To Sign or Not To Sign

I signed a private letter to their Eminences requesting clarification of certain aspects of Amoris Laetitia, as we saw in the Synod, such is the dysfunctionality of the Church in recent times,  even private letters from Cardinals to His Holiness, are leaked, so the making public of a letter from us is not unexpected.
Life Site News reports this, on that letter, we are indeed in cruel times!

Many of the signatories of the scholarly appeal remain anonymous to protect their reputation and jobs. Yet some are still suffering pressure for their attempt to stay faithful to Church teaching and tradition.
LifeSiteNews has gathered information – confirmed by several of the signatories, including the spokesperson, Dr. Joseph Shaw – that one signatory, who is well known internationally,  has lost his position as a director of academic affairs at a Pontifical university.
Another was threatened by his bishop that his academic sabbatical would be canceled, but he found another bishop willing to allow him to begin the process of incardination in his diocese.
Yet another has been forbidden to speak publicly about Amoris Laetitia, and another has been told to rescind his signature.
And a Cardinal put pressure on one of the signatories to withdraw his name.
Two clear conclusions can be drawn: first, many of the suffering parties are under pressure not by remote institutions but by high-ranking individuals in the hierarchy. Second, the scholars’ document has opened the discussion on a wide public field and given rise to similar demands by individuals and groups.

There is another letter on-line, a Declaration of Fidelity to the Church's Unchangeable Teaching which you may consider signing.

I can well understand many clergy not signing, not because they don't believe 'the unchangeable teaching' but because they fear the consequences, which isn't necessarily the displeasure of their bishop,
Fr Raymond de Souza has written a couple of interesting articles for the Herald, the latest is headed "Amoris Laetitia is destined to be forgotten" I can agree within him, Amoris Laetitia is best forgotten, and will soon be forgotten, it is a novelty as far as Papal teaching is concerned. The subsequent leaked letter (all these leaks!) of the Pope to the Bishops of Buenos Aires is a repudiation of the teaching of all Pope Francis' predecessors. I can't help being in two minds, if you have an eccentric but lovable grandfather, who does or says something stupid, or even illegal does one draw attention to it or look a little askance and ignore it.

We used to study Papal documents in the parish, I haven't done this with either Laudato si and I certainly won't do it with Amoris Laetitia, it is just too big, it just goes on and on. It is as one bishop described it to me as a 'very subtle document', so subtle that the Holy Father himself when questioned couldn't remember one of its most controversial footnotes.

Bigging it up, especially as it goes far beyond the powers of a Pope, as defined by either of the Vatican Councils could be described as sharing in folly. Orthodoxy has a sense that in order for a Council or the Magisterium of a Patriarch or bishop to become the Church's teaching it has to be accepted by the Church, though some dissident or sycophantic bishops might extol the more controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, this is actually an eccentric view. From both the Church's history but also from the Synod itself the controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia have already been rejected.

The good thing is that the Pope is not the Church, it is not ruled according to his whim or the latest leak, his bright ideas are not that important, what matters is the faith, which is given it by Jesus Christ himself. The Church has a way, overtime, of purifying itself. It might well be that Church at a given time appears to be dominated by Protestantism or Arianism but Jesus is the Lord of history and the Church and has and will triumph.

Assisi

Assisi: as Fr Lucie Smith says needs revamping, it is a bit like any ecumenical event, it becomes self-referential, a bit 'same old' a bit dull. I have always justified it to those Catholics who disapprove of 'Assisi', as being the Pope being recognised in some sense as 'leader' of all 'faith communities', I admit its not necessarily good theology.

I don't know who draws up the guest list, or more significantly the veto list, presumably for the more important it is the Pope. This year the dear old Dalai Lama being struck from the guest list, that is not insignificant - presumable a more acceptable (to the Chinese and therefore Rome) patriotic Lama was found as a substitute for Chinese approved Tibetan Buddhism. I don't know if the there were other Chinese 'faith communities', most probably not Falun-gong. China and its treatment of Christians is deeply worrying, read this from First Things or the Catholic Herald on organ harvesting. It is pretty harrowing stuff but it is these are people, the Chinese government, Holy See plans to allow to choose Catholic bishops.


Patriarch Bartholomew was also there behind and obviously junior to the Bishop of Rome but then to be honest he is always in need of friends (and money) being starved of both not only by Moscow and Athens but also the increasingly hostile Turkish state, which under Erdogan is taking a significant turn against the countries tiny Orthodox community, there have been accusations the Phanar was involved in the coup against him. As things are it is quite possible next year depending on how things develop with Moscow, or whether the Holy See wants a closer relationship with Turkey, he too could be on the way out, or being even more junior.

There were of course Sikhs and Bahá'ís who are always glad of an invitation: reaching out to other religions is part of their creed. This time round from the photographs there seemed to be a lack of pagans, animist and spirit worshippers. I don't know if the Vatican prohibits Voodooists, Spiritualists and Satanists, there didn't seem to be many in the photographs.


There were various Jewish and Islamic leaders who were more 'ecumenical' than most of their brethren who frankly would not be seen dead at such an event or even in the company of those who would attend such an event. Many of course are what Catholics might consider 'Liberal'

What should not be forgotten is that Assisi is much more a political event than a religious one, increasingly it seems like event to show favour to political friends and disfavour to those who might compromise the Holy Sees global ambitions, as a peace maker of course, and at the table of peace-makers.

Drinking to Conscience?

I haven't seen the inside but the outside of this week's Catholic Herald reminds me of the words in the document on Christian Unity about the terrible scandal of disunity. "Leaks, intimidation, claims of heresy". indeed seem to be a mark of today's Church, indeed they seem to be more obvious marks of the Church than 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic', and increasingly so, there is a brutality and anti-intellectualism in today's Church, based on ambiguity, confusion and incoherence

It is an irony that the the Pope, himself, 'the minister of unity' should become the focus and source of disunity. Perhaps that is precisely what the Conclave of 2013 desired when it elected Jorge Bergoglio, he was already known as a divisive figure in both the Society of Jesus and his home diocese of Buenos Aires. In Et in Unum Sint John Paul had recognised the Papacy. among Christians in general, was a source of division and invited a discussion on the role of the Pope in the Church of the future. After Francis the Church will need to clarify, again, for its own adherents what is the role of the Pope, in what way is Universal Pastor, in what way should he exercise his jurisdiction, or even voice his personal preferences.

We all speak infallibly when recite creed or when we speak the truth of the Gospel. With the the Orthodox I suspect Pastor aeternus, with its hedging round of and very narrow definition of Papal powers is perhaps less divisive than the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which most (all?) Orthodox would consider as unnecessary novelties. One could argue that the Great Schism only gathered theological significance with the promulgation of Ineffabilis Deus  in 1854 until then in practice Orthodox and Catholics believed that which was 'held always, everywhere and by all'.

As the headline says, "The Communion row gets nasty", I fear for many Catholics that rather than as Newman says, "I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first", we must make a conscious choice between Conscience and the Pope, and that choice will have very uncomfortable consequences for those who feel compelled to follow conscience. The Kasper doctrine which the Pope has signified he favour is for many of us a sign of the distancing of the Church from Revelation and the person of Jesus Christ, that is not what the Church is for. When we ask for clarification from the Cardinals of the Church, as we are bound to do, we are met with either silence or told, as we were in England, by many of our superiors that Cardinal Nichols 'was displeased' that we should even voice such a concern in a private communication to him and his fellow Cardinals, that is the absolute moral low ground, though maybe a not entirely unexpected response. It is certainly not what the Pope himself calls for, 'open fearless debate' nor is it inline with a Catholic search for truth and is certainly not 'pastoral' to leave Christ's faithful in a state of uncertainty and confusion. Recently someone asked, "Having divorced sixteen years ago in the light of the Pope's new rules, can I look for a new wife?
Another man was just angry that he thought his forty-five years of continence since his own marriage broke down was now considers by the Church as unnecessary.

Mutual Enrichment Goes Both Ways

This is a video of President Kennedy's funeral in 1963, amazingly it is 'Low Mass of a Bishop' with music, as opposed to a sung Mass or Missa Solemnis.
.
It is pretty apparent when the Old Rite influences the New, since Summorum Pontificum, that has been quite considerable, which I suspect was the main reason for it promulgation but people often ask to what extent the New Rite has had an influence on the Old. I don't think that today a prominent Catholic figure would be buried today with such a perfunctory Rite celebrated in such perfunctory way, even though Low Mass in the Old Rite without music is normal. Apart from a Mass with a Bishop I have never attended Low Mass with music, before the Council it seems to have been quite usual, in Germany first, then elsewhere there was Mass with hymns, before Veterum Sapientia hymns in the vernacular were widespread, hence the large repertoire of Catholic hymns. In Frances there were those pretty organ Masses.

Cardinal Cushing's manner of celebration today would be regarded as unusual even shocking to a Catholic who normally attends the Traditional Mass, it certainly seems to be light on prayerful recollection, possibly even in 1963 prelates were getting used to the use of not always reliable microphones.

Of course what we might do with Old Rite today might well regarded by our forefathers as a bit prissey

Mass Yesterday

I thought you might like this, it is our choir singing at Mass yesterday, with some pictures of the Mass. We ended with the traditional blessing for those departing on journey and a good  dousing with Holy Water for the Sisters and gave them a few souvenirs of Brighton, an even balloons (the balloons play no part in the Mass!) Poor Servant of the Mother of God don't get them often.

I shall miss the Sisters, they are good, holy, sensible women, who are much loved here.

p.s. the recording was done on a portable telephone, so the sound of our choir is not the best, though I thing they sound pretty good.

The Garden of Allah

It is nothing about Islam. It is a 1936 film with Marlene Dietrich. It is about two people finding themselves. One is Dietrich, a devout Catholic, the other is a Trappist monk who has lost his faith and run away.
It gives an insight into spirituality of duty and the power of vows that we seem to have lost. It doesn't quite end happily but it does show the power of sacrificial love and self denial and placing God first.

Destruction of the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate

Nothing seems to sum up the new brutality of Church life than what has happened to the Franciscans of the Immaculate. To his discredit Fr Volpi, the now deceased Papal Commissioner, brought various spurious legal actions against them all of which were thrown out by the Italian courts. Now gossip, innuendo and intimidation are the weapons used against them.

The reason for all this according to Franciscans of the Immaculate is not merely their support of 'Tradition', though all of them seem happy to celebrate both forms of the Roman Rite but their opposition to the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit.

How far has the destruction of the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate progressed? This is the updating of a chapter that is like a dark shadow on the pontificate of Pope Francis.
In 1969 two Fathers Minor, Stefano Maria Manelli and Gabriele Maria Pellettieri, asked the Father General of the Order, after a thorough study of Fontes Franciscani, to be allowed to start a "new experience of Franciscan life" back to its original rigor. In 1970 an abandoned monastery of the Order was made ​​available to them where they gathered more men over time, and with the establishment of a female branch, women also joined. In 1990, the Community was canonically recognized as a separate order.
read more here

Irish Catholic's Response to Pope's letter

So here is response of the Catholic press to the Holy Father's letter to the Argentinian bishops, explaining, what bishop described as "a subtle document". Yes the sub heading is 'in strict circumstances", but this is not how it will be read, it is the head-line that matters.

The Holy Cross, not like the corpse of a saint!

I always feel uncomfortable coming across a piece of the True Cross in a museum I never know what to do, to gawp or fall on my knees.

Those who are thinking about 'doing something' on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross should remember that a fragment of the Holy Cross has more in common with the Blessed Sacrament than a bit of bone or the corpse of a dead saint.
All the prayers and rites surrounding the True Cross presumed the wood of the Cross was drenched in the life giving blood of Jesus - it was never treated as a merely relic. The Good Friday veneration of the Cross has its origins in the veneration of the Cross in Jerusalem, it seems fitting that a fragment of the True Cross should be used rather than an image of it but, however that is not what the Rite calls for.
Nevertheless when not exhibited for public adoration a fragment of the True Cross should be kept veiled in red, when it is exposed we are supposed to genuflect to it, in the same way as we do when the image is exposed on Good Friday, when it is carried in procession a red canopy or umbrellino is used and when a blessing is given with it, as with the Blessed Sacrament, a humeral veil is used, symbolising the blessing is not the priest's but come directly from God.
NLM has some nice photographs from the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Austria.

Canon 212 is IMPORTANT

Canon 212 is important:

"Christ's faithful have the right, and, indeed, sometimes the duty, according to their knowledge, competence, and dignity, to manifest to Sacred Shepherds their judgement about those things which pertain to the good of the Church".

This is one of the chief roles of members of the Sacred College of Cardinal with regards to the Pope. It is often the onerous duty of bishops, presbyters and deacons and the lay faithful too. For priests it is one of the images of Lumen Gentium, them gathering as co-workers with the bishop, not in the sense of a bishop lording it over his priests but working with them, for deacons there are all those patristic texts about being the bishops eyes and ears. What we are not supposed to do is be silent. A silent Church is either dead or fearful.

The good Fr Hunwicke has an important post about an important issue here. I too have heard about pressure being put on individuals to shut up and stop asking embarrassing questions. This kind of bullying is not good for Christ's Church. Telling people to hold their tongues, whether it is about the debate Cardinal Sarah tried to start (in fact started by Joseph Ratzinger) about the orientation of worship, or that letter of 13 Cardinals to the Pope during the Synod, or the book Remaining in the Truth by 10 Cardinals which Cardinal Baldissieri intercepted rather allowing it reach Synod participants or the 500 priests supporting the Church's traditional view on marriage, or the issue Fr John raises, now about intimidation of the 45 theologians and pastors who wrote the letter to Cardinals and Patriarchs asking for clarification of certain aspects of the otherwise beautiful Amoris Laetitia.

Intimidation can work on several levels from the Mafia boss who sends messages saying, "I know where you live", to someone threatening to deprive someone of their living or home, all too easy in the Church. It is especially worrying when the downright heretical are give free range and those who defend what has always, and everywhere and at all times been held as being the Catholic faith are treated with violence. This is not mercy, this is violence in action, so very much at odds with the doctrine of our Holy Father.

Need for Judgement

Just to prove I am still alive, thanks for the enquiries, Mgr Pope, always a good read, makes a point about fraternal correction and how essential it is to the life of the Church.

Nowadays those loathe to make a judgement about the moral behaviour of an individual quote the Pope's, 'Who am I to judge' remark, they forget the second part of what he said which qualified the first part, which is itself a very clear judgement, 'if they are seeking God'. In this particular case His Holiness has the individual is seeking God, even if it is in a rather chaotic lifestyle.

I am not exactly sure the Pope's remarks are always wise but here they remind us that the search for God itself 'justifies' us sinners, we are not after all Gradualists. The problem of scandal remains, we cannot lose souls simply because we are afraid to correct one another.

Perhaps the big problem in the Church today is that Christians are so tolerant that we have almost become amoral, or at least so tolerant of sin that we have nothing to say to sinners.