AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO FINDS IT IRONIC THAT THE GREATEST CONCERN FOR CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY COMES FROM THE PERIPHERY?

UPDATE 1/5/18: Bishop Schneider tells RC that Cardinal Janis Pujats, Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga/Latvia, added his signature to the text of the "Profession of Immutable Truths.

I guess the 1970's ideologue, Fr. Donald Cozzens would call bishops, priests and deacons from the periphery of Africa and Eurasia like Kazakhstan 🇰🇿 the worst of clericalism, but I beg to differ.

This interview provided by Rorate Caeli is significant even if it was not from the periphery:

The Pope cannot be the focal point of the daily life of the faith of a Catholic faithful. The focal point must instead be Christ. Otherwise, we become victims of an insane pope-centrism or of a kind of popalatry, an attitude which is alien to the tradition of the Apostles, of the Church Fathers and of the greater tradition of the Church. The so called “ultramontanism” of the 19th and 20th centuries reached its peak in our days and created an insane pope-centrism and popolatry. To mention just an example: There had been in Rome in the end of the 19th century a famous Monsignor who led different pilgrim groups to the Papal audiences. Before he let them enter to see and hear the Pope, he said to them: “Listen carefully to the infallible words which will come out of the mouth of the Vicar of Christ”. Surely such an attitude is a pure caricature of the Petrine ministry and contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, even in our days, not so few Catholics, priests and bishops show substantially the same caricatural attitude towards the sacred ministry of the successor of Peter. 

IMPORTANT: Bishop Athanasius Schneider interview with Rorate Caeli on "Profession of the Immutable Truths", communion for "divorced and remarried"

Bishop Athanasius Schneider -- auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, and one of the original three drafters of this week's Profession of the Immutable Truths in response to Amoris Laetitia and Pope Francis' official approval granting Holy Communion to some "divorced and remarried" Catholics -- participated in an interview with Rorate Caeli after the document's release.

You can read more on the original document here. We urge all Catholic media and blogs to run this interview in full -- but please reference Rorate Caeli as the source. 

RORATE CAELI (RC): Your Excellency has personally been out in front in terms of restoration of the traditional liturgy for many years. Now Your Excellency, Archbishop Peta and Archbishop Lenga have come out publicly, and forcibly, in defense of marriage in the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia. Why did the three of you decide now was the time to respond? 

BISHOP ATHANASIUS SCHNEIDER (BAS): After the publication of Amoris Laetitia, several bishops and Bishops’ Conferences started to issue “pastoral” norms regarding the so-called “divorced and remarried”. One has to say that, for a Catholic, there is no divorce because a valid sacramental bond of a ratified and consumed marriage is absolutely indissoluble and even the bond of a natural marriage is per se indissoluble as well. Furthermore, for a Catholic, there is only one valid marriage being his legitimate spouse still alive. Therefore, one cannot speak of a “re-marriage” in this case.

The expression “divorced and remarried” is consequently deceptive and misleading. Since this expression is commonly known, we use it only in quotation marks and with the previous remark “so-called”. The mentioned pastoral norms regarding the so- called “divorced and remarried” -- norms masked with a rhetoric bordering on sophism -- foresee ultimately the admittance of the “divorced and remarried” to Holy Communion without the requirement of the indispensable and Divinely established condition that they may not violate their sacred marriage bond through their habitual sexual relationship with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. A certain peak has reached in this process of implicit recognition of divorce in the life of the Church, when Pope Francis ordered to publish in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, his letter of approval of similar norms which issued the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires. 

This act was followed by a declaration that this papal approval would belong to the authentic Magisterium of the Church. In view of such pastoral norms which contradict Divine Revelation with its absolute disapproval of divorce and contradict also the teaching and sacramental practice of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, we were forced by our conscience, as successors of the Apostles, to raise our voice and to reiterate the immutable doctrine and practice of the Church regarding the indissolubility of the sacramental marriage.

RC: Has the Kazakh conference officially released an interpretation of Amoris Laetitia? Do they plan to do so, or does this letter mean that the conference believes Amoris Laetitia cannot be understood in an orthodox way or is in any way compatible with the Catechism and with Scripture and Tradition?

BAS: The text of the “Profession of truths” is not a document of the Bishop’s Conference of Kazakhstan, but a document only of those bishops who signed it. Our Bishop’s Conference considered it not necessary to issue pastoral norms as an interpretation of AL. Even though in our society the plague of divorce is widespread, a consequence of 70 years of Communist materialism, and we have also in our parishes cases of so-called “divorced and remarried”, yet the same “divorced and remarried” would not dare to ask to be admitted to Holy Communion, since the awareness and conscience of sin is, thanks be to God, very deep routed in the souls, and even in the civil society.

In our country people commit sin as elsewhere, but our people still acknowledge that sin is sin, and therefore for such sinners there is hope for conversion and Divine mercy. It would be for our people -- and even for the so-called “divorced and remarried” among them -- a kind of blasphemy to demand access to Holy Communion while continuing to cohabitate with a person who is not their legitimate spouse. Therefore, our Bishops’ Conference did not see the necessity to issue relevant norms.

RC: We’ve had the famous dubia sent to the Pope and a filial correction – mostly by laymen – sent as well. Neither have garnered a response. However, many feel Francis has already responded in a sense, when he officially endorsed the Buenos Aires bishops’ apparently heretical instruction to the divorced, remarried and still cohabitating. Should we still expect anything more from Francis on this matter?  

BAS: The Buenos Aires bishops’ instructions do not express directly a heresy. Yet they allow, in individual cases, “divorced and remarried” people to receive Holy Communion in spite of the fact that they do not want to stop sexual relationships with their non-conjugal partner. In this case the mentioned pastoral instructions deny in practice, and hence indirectly, the Divinely revealed truth of the indissolubility of marriage. The sad circumstance is that the Pope approved such instructions. By this way the Pope gave, in my opinion, directly an answer to the first point and indirectly to the four other points of the dubia. We can only expect through our appeals, prayers and sacrifices, that Pope Francis may answer in a most unequivocal manner to the five points of the dubia according to the relevant teaching of the Ordinary and Universal infallible Magisterium.

RC: The threat to the Faithful has been clear, not only since Amoris Laetitia was promulgated, but just from the discussions alone at the synods. The confusion it has all caused cannot be questioned. However, much like the usefulness of Humanae Vitae was lessoned due to how long it took for it to be published, is all this now too late to stop the damage, especially when the Pope has now officially given permission for some divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion?  

BAS: We have to bear in mind that the Church is not in our hands, and not even in the hands of the Pope, but in the almighty hands of Christ, and therefore we cannot say that all this is now too late to stop the damage. We can also apply the following affirmation of Saint Paul to our situation inside the Church: “Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). God had permitted this current extraordinary doctrinal and moral confusion in the Church for the aim that, after this crisis, the truth will shine brighter and the Church will become spiritually more beautiful, especially in the married couples, in the families and in the popes. 

RC: We have heard now, for over a year, that a formal correction coming from the cardinals is imminent, yet nothing has happened. What do you believe is the hold up? 

BAS: In the face of the current temporal and partial eclipse of the function of the Papal Magisterium concerning concretely the defense and practical enforcement of the indissolubility the marriage, the members of the episcopal and of the cardinalitial colleges have to assist the Pope in this Magisterial duty through public professions of the immutable truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium -- that means what all the Popes and the entire episcopate during all times - have taught concerning the doctrine and the sacramental practice of the marriage. 

RC: If a formal correction is made by a number of cardinals, and Francis continues to officially approve of bishops’ conferences giving Holy Communion to some divorced and remarried, then what?  

BAS: There exists the following principle of the traditional Catholic doctrine since the first centuries: “Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur”, i.e., the first episcopal chair in the Church (the chair of the Pope) cannot be judged by anybody. When bishops remind the Pope respectfully of the immutable truth and discipline of the church, they don’t judge hereby the first chair of the Church, instead they behave themselves as colleagues and brothers of the Pope. The attitude of the bishops towards the Pope has to be collegial, fraternal, not servile and always supernaturally respectful, as it stressed the Second Vatican Council (especially in the documents Lumen gentium and Christus Dominus). One has to continue to profess the immutable faith and pray still more for the Pope and, then, only God can intervene and He will do this unquestionably.

RC: For the typical Catholic, who goes to Mass but maybe doesn’t follow the politics of the Church like Rorate readers do, the casual Catholics whom hear the Supreme Pontiff saying numerous confusing things over the past few years, things that appear contrary (hopefully) to what they’ve been taught their entire lives, what does Your Excellency say to them? And how do serious Catholics push back when, at every turn, they’re asked by modernists if they think they’re “more Catholic than the Pope”? 

BAS: First, these faithful have to continue to read and study the immutable Catechism, and especially the great doctrinal documents of the Church. Such documents are theme here, e.g., the Decrees of the Councils of Trent about the sacraments; the encyclicals Pascendi from Pius X.; Casti connubii from Pius XI; Humani generis from Pius XII; Humanae vitae from Paul VI; the Credo of the People of God from Paul VI; the encyclical Veritatis splendor from John Paul II; and his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio. These documents do not reflect a personal and short-lived meaning of a Pope or of a pastoral synod. Instead, these documents reflect and reproduce the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.

Second, they have to bear in mind that the Pope is not the creator of the truth, of the faith and of the sacramental discipline of the Church. The Pope and the entire Magisterium “is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 10). The First Vatican Council taught that the charism of the ministry of the successors of Peter “does not mean that they might make known some new doctrine, but that, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles” (Pastor aeternus, chap. 4).

Third, the Pope cannot be the focal point of the daily life of the faith of a Catholic faithful. The focal point must instead be Christ. Otherwise, we become victims of an insane pope-centrism or of a kind of popalatry, an attitude which is alien to the tradition of the Apostles, of the Church Fathers and of the greater tradition of the Church. The so called “ultramontanism” of the 19th and 20th centuries reached its peak in our days and created an insane pope-centrism and popolatry. To mention just an example: There had been in Rome in the end of the 19th century a famous Monsignor who led different pilgrim groups to the Papal audiences. Before he let them enter to see and hear the Pope, he said to them: “Listen carefully to the infallible words which will come out of the mouth of the Vicar of Christ”. Surely such an attitude is a pure caricature of the Petrine ministry and contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, even in our days, not so few Catholics, priests and bishops show substantially the same caricatural attitude towards the sacred ministry of the successor of Peter. 

The true attitude towards the Pope according to the Catholic tradition has to be always with sane moderation, with intelligence, with logic, with common sense, with the spirit of faith and of course, also, with heartfelt devotion. Yet there has to be a balanced synthesis of all these characteristics. We hope that after the current crisis the Church will reach a more balanced and sane attitude towards the person of the Pope and toward his sacred and indispensable ministry in the Church.

WHILE IT SHOULDN'T BE TRUE, UNFORTUNATELY MARC'S TAKE ON THE POLITICIZATION OF THE LITURGIES OF THE CHURCH, I FEAR, IS TRUE

Marc writes this comment on the post below this one:

I have seen expressed the opinion that moving from the Latin Rite to the Eastern Rite is a refreshing change because, among other things, it means that one's attendance at a particular liturgy is no longer a ecclesio-political statement. 

In other words, due to the deliberateness involved, attending the traditional Latin Mass is almost necessarily a statement of one's affiliation with and support for a particular doctrinal-ecclesiological movement that is opposed to the "mainstream" situation in the Roman Church. On the other hand, one does not find that sort of thing inherent in the Eastern Rites. As you say, the liturgy simply is what it is and what it has been so without the strings attached.

I tried to fight this mentality at my previous parish in Macon. There the EF Mass was mainstreamed and did not have an ideological bent to it. i offered the EF Mass once a month and at a regular OF Mass time of 12:10 PM.

In addition we had an every Tuesday low Mass in the EF and we had the EF High Mass for special occasions such as our patronal feast of St. Joseph and the November 2nd Requiem. 

In other words, the EF Mass became just one more way for us to make the Mass more solemn or more special and people appreciated that.

Because we celebrated the OF Mass with dignity, solemnity and high reverence, people did not associate the EF Mass a protest against the OF Mass, although many would say that the EF Mass seem more intrinsically reverent, not because of the Latin, but the other elements, especially the ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Commuion. In fact many said they would prefer the EF Mass to the OF if it could be in the vernacular.

Of course my homilies were always mainstream and orthodox and I did not cater what I would say to the EF crowd or the OF crowd. They got the same theology and doctrine at both. 

Yes, the Liturgy in the Roman Rite to include both forms of the one Roman Rite should simply be what it is and what it has been without ideological strings attached. 

TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS CAN CERTAINLY BE ECLECTIC IN THE VARIETY OF STYLES OF MASS AND MUSIC AVAILALBE TODAY

This past Sunday I celebrated the Cathedral's EF High Mass. It is suburbly chanted by a schola that rivals anything I have ever experienced and all done without accompaniment. As I celebrate this Mass once or twice a month, I feel as though I am stepping back to the time when even the organ had not been invented and instrumentation was not allowed in the Catholic liturgy. But it really isn't stepping back into time but remembering in the Jewish way of remembering and bringing a past event forward in a timeless way.

But in my parish at St. Anne's, we have a more contemporary sound to our singing and use more contemporary hymns and Mass settings. Catholic purists won't like this, but there isn't anything "unCatholic" about it or irreverent.

We chant the propers in a simply way in the vernacular in addition to any hymns or anthems that are sung. I chant all my priestly parts and the congregation sings all their parts of the Mass to include the Our Father. I use incense at our 11AM Mass.

I know that in pre-Vatican II times, many, many Catholics preferred the Low Mass on Sunday and were quite willing to go to an early Sunday Mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation. My father was this way, although I remember quite well attending sung Mass on a somewhat regular basis.

And yes, in the EF Mass it is possible to sing Mass settings that aren't Gregorian Chant or even Polyphony but secularized productions of the great masters which were questionable two centuries and more ago and papal concerns were voiced.

Can't a traditional Catholic love all legitmate forms of Masses and music and still be traditional. Yes you can!

ARMAGEDDON! TO HELL WITH MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S MANMADE ICE AGE THAT IS IN THE MAKING!

Coastal  Georgia and South Carolina are under a Winter Storm warning tomorrow morning with up to 2 to 4 inches of snow!!!! Everything in the Coastal Empire and the Low Country is closed tomorrow including my parish office!

It is armaggedon! We are apoplectic and do not know what to do! Pandemonium has broken out, grocery stores are raided!

Oh the humanity! This is being compared to the Blizzard of 1989 when I was at our Cathedral in Savannah and we got three inches of snow a day before  Christmas Eve making it my first white Christmas everrrrrr!!!!!

Pray for us!!!!!! It's Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!

I WONDER IF POPE FRANCIS VISITED POPE BENEDICT AT CHRISTMAS TO DISCUSS POPE BENEDICT'S PRAISE OF CARDINAL MUELLER?

Copied from Rorate Caeli, I would say this is very interesting, no? Kind of a bombshell given what has happened to the good Cardinal, yes?

For the Record: Full translation of Benedict XVI letter of support to Müller after dismissal by Francis -- plus: Ratzinger explains the liturgical revolution

Your Eminence, dear Confrere

Your seventieth birthday is approaching and even if I’m no longer able to write a true scientific contribution to the miscellany that will be dedicated to you on this occasion, I’d like nonetheless to participate with some words of greeting and gratitude.

Twenty two years have now gone by since you gave me a copy of your Katholische Dogmatik für Studium und Praxis der Theologie, in March 1995. For me this was an encouraging sign that also in the Post-Council theological generation there were thinkers with the courage to devote themselves ‘to the whole’, in presenting what the faith of the Church is in its unity and completeness. In fact, just as the exploration of detail is important, no less important is that the faith of the Church appear in its internal unity and entirety and that in the end the simplicity of the faith emerges through all the complex theological reflections; since the sensation that the Church is overloaded with a burden of incomprehensible things, which in the end may interest only the specialists, is the main obstacle in saying ‘yes’ to the God Who in Jesus Christ is speaking to us. In my view, one does not become a great theologian by the fact that he is able to tackle minute and difficult details, but by the fact that he is able to present the ultimate unity and simplicity of the faith.

Your Dogmatik in one volume however, pertained to me even for an autobiographical reason. Karl Rahner had presented in the first volume of his writings a project for a renewed construction of dogmatics, which he had worked on along with Hans Urs Von Balthasar. This obviously awoke in all of us an incredible thirst to see this schema filled with contents and completed. The desire for a Rahner-Balthasar signed dogmatics, which arose on this occasion, ran into an editorial problem. Erich Wewel had convinced Father Bernard Häring in the 50s to write a manual of moral theology which after its publication became a great success. Then the editor had this idea: that also in dogmatics something similar should be done and that it would perhaps be necessary for such a work to be written in a single volume by one person only. Obviously he turned to Karl Rahaner asking him to write this book.

However, Rahner was at that time involved in so many undertakings that he thought he would not be able to correspond to such a grand enterprise. Strangely he advised the editor to ask me, who at that time, at the beginning of my journey, was teaching fundamental dogmatics and theology at Frisinga. Yet even I, despite being at the beginning [of my vocation] was involved in many undertakings and did not feel capable of writing such a daunting work in acceptable time. So I then asked if I could involve a collaborator – my friend, Father Alois Grillmeier. As far as possible I worked on the project and met Father Grillmeier several times for extensive consultations. However, the Second Vatican Council required all my energies, as well as having to think in a new way about all the traditional exposition of the doctrine and faith of the Church. In 1977, when I was named Archbishop of Freising- Munich. it was clear that I could no longer think of such an enterprise. In 1995 when your book reached my hands, I unexpectedly saw that what had previously been desired by my generation but was not possible to carry out, had been achieved by a theologian of the successive generation.

Then I got to know you personally, when the German Episcopal Conference proposed you as a member of the International Theological Commission. In this you distinguished yourself above all for your wealth of knowledge and your faithfulness to the faith of the Church which poured forth from you. In 2012, when Cardinal Levada left his office as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on grounds of age, you seemed, after some reflection, the most suitable bishop to hold this office.

In 1981 when I accepted this office, Archbishop Hamer - the then Secretary for the Doctrine of the Faith - explained to me that the prefect did not necessarily need to be a theologian, but a sage, who in tackling theological questions would not make specific valuations, but would discern what to do for that [particular] time in the Church. The theological competence would rather be found in the secretary who guides the Consulta, that is, the meeting of experts who together give an accurate scientific judgment.

Yet in similar way to politics, the theologians don’t make the final decision, but rather the sages, who know the scientific aspects and along with these, are able to envisage the entire life of a grand community. During the years I held office, I sought to live up to this criteria. Whether this was achieved may be judged by others.

In the confused times in which we are living, the whole scientific theological competence and wisdom of he who must make the final decisions seem to me of vital importance. For example, I think that things might have gone differently in the Liturgical Reform if the words of the experts had not been the last ones, but if, apart from them, a wisdom capable of recognizing the limits of a “simple” scholar’s approach had passed judgment. [added emphasis]

During your Roman years you always undertook to act not only as a scholar, but as a sage, like a father of the Church. You defended the clear traditions of the faith, yet along the lines of Pope Francis, you sought to understand how they can be lived today.

Pope Paul VI wanted the great offices of the Curia – that of the Prefect and the Secretary - to be assigned always only for five years, in this way guarding the Pope’s freedom and the flexibility of the work of the Curia. In the meantime, your five-year contract in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith has expired. Thus you no longer have a specific charge, yet a priest and above all a bishop and cardinal, never retires. For this reason you can and will be able to serve the faith publically also in the future, starting from the heart of your sacerdotal mission and theological charism. We are all happy that with your great and profound responsibility, in addition to the speaking gifts given to you, you will also be present in the future struggles of our time for the correct understanding of ‘being man and being Christian’ May the Lord sustain you.

Finally, I would again like to express a very personal thank-you. As Bishop of Regensburg you founded the Pope Benedict XVI Institute  - which guided by one of your pupils – is carrying out truly commendable work in maintaining publically present my theological work in all its scope. May the Lord reward you for your efforts.

At the Vatican, in the Monastery Mater Ecclesiae

On the Feast of St.Ignatius of Loyola, 2017

Yours, 

Benedict XVI

US CATHOLIC AND FR. DONALD COZZENS TAKE ON CLERICALISM SOME OF WHICH IS GOOD AND SOME OF WHICH IS FROM THE BAD OLD 1970'S!

Our bishop has sent this article to our priests and seminarians for us to discuss in terms of its merits and deficits. So I post the link for you to read the article and some of the auther's opinions on clericalism some of which I agree and other things I don't agree. It seems he wants to continue to erode priestly identity that creates more problems, some pathological, than it solves. But you can read it and decide for yourself. Much off it is what I was formed by in the 1970's seminary. Out of a class of 60 in 1976 only 22 of us were ordained in 1980. Today there are less than 10 of us in active ministry. Loss of a strong and healthy priestly identity is to blame, a foundation of which was shifting sands of the 1970's.

Don't put priests on a pedestal

Clericalism is crippling the pastoral mission of the church. 

By Father Donald Cozzens 

....Here’s how I see it: Clericalism is an attitude found in many (but not all) clergy who put their status as priests and bishops above their status as baptized disciples of Jesus Christ. In doing so, a sense of privilege and entitlement emerges in their individual and collective psyche. This, in turn, breeds a corps of ecclesiastical elites who think they’re unlike the rest of the faithful.

Clergy caught up in this kind of purple-hued seduction are incapable of seeing that it freezes their humanity—their ability to simply connect on a human level with the various sorts of God’s holy people. Of all the sour fruits of clericalism, this inability to connect with others might be the most damaging. When the ordained come across as somehow superior to their parishioners and people they encounter, the playing field is tilted. This kind of disconnect can be fatal to a priest’s efforts to build a sense of community in his parish.

It’s often difficult for parishioners to feel comfortable with a clerical priest. They simply don’t find “Father” approachable. The same can be said of bishops who are all too comfortable thinking of themselves as princes by divine selection. They connect neither with their priests nor with the people they’re meant to shepherd. You won’t find the smell of the sheep on them.

Often that’s exactly what clergy caught up in clericalism want: They believe a certain distance from the nonordained is fitting and right. Of course, priests need not be chummy with their parishioners; the pastor-parishioner relationship requires maturity and prudence on the part of the ordained. Most pastors are all too aware of the smothering demands of some of their flock. Without question, they need to safeguard their privacy and find time when they are, so to speak, “off the clock.” But clericalism by its nature exaggerates this need. Without fail, it breeds artificiality and superficiality between pastors and parishioners. Though often unnamed, something real is missing.

Clerical priests and bishops (and yes, clerical deacons) come to see their power to confer sacraments, to preach, and to teach as the bedrock of their identity. When this happens they lose sight of the truth that the church’s power is ultimately the power of the Holy Spirit. Without words, they seem to say, “We are clergy and you’re not.”

So what can we do to end clericalism? The following steps should excise the cancer, or at least put clericalism into remission:

1. Bishops, priests, and deacons are called by the gospel—and by Pope Francis—to see discipleship and service as foundational to ordained ministry. Baptism confers all the dignity they need. Many clergy get this. Many still do not. So let our seminaries teach candidates for the priesthood that baptismal discipleship rooted in prayer is the foundation of priestly ministry.
2. Some clergy insist on being addressed with their title, Father or Monsignor. And some prelates insist on their courtly honorifics, Excellency or Eminence. Titles have their place, but we shouldn’t insist on them. We might smile at a layperson who insists on being called Mister, Doctor, Professor, or Judge. Calling a physician Doctor is appropriate in the consulting room or hospital, and addressing a pastor as Father is likewise appropriate in parish settings. But most people wince when an individual insists on always being addressed by his or her title.
3. Mandated celibacy needs to be revisited. It’s true that we also find clericalism in the married clergy of Eastern rite Catholic and Orthodox churches. But the inherent burdens of celibacy lead some clergy to a sense of entitlement and privilege, hallmarks of clericalism.

But, some will argue, isn’t the critique of clericalism an attack on the priesthood? .....

MORE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF HOW ACADEMIC THEOLOGIANS HIJACKED THE REFORMS OF VATICAN II AND THE BISHOPS AND POPES EVENTUALLY THREW IN THE TOWEL AND WENT ALONG

This is a follow-up to my post below this one as memories of the 1970's and beyond are flooding into my mystical mind and it's all coming back to me.

Let me start in the late 1960's or very early 1970's. In my home parish of St. Joseph in Augusta, our pastor thought it would be good for our parish to experience the new trend in liturgical music proposed by Vatican II ( a lie of course) that we have folk music at Mass. Thus, two nuns with guitar sat on bar stools not at the back of the church in the choir area, but next to the altar and badgered us to sing the folk music they had select, more than likely from Godspell, little ditties like "Day by Day" which we then sang Sunday after Sunday after Sunday to include other folk ditties from secular sources like "One Tin Soldier." Did any of you here that one during the Vietnam war era?????

Fast forward to my liberal seminary days, 1976-80. Academic theologians told us that they were a part of the Magisterium no much how much Pope Paul VI and the bishops protested this developement. They suggested that as a part of the Magisterium often they had to play the role of loyal opposition to what the popes and bishops taught or promulgated, like the Church's teaching on birth control and female priests and the like.

In fact, when in 1976 beleaguered Pope Paul VI reiterated that the Church had no authority to ordain women, our academic theologians and our student body went into meltdown and vowed to challenge this non-infallible teaching! And then by the time Pope John Paul visited the USA in 1979, the Sisters of Mercy protested the pope's Magisterium on women priests by standing throughout the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a sign of protest and the head of the sisters told the pope to his face to change!

I won't bore you about the time when I was a diocesan vocation director and religious vocation directors, both male and female orders, had their annual convention in Savannah around 1988 or so and decided they would like to take over one of our Sunday Cathedral Masses (the 11:30 AM one) with me as celebrant and all the things that I allowed them to do at this Mass, which eventually got back to Bishop Lessard! No, don't let me go into that!!!!!!!!! Use your imagination!!!!! Yes folks, in the 1980's I was a flaming liturgical liberal and not just liturgical!

But what about liturgical changes that Pope Paul VI and later Pope John Paul II tried to halt and without any real success?

By the 1970's Liturgical theologians promulgated the following in opposition to Pope Paul and Pope John Paul and the liturgical norms of the 1970 Roman Missal and eventually through their bullying and disobedience, their rebellion, got their way like Bugnini did:

Altar girls
Communion in the hand
Eucharistic Ministers as the norm rather than the exception so much so that when parishes had multiple priests who popped in to distribute Holy Communion at Communion time, liturgical theologians told them they shouldn't because Eucharistic ministers could do it and they didn't pop in but were a part of the liturgy from the beginning. Then, of course, we began to see even the priest "presider" sit during Communion and let others distribute Holy Communion.

Complete disobedience to liturgical law eventually led weakened popes and bishops to go along and let law catch up with the practice these theologians wanted and got.

Also the priest ad libbing the words of the Mass, making up their own Eucharistic prayers and allowing for outrageous experimentation following their attendance at a Catholic convention which modeled all kinds of wierd things. Think of the Los Angeles Catechtical conference each year to this day and the local bishop approving of illicit things!

What did the popes and bishops finally stamp out? Eucharistic Ministers receiving Holy Communion with the priest at the same time the priest did or, worse yet, out of a sense of false hospitality about meals, the priest and the Eucharistic ministers receiving after the laity had done so.

Self-service Holy Communion at the altar for the laity.

The use of real bread with honey or crusty French bread that opposed what was mocked as "crumb theology" of the traditionalists.

The abandonment of liturgical vestments or wearing all that was required

DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER OUTRAGEOUS ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE?

I BEG TO DIFFER, POPE BENEDICT IS RIGHT!

Fr. Anthony Ruff of Praytell informs us about something Pope Benedict recently wrote about liturgical reform after Vatican II (my comments follow):

The context is the introduction Benedict recently wrote for a book of essays honoring Cardinal Müller on his 70th birthday. Benedict said that in today’s confusing times, both the competence of academic theology and the wisdom of those authorities who must make the final decision are very important. Applying this to the liturgical reform, Benedict wrote:

“I think for example that in the liturgical reform, things would have ended up differently if the word of the experts had not been the final authority, but if, alongside this, a wisdom able to recognize the limits of the approach of a ‘simple’ scholar had judged it.”   (tr. awr)

Fr. Anthony Ruff of Praytell, an academic, just doubly suseptible to clericalism of the clergy and the worst kind of clericalism, that of academics, writes this:

But with all due respect to the venerable pope emeritus, it is not quite accurate to claim that experts were the final authority on the reform of the liturgy.

As the great leader of the liturgical reform under Blessed Paul VI, Annibale Bugnini, notes in The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975 (English edition p. 383), Pope Paul wrote a handwritten letter to the Secretariat of State, which was then included in a communication of that office approving the reform of the Mass to Cardinal Benno Gut, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It read as follows.

Wednesday, November 6, 1968
7:00 – 8:30 pm

Together with Father Annibale Bugnini, I have once again read the new Order of Mass compiled by the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, now that observations on it have been made by myself, the Roman Curia, the Congregation of Rites, and the participants in the eleventh general meeting of the Consilium itself, as well as by other churchmen and members of the laity. After careful consideration of the various changes proposed, many of which have been accepted, I give the new Order of Mass my approval in the Lord. Paul VI, Pope.

My comments:

The fact of the matter is that most bishops to include Pope Paul VI relied completely on the liturgical academics of the 20th century to guide them in revising the Mass. These bishops and popes were not liturgists and they were in "awe" of academics and trusted their judgement and thus often simply allowed these academics to bully them into allowing reforms. These academics for the most part looked down their noses at these popes and bishops because the academics knew that they (the academics) knew better.

And we know that academics certainly look down their noses at the ill-informed or what they would call the malformed laity. Just think about how these academics shoved their ideologies and theologies down the throats of the laity after Vatican II.

But a part from the reliance of Pope Paul VI on Father Annibale Bugnini, which His Holiness later came to regret and finally exiled him out of Europe (and this is extremely important footnote to say the least) after the 1970 Roman Missal was promulgated, it was liturgists who gave workshops around the world and in the USA who further deformed the 1970 Roman Missal by suggesting the most idiotic things that should be done to the Mass and church architecture not only for renovations of splendid edifices, but in new construction.

Once again, bishops allowed these academics to rule the day and most parish priests who went to these workshops or conventions immediately implemented the most outrageous reforms that evenally ran off nearly 88% of Catholics from attending Mass.

And the bishops, they went along with the academics until the academics of liturgies, the doctors of liturgy became such a powerful force that by 1998 they had suggested even more outrageous changes to the Mass and finally Pope Benedict gave us Liturgiam Authenicum and Summorum Pontificum and renewal in continuity.

Unfortunately with the return of the 1970's  mentality of many bishops, Pope Benedict's insights and direction are being reversed much to the glee of academic liturgists.

MY PREDICTIONS FOR 2018

1. The Ordinary Form of the Mass will continue as such but more and more places will attempt to celebrate this form of the Mass with more dignity, solemnity and tradition

2. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass will be celebrated in more places but it will continue as a "boutique" Mass not having universal appeal any longer but for a more "selective" sort of congregation--in other words it won't be the dragnet of laity attending as in the Ordinary Form but a more exclusive connoisseur of mysticism, tradition and security.

3. I will continue to push for what Pope Francis has already promulgated for those who use the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship, the Missal" which means I will continue the following:

a. That our most recent Roman Missal remain the same, but with tweaked improvements in the priestly prayers to allow for better English syntax, sentence construction, beauty and punctuation without sacrificing the spirituality and devotional elements of the Latin Roman Missal

b. That the revised Roman Missal will look like the Divine Worship, the Missal in layout as indicated in the header photo

c. That the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the High Middle Ages Offertory Prayers, Kneeling to receive Holy Communion and the Last Gospel as well has rubrics for the Eucharistic Prayers be modified and more in continuity with the EF's clear rubrics as is already the case in Pope Francis' approval of the Divine Worship, the Missal

d. That the propers of the Mass never be eliminated even if hymns are sung in addition to these as is done at the Vatican

EVEN WITH THE IRREVERSIBLE REFORMS OF VATICAN II'S ORDINARY FORM, POPE FRANCIS CONTINUES TO CELEBRATE IT AND EVENING PRAYER WITH BENEDICTION OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT IN A VERY AD ORIENTEM WAY WHICH BODES WELL FOR THE LITURGY IN 2018!

NEW YEARS FIREWORKS! AN ANSWER TO THE DUBIA A POSITIVE START TO THE NEW YEAR IN OUR LORD, 2018

Müller, “Buttiglione's book has 

dispelled the cardinals’ dubia”

Interview with the cardinal on Amoris laetitia and the
possibility of sacraments for those who live a second
union, “We must link God's Word of salvation to
concrete situations, excluding both legalism and
self-referential individualism”

Cardinal Müller

138

1

Pubblicato il 31/12/2017

Ultima modifica il 31/12/2017 alle ore 00:58

ANDREA TORNIELLI

VATICAN CITY

For his seventieth birthday, the most significant words were those received by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI: Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has "defended the clear traditions of faith, but in Pope Francis’ spirit" he has "tried to understand how they can be lived today". It it precisely the sense that the German cardinal wanted to give in the rich and articulated introductory essay in support of philosopher Rocco Buttiglione’s initiative, who in a recently published volume collected his contributions for an in depth reading on Amoris laetitia beyond opposite extremisms.  

For many years now, first as cardinal and then as Pope, Joseph Ratzinger had spoken of the problem represented by the increasing number of marriages celebrated without faith and without the awareness of the sacrament. A problem taken into consideration by Müller himself in a pastoral letter published at the beginning of his episcopate in Regensburg. In this interview with Vatican Insider, the Cardinal returns to the dubia and elaborates on some passages of his introduction to Buttiglione's book.  

  

   Your Eminence, why did you support philosopher Rocco Buttiglione’s book on Amoris laetitia?  

 My friend Rocco Buttiglione's intention in this book is to offer competent answers to questions formulated in a competent manner. I wanted to support this contribution to honest dialogue without bias and without controversy. In German there is a way of saying, "whoever wants to bring peace takes the barrel from both sides". However, I believe that we must accept this risk out of love for the truth of the Gospel and, for the unity of the Church.  

  

Do you believe that Professor Buttiglione's book has actually answered to the famous dubia expressed by the four cardinals?  

 I am convinced that he has dispelled the doubts of the cardinals and many Catholics who feared that in "Amoris Laetitia" a substantial alteration of the doctrine of faith had taken place both on the valid and fruitful way of receiving Holy Communion as well as on the indissolubility of a marriage validly contracted between baptized.  

  

  The impression one gets when reading the five dubia texts of the cardinals is that we are not dealing with real questions, that is, doubts expressed in order to have an answer in one sense or another, but rather with questions that are a little rhetorical and that lead towards an already established direction. What do you think about it?  

 In all my stances, which have been requested to me by many parties, I have always tried to overcome polarizations and opposing ways of thinking. For this reason, Professor Buttiglione asked me for an introduction essay to his book entitled "Why Amoris Laetitia can and must be interpreted in the orthodox sense". Now, however, we must not waste time wondering how we have entered this tense situation, but rather on focusing on how to come out of it. we need more confidence and more benevolent attention to each other. As Christians, we must never doubt the good will of our brothers but "each one of you, humbly think of others as being better than yourselves" (Phil. 2,3) - so the Apostle admonishes us to all share the same feelings in love.  

  

  In your introductory essay to Buttiglione's book, you speak of at least one exception concerning the sacraments for those who live a second union, that concerning those who cannot obtain marriage annulment in court but are convinced in conscience of the nullity of the first marriage. This hypothesis was already considered, in 2000, by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In this case, can we open the way to the sacraments? Could Amoris laetitia be considered a development of that position?  

Faced with the often-inadequate education in Catholic doctrine, and in a secularized environment in which Christian marriage is not a convincing example of life, the question arises also on the validity of marriages celebrated according to the canonical ritual. There is a natural right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This also applies to Catholics who have departed from the faith or maintained only a superficial bond with the Church. How can we consider the situation of those Catholics who do not appreciate or even deny the sacramentality of Christian marriage? Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to reflect on this without having a ready-made solution. This is not about artificially constructing some kind of pretext for being able to give communion. Those who do not recognize or take marriage seriously as a sacrament in the sense that the Church considers, cannot even, and this is the most important thing, receive in holy communion, Christ who is the foundation of the sacramental grace of marriage. There should first be a conversion to the entire mystery of faith. Only in the light of these considerations can a good pastor clarify the family and marriage situation. It is possible that the penitent may be convinced in conscience, and with good reasons, of the invalidity of the first marriage even though they cannot offer canonical proof. In this case the marriage valid before God would be the second one and the pastor could grant the sacrament, certainly with the appropriate precautions as not to scandalize the community of the faithful and not to weaken the conviction of marriage indissolubility.  

  

We are faced with an increasing number of marriages celebrated without real faith between people who, after a few years (sometimes a few months) leave each other. And then, perhaps, after having entered a new civil union, they truly meet Christian faith and embark on a journey. How to act in these cases?  

 We do not yet have a consolidated answer here. However, we should develop criteria without falling into the casuistic trap. Theoretically, it is quite easy to define the difference between a non-baptized believer and a so-called "Christian in name only" who later reaches the fullness of faith. It is more difficult to verify this in the concrete reality of the individual person on the pilgrimage of their life. Faithful to the Word of God, the Church does not recognize any dissolution of the marriage bond and therefore no division. A sacramental marriage valid before God and before the Church cannot be dissolved by the spouses or by the authority of the Church, nor can it be dissolved by a civil divorce followed by a new marriage. The case is different, which we have already mentioned, of a marriage that has been invalid since the beginning because of the lack of a true consensus. In this case, a valid marriage is not dissolved or considered irrelevant. It is simply recognized that what seemed to be a marriage actually wasn’t.  

  

  In your introductory essay to Buttiglione's book, you also speak of the diminished imputability of guilt for those who "are not yet able to satisfy all the requirements of moral law". What does that mean?  

 Mortal sin deprives us of the supernatural life in grace. Its formal principle is the will to contradict the holy will of God. To this is added the "matter" of actions in serious conflict against the doctrine of the faith of the Church and its unity with the Pope and the bishops, the holiness of the sacraments and the commandments of God. Catholics cannot excuse themselves by saying that they do not know all these things. But there are people who, without their own gross negligence, have not received sufficient religious teachings and live in a spiritual and cultural environment that endangers the sentire cum Ecclesia (think with the Church). Here we need the good shepherd who, this time, must not repel the wolves with his stick but - according to the model of the good Samaritan - pour oil and wine into the wounds and hospitalize the wounded in the inn that is the Church.  

  

  In your introductory essay, you also recall the traditional doctrine according to which "for the imputability of guilt in God’s judgment, one must consider subjective factors such as full knowledge and deliberate consent in the serious lack of respect for God’s commandments". So, then, can there be cases in which, lacking full knowledge and deliberate consent, imputability has diminished?  

 Whoever in the Sacrament of Penance asks for reconciliation with God and the Church must confess all their grave sins remembered after a thorough examination of conscience. Only God can measure the gravity of the sins committed against His commandments because He alone knows the hearts of people. The circumstances, which God alone knows, which diminish the guilt and punishment before His court, differ from those which can be judged from the outside, such as those which can call into question the validity of a marriage. The Church can administer the sacraments as instruments of grace only in accordance with the way in which Christ established them. Saint Thomas Aquinas distinguishes the sacrament of penance from that of the Eucharist as the former being a medicine that purifies (purgative) while the latter, a medicine that edifies (supporting). If they are exchanged for each other, damage is done to the sick or healthy person. Those who remember a grave sin must first of all receive the sacrament of penance. For this reason, repentance and the intention to avoid future occasions of sin is necessary. Without this, sacramental forgiveness cannot be given. This is in any case the doctrine of the Church. In the introduction to Buttiglione's book, I also mentioned the relevant passages of the most authoritative magisterium. However, believers also have the right to a careful accompaniment that corresponds to their personal journey of faith. In pastoral accompaniment and especially in the sacrament of penance, the priest must help in the examination of conscience. The believer cannot decide in conscience alone whether or not to recognize God's commandments as just and binding on them. Rather, we examine our thoughts, words, deeds and omissions in conscience in the light of His holy will. Instead of justifying ourselves alone, we pray humbly to God and "with a contrite spirit" (Psalm 51:19) for the forgiveness also of sins that we do not know we have committed. So a new start is possible.  

  

How then can we overcome the opposite risks of subjectivism and legalism? How do we take account of each, individual, specific, sometimes dramatic, event?  

 In the Catholic vision, the conscience of the individual, the commandments of God and the authority of the Church are not isolated in front of each other, but stand with one another in a carefully calibrated internal connection. This excludes both legalism and self-referential individualism. It is not our duty to justify a new union that resembles a marriage with a person who is not the legitimate spouse. We are not allowed in our thought to believe “in a worldly way" that Jesus cannot have taken so seriously the indissolubility of marriage or that this indissolubility can no longer be demanded to the people of today who, because of life’s length, cannot resist so long with a single spouse. However, there are in fact dramatic situations from which it is difficult to find a way out. In these cases, the Good Shepherd accurately distinguishes objective and subjective conditions and gives spiritual counselling. But he does not stand up as Lord above the conscience of others. Here we must link the God's word of salvation, which in the doctrine of the Church can only be transmitted, with the concrete situation in which people find themselves along their pilgrimage. It is good to remember here also the ancient principle that the confessor should not disturb the conscience of the penitent in good faith before they have grown in faith and in the knowledge of Christian doctrine to the point of being able to recognize their sin and formulate the intention of no longer committing it. Between obedience to Christ the Master and imitation of Christ the Good Shepherd there is not an "or" but an "and".  

  

The pastoral-application guidelines of Amoris laetitia of the Buenos Aires bishops, which were praised by the Pontiff, have been published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. How do you rate them?  

 This is an issue on which I would not like to comment. In my preface to Buttiglione's book I spoke in general about the relationship between the papal magisterium and the authority of the pastoral directives of the diocesan bishops. These are not dogmatic decisions or a sort of evolution of the dogma. This is only a potential practice concerning the administration of the sacraments since in such serious cases the sacrament of penance must precede the reception of communion. In this regard, however, it should be remembered that according to the Catholic faith the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Holy Mass, cannot be reduced to the reception (with the mouth) of communion. The Council of Trent speaks of a triple way of receiving the sacrament: in desire (in vow); the reception with the mouth of the holy host (the sacramental communion); the intimate union of grace with Christ (the spiritual communion).