spoken. If the truth is not spoken, the Vatican tacitly confesses its weakness and is always playing defense on a field defined by the enemies of Christ and the Church.

U.S. Bishops urge #POTUS to rescind divisive memorandum excluding undocumented from inclusion in the apportionment of U.S. House of Representative seats: https://t.co/nBaCBIx6K9. pic.twitter.com/A33RrM7X06

— U.S. Catholic Bishops (@USCCB) July 22, 2020

The Psychological Need to Disassociate

from an organization or even a church.

Following up on these posts about the Latin churches:
A Church of "Social Justice" and "Solidarity"
More Disappointing Words from Cardinal Ouellet
How Will SSPX Latin Rad-Trads Deal With This?

What is one to do with a leadership that is out-of-touch, unaccountable, preaching a heterodox alternative to the Gospel, and refusing to observe proper boundaries between men and women?

Catholic leaders to Trump: Coronavirus pandemic not an excuse to crack down on immigration https://t.co/tSYTd7t3oU

— America Magazine (@americamag) April 24, 2020

“It is a policy rooted in the fear of the stranger, the other, the marginalized and the dispossessed,” San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy said.https://t.co/tSYTd7t3oU

— America Magazine (@americamag) April 24, 2020

Women in clericals is about THE most cringe-inducing sight out there! https://t.co/AmQntanReq

— Colleen Eldracher (@ColleenEldrach1) April 24, 2020

Some may be driven for the sake of one's integrity to disassociate from these pastors, because they do not represent Christianity or Christ as he thinks is appropriate. Why be tainted by such an association, or be judged as giving approval to their brand of "Christianity"?

DeVille on Ecclesial Reform

The Catholic Thing: Recovering and Recreating the Institutions We Need by Adam A.J. DeVille

What Spin on Ecclesiology?

Re: "The American Church"

For this blog, it names the Roman rite churches taken together, but it is not an ecclesiological claim that they constitute a particular church of themselves. I would rather claim that they are a group of local Churches, even though neo-Yankee homogenization has created a single identity for many if not most of their members.

Rather, what is important is that the bishops (and those Roman Catholics of influence) tend to see themselves as possessing one national identity, rather than having many identities, rooted in the local political community.

(It is a reason why moving bishops around in a country as large as the United States, without expecting that the bishops would assimilate into the local society, like St. Paul and the best of Christian missionaries, was a mistake.)

"The Immigrant Church." True of Roman Catholics but also of Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. How many of them really integrated into Anglo-Celtic-American society in the 19th and early 20th centuries? (As opposed to becoming propositional Americans who are able to speak English?)

A Bridge Too Far?

Pope Francis says the split between the Catholic Church and the CofE is a 'scandal' that can only be fixed with a gift from God

What sort of gift? The conversion of hearts and repentance on those who have departed from Apostolic Tradition? Is this what Pope Francis really means even if he avoids saying it?


Could the Archbishop and the Pope Really Reunify the Church
Welby Braced for Difficulty with Rome as Church of England Prepares to Approve Women Bishops

Bishops and Citizenship

Post by Vatican Radio - English Section.

Post by ROME REPORTS.

NBC News

With what credentials did John Paul II and Benedict XVI travel to other countries? As head of state for the Vatican City? No doubt Francis will do the same, and it is said that Benedict XVI also kept his German passport. Therefore, one should not see the renewal of his passport as a repudiation of the sovereign status of Vatican City. Still, if the pope were to renounce his political independence, should he not then be a citizen of Rome or the Italian state, if he is bishop of Rome? Where should his political loyalties be? To another polity or state or people? The pope, like all Christians, should love all, but if we hold to the order of charity, his political community would have priority over other political communities.

Edit. There is a "second-hand" report circulating that Pope Francis did indeed express his desire to travel using his Argentinian passport: BERGOGLIO, Jorge Mario. Is the source reliable? If so, does Pope Francis intend to do so and not use his official credentials as the head of Vatican City at all? Does Francis's decision, then, differ from what Benedict did? (I have not found "official" confirmation that Benedict XVI retrained his German passport but did not use it; this "fact" was repeated by various people on posts about Francis's renewal of his Argentinian passport.)

Latest from Socci: The Papal Games by Christopher A. Ferrara



Terminology: What is the "official" name of the Traditional Latin Mass? Is it "Extraordinary Form"?

White or Black Cassock for the Pope?

A comment at Fr. Z's:

Personally for less than formal occasions I think the Pope should not wear the white soutane, but rather a black soutane with white trimmings. Like a papal version of a Cardinals Black Cassock with red piping, buttons, fascia and zucchetto; all would be white instead of red. The pope after all is not a Dominican, why should he wear white? And how is he supposed to eat spaghetti wearing papal white? (j/k on the last one, but otherwise my suggestion is quite serious). Also this would allow him his black shoes, but then for formal occasions requiring choir dress or vesting he could switch to the white soutane, red shoes, mozzetta, etc. Best of both worlds, a Catholic both/and.

I am personally inclined to agree with this, and might even go so far as to say that for formal occasions black would be retained. But what color fascia? Someone else suggests that he adopt a red cassock. Then how would he be distinguished from cardinals in choir dress? His ring? A manifestly different pectoral cross? (Or by the abolition of the college of cardinals?)

Looking through the results for Orthodox churches, I came across the website for St. Mark's in Dallas. A picture of its iconostasis. My first thought is that Roman-rite Catholics should patronize a revitalization of church architecture, but this shouldn't be done until we have recovered a better sense of what parish life should be like, and this requires that we reconsider how big our parishes should be. While the Diocese of San Jose is trying to raise money for the establishment of a new parish (which will serve perhaps 5000 people), Eastern Christians have smaller communities, so small that the priest knows every member by name. Yesterday, Fr. A was able to pray for everyone receiving communion by name. (Mom's favorite Fr. M was concelebrating.) This seems proper for someone who is supposed to be the spiritual father of the community. What can the American Church do to reform parish life? Is it prohibited from doing so because of the financial costs?

A different model for training priests

I was talking about this with MB again when I visited him in Yonkers, so here is a restatement of our discussion. I won't address the issue of clerical celibacy/continence, but if the rule were ever relaxed for the Roman rite at least to the extent that married men could be ordained to the priesthood, would their becoming priests not only solve the problem with the shortage of priests but also address other problems as well? Would this be a restoration of the practice of the early Church, choosing for ordination to the presbyterate qualified and holy elders of the local Church? This option presupposes the stability of communities so that the candidates are familiar to the faithful, even if there is no formal nomination process for the faithful.

It is likely that older candidates would have more emotional and spiritual maturity, and more experience from which they could give direction or address various pastoral issues. (However, age alone will not help those men who have been too emasculated.) They could be trained in philosophy and theology through a longer apprenticeship, after retiring from the secular world. They would still rely upon the community for support, unless it were permitted for them to hold another job. But that would require a very different sort of political economy than what we have today.

I would not say that this is the ideal model of ordaining men to the priesthood (though it is somewhat the model used by Opus Dei). But perhaps it could be used to supplement the normal selection of younger candidates, who go through the seminary. How old would these men be when chosen? Mid-40s or late 40s? Or their 50s? It might be preferable that the majority of their children had become adults. How much time spent in the exercise the priesthood would make the investment of community in such candidates worthwhile? And how early in the process could they become transitional deacons? (This underscores the importance of getting people to take better care of their health and become better informed, so that not only do they live longer but they are healthy, fit, and mentally sound longer as well.)

I believe that Aristotle, in his Politics, recommends that it should be the elders of a community who become devoted to divine things, including performing worship of the gods, once they have retired from the active life. Does this have some resonance with the practice of the early Church?

If older married men could become priests, would their discernment process be as difficult as it is for those who are considering celibacy?

Is there still a place for high school seminaries in the Latin rite? Candidates for the dioceses and the orders (for example, the Jesuits) tend to be older these days, and they have some life experience, but do they really have the maturity? Or a properly formed masculinity?

A futile grand gesture?

“I would like to announce I have decided to convene a ‘Year of Faith’, which I will explain in an apostolic letter. This ‘Year of Faith’ begins on October 11, 2012, on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II, and ends on November 24, 2013, for the Solemnity of Christ, the King of the Universe. It will be a moment of grace and commitment to a more complete conversion to God, to strengthen our faith in Him and to proclaim Him with joy to the people of our time.”

-Pope Benedict XVI from this weekend

Insight Scoop: Benedict XVI announces "Year of Faith"; presents Apostolic Letter, "Porta fidei"

What does this add that we should not already be getting in the teaching we receive from our bishops and the homilies we hear at Mass? It is good for our minds to be directed to God, but should we not be practicing this mindfulness first of all?The theological virtue of faith is important as it is the beginning of the Christian life and our friendship with God, and provides the basis of our call to evangelize.But the "Year of Faith" sounds too vague; what we need is solid catechesis and teaching from our bishops. Like other previous special years, the local Churches will have some coordination with Rome to varying degrees. The diocesan bureaucracy may publicize the year and there will be special events.

But does it really do anything when the Faith is not being taught, and those who have authority
are not cleaning house? I suppose the pope is just doing his job, teaching the Universal Church. He can't just exhort bishops to make sure they are immersed in Sacred Tradition and to be good pastors, can he? One may not like this sort of direction constantly "coming from the top" but is there any choice when so many bishops are of poor quality? Or can the pope rely on orthodox bishops to police other bishops near them by declaring them out of communion when necessary? Is the authority of a fellow bishop sufficient, or does this need to be "ratified" by the pope? And does excommunication automatically entail the loss of episcopal authority? And what can be done about bishops who are not heterodox, just weak pastors?

Edit. The motu proprio.

Also from Zenit:
New Evangelization Council Gearing up for Synod
Dicastery to Present Initiatives to the Pope

Pontiff to Mark Feast of Guadalupe With Special Mass
Gesture of Solidarity for Peoples of Latin America

Saint's Secret: To Pray and Suffer
Author Tells Story of Luigi Guanella, to Be Canonized Oct. 23

Sandro Magister:
The Pope's Favorite Film: "Mission"
In the nineteenth century, the Catholic Church reacted to the secularist offensive in Europe with a spectacular missionary expansion on the other continents. Benedict XVI wants the miracle to be repeated today. His next voyage: to Africa

Ed Peters offers his First thoughts on an Anglican ordinariate (via Fr. Z). Having read comments posted at various blogs, Mr. Peter is not alone when he claims:

In any case, the idea of a "personal ordinariate" is another sign of the (I think) inevitable trend away from purely territorial jurisdictional units in the Roman Church and toward greater use of personal jurisdiction. This trend has been evident in western canon law at least since the late 1960s (see, e.g., 1967 Synod of Bishops, "Principles Guiding the Revision of Canon Law", no. 8) and is reflected in the 1983 Code (e.g., 1983 CIC 372, 518). Provided this shift is pursued in an orderly manner, I think it a step in the right direction for people who are coming to see themselves as less identified with various locales, and more with social groupings. Certainly several other groups in the Church will be watching the Anglican project with an eye to applying innovative structures in their own spheres.

Fr. Louis Bouyer addresses this trend in his The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Spirit. While he concedes the usefulness of extraterritorial parishes and ecclesial movements, nonetheless he beliefs that the locality of the parish and diocese must be maintained. Peter Karl T. Perkins believes that a canonical structure such as the one being offered to Anglicans seeking communion with the Church of Rome should also be offered as part of the solution for the FSSPX problem:

Jean, it is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT a prelature, personal or otherwise. It is a personal ordinariate: or-din-Air-ee-et. Say it. Think it. Memorise it. And get that nonsense from the media out of your head. They can't get the word 'prelature' out of their mindless heads because they are mentally retarded buffoons.

A personal prelature would have been a disaster because it is NOT what the church calls a 'particular church'; that is, it is not a diocese or its equivalent. A personal ordinariate IS equivalent to a diocese for its subjects.

With a personal prelature, you need the permission of the local Roman nutcase bishop to set up a parish. Every single time Opus Dei wants a parish or mission in a diocese, it needs permission from the local Roman ordinary. That is not this. Thank God! Alleluia!

Not to be too prideful but Fr. Z. is just now discovering what I have been arguing for since 1997, both for the T.L.M. and for the TAC. Fr. Z. still can't get it straight. For example, he recently suggested that these people would get the Anglican Use liturgy. That is definitely not the case. They hate the A.U. Liturgy approved in 1983 by Rome--and rightly so. I suspect that they will get, for the time being, there current liturgies but with the Roman Canon substituting for whatever they use.

Z. is right that this will be a model for the rest of us and that is GREAT news. I'm glad that others are slowly and gradually coming to realise this. There will be no personal prelatures--no traps!--for us. The way forward is this new personal ordinariate structure.

The Campos structure IS equivalent to a diocese. It is an 'ritual' apostolic administration. That is goooood. It is very good.

Military ordinariates are also good, very good.

The new personal ordinariates are good, they are good, they are good indeed.

Opus Dei has a personal prelature, which is baaaad, very bad--bad, at least, for it. It originally asked for a structure which would have been a particular church but this was rejected by Rome. They took what they could get. I don't like Opus Dei very much, so I am happy that they failed to get the right structure.

Once again, let us STOP comparing this new structure to the Opus Dopus personal prelature. No matter what it takes, I will bang this distinction into people's heads until they surrender. I will NEVER allow those morons in the media to fudge this crucial distinction. In the end, however, it doesn't matter if people can't get it straight. Under this new structure, the incoming Anglican ordinaries will not need permission from the local Roman ordinaries to establish parishes or apostolates. Period. That's what counts. Sir Humphrey Appleby said that truth is irrelevant: only appearances count. But he was wrong and we shall soon see how wrong!

See Mr. Perkins's blog for a longer explanation of this proposal.

Now, regardless of whether this new canonical structure is useful for the FSSPX to be restored to full communion with the Church, how does this square with the observance of the canon that there is to be one bishop for one diocese or territory? The Orthodox themselves rightly perceive that this is a problem in the United States, and they seek to resolve it in accordance with the ancient canon. But the Catholic Church seems to be going in the opposite direction. This is not to say that there are not pastoral needs being addressed by the creation of such structures, but I question whether it should be ideal or permanent. In a world with more saints, such structures may not be necessary, just as it may not be necessary for there to be bishops of different rites all in the same city. One bishop would have the care of all Christians in his diocese, while they could keep their particular liturgical rites and this attachment would be rightly respected by the bishop.

The age of mobility will eventually come to an end with the end of the age of cheap energy. But I don't expect the Church to adjust to that new reality until it happens.