EVEN CRUX POINTS OUT THE ABSURDITY OF THE DEAN OF THE ROMAN ROTA WHO PROMOTES A CREEPING INFALLLIBLITY TO A QUESTIONALBE PAPAL DOCUMENT AND SINS BY PRESUMPTION! AND CRUX ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THE CURRENT HOLY FATHER IS FOMENTING SCHISM BY HIS SILENCE AND/OR THREAT TO REMOVE THE RED HAT FROM CARDINALS WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ADVISE THE POPE

You can read the Crux article HERE, but the following are excerpts with my comments in RED:

Msgr. Pinto: Faced with what the Church calls “irregular situations”- which he didn’t specify, but which could run from divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to gay Catholics in a civil marriage - Vito Pinto asked: “What do we do? Turn the Church into a prison? Stand at the door of the parish and say: ‘You yes [can go in], you no?'” What planet does this man live on? No one is barred from attending Mass, to include the unbaptized! However, only those who have reached the age of reason and are in a state of grace should receive Holy Communion. Those in sinful and institutionalized sinfulness in particular are not allowed to receive Holy Communion and when they do they do not receive the graces of Holy Communion and may very well be committing a sacrilege. The only person that must receive Holy Communion at Mass is the celebrant. It is required to complete the Sacrifice. The laity are highly encouraged to receive Holy ion but this is not required at every Mass, but only once a year. Frequent Holy Communion when one is in a state of grace and has observed the fast is certainly laudable and encouraged but again not required. There are graces to be received by simply "hearing" Mass!

Msgr. Pinto: The four cardinals and others within the Church who are questioning Pope Francis’s reforms and his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia are questioning “two synods of bishops on marriage and family. Not one but two! An ordinary and an extraordinary one. The action of the Holy Spirit is beyond doubt!” Really?!? Here I would insist that the good Msgr. is committing the grave sin of presumption! What seminary did he attend?

This speaks for itself without my comment and is from another commentator, not Msgr. Pinto:  ...(he didn't) use the word “schism,” but he did say Francis taking away the cardinals’ red hats would create “a total war.” Even though only four cardinals have come forward, he said “they’re not the only ones” who have doubts, and they have many followers who agree with them that Amoris Laetitia leaves open some question marks.
 
“Whether you [or the pope] agree with what the cardinals asked, it wouldn’t be wise [to ask for their resignations] because they’re asking questions that many people have, both ‘left’ and ‘right,'” he said, adding that at the end of the day, the cardinals did what they’re supposed to do: “Advise the pope.”
(...He) said that if consulted by Pope Francis, he would advise him to invite the four cardinals for a conversation, because among other reasons, by taking the red hats away, he would be doing the opposite of what he preaches, which is inviting people to dialogue.

"MANY FAITHFUL CATHOLICS HAVE BEEN UNNERVED BY RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CHURCH BY A WIDESPREAD CONFUSION CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF MORAL LAW, WITH THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY POPE FRANCIS--CARDINAL GEORGE PELL

Is Cardinal Pell's red hat on the chopping block? If so, it is a sign of a courageous Catholic and a form of white martyrdom!

I wonder if Pope Francis ever wonders about those deplorable, rigid Catholics who are rigid because of the gift of God's grace that assists them in their various moral weaknesses and temptations to remain faithful to Christ and His Church and orthodox in Faith and practice?

This article makes me wonder if Cardinal Pell is a 5th Cardinal? His Eminence certainly makes the explicit diagnosis and implicitly lays the blame on the Vicar of Christ:

Some Catholics are ‘unnerved’ by current events in the Church, says Cardinal Pell

 

by Dan Hitchens, Catholic Herald, UK

posted Tuesday, 29 Nov 2016

Cardinal George Pell at his office in the Vatican in 2014 (PA)

The cardinal said that conscience must refer to revealed truth and the moral law

Cardinal George Pell has said that “a number of regularly worshiping Catholics” are “unnerved by the turn of events” in the Church.

In a talk at St Patrick’s Church, London, Cardinal Pell said one cause for concern was false theories of conscience and the moral law.

Cardinal Pell was giving a talk on St Damien of Molokai as part of St Patrick’s series of talks for the Year of Mercy. But he also reflected on Catholicism today. He said that while Pope Francis has “a prestige and popularity outside the Church” greater than perhaps any previous Pope, some Catholics are currently uneasy.

Later in his talk, the Australian cardinal, who has been asked to lead Pope Francis’s financial reforms and is a member of the Pope’s “C9” group of advisors, criticized some of the ideas about conscience which are now current in the Church.

Cardinal Pell said that emphasizing the “primacy of conscience” could have disastrous effects, if conscience did not always submit to revealed teaching and the moral law. For instance, “when a priest and penitent are trying to discern the best way forward in what is known as the internal forum”, they must refer to the moral law. Conscience is “not the last word in a number of ways”, the cardinal said. He added that it was always necessary to follow the Church’s moral teaching.

The cardinal told the story of a man who was sleeping with his girlfriend, and had asked his priest whether he was able to receive Communion. It was “misleading”, the cardinal said, to tell the man simply to follow his conscience.

He added that those emphasising “the primacy of conscience” only seemed to apply it to sexual morality and questions around the sanctity of life. People were rarely advised to follow their conscience if it told them to be racist, or slow in helping the poor and vulnerable, the cardinal said.

His comments come after three years of debate on the Church’s teaching regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried. Cardinal Pell was among the senior figures who have publicly upheld the traditional doctrine repeated in Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio – that the remarried should not receive Communion unless they are living “as brother and sister”.

But some prominent Catholics have suggested a different approach. For instance, Cardinal Blase Cupich has argued that someone’s conscience might tell them to receive Communion, and that “conscience is inviolable”.

Cardinal Pell quoted Blessed John Henry Newman’s writings on conscience, in which Newman rejected a “miserable counterfeit” of conscience which defines it as “the right of self-will”. He noted that Newman was defending Popes Pius IX and Gregory XVI, who in Cardinal Pell’s words, “condemned a conscience which rejected God and rejected natural law.”

The cardinal also paid tribute to St John Paul II’s “two great encyclicals”, Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, which present the moral law as something binding in all cases.

Asked whether some Catholics’ unease about the state of the Church was related to false theories of conscience, Cardinal Pell said: “Yes, that’s correct.”

He added: “The idea that you can somehow discern that moral truths should not be followed or should not be recognised [is] absurd”.

“We all stand under the truth,” the cardinal said, pointing out that objective truth may be “different from our understanding of the truth”.

He also said that while doctrine develops, there are “no backflips”.

Cardinal Pell was asked about the letter to Pope Francis from four cardinals asking for clarification of the Pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The cardinals have asked the Pope to confirm that five points of Catholic teaching are still valid. These include the teaching that the remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the teaching that some moral absolutes have no exceptions.

The Pope has not replied to the four cardinals’ request, which was sent two months ago. The cardinals have taken this as an invitation to publish their questions and continue the discussion. The head of the Greek bishops has said that the four cardinals were guilty of “very serious sins” and could provoke a schism.

Asked whether he agreed with the cardinals’ questions, Cardinal Pell replied: “How can you disagree with a question?” He said that the asking of five questions was “significant”.

In his talk, Cardinal Pell portrayed St Damien of Molokai as a sometimes difficult but very holy priest. He noted that St Damien’s ministry was partly motivated by his fear for the souls of the lepers in his care. The cardinal said that a priest’s pastoral strategy is heavily determined by how many people he thinks will be saved.

He said that Jesus’s words, such as “Many are called, but few are chosen,” suggest a lot of people will go to hell. The cardinal said that while he did not relish this idea, “Jesus knew more about this than we did,” and that “our proper tolerance of diversity can degenerate” so that we believe “eternal happiness is a universal human right”.

Cardinal Pell said that the truth about eternal punishment had been downplayed, just as a mistaken idea of conscience had become widespread. A sinful life made it hard to perceive truth, he said, including moral truths – and so not understanding the moral law might itself be a result of sin. “The idea, now, of culpable moral blindness is discussed as infrequently as the pains of hell,” the cardinal said.

POPE FRANCIS SPEAKS OR WRITES THROUGH FATHER ANTONIO SPADARO, SJ, AND HE CLEARS IT ALL UP OR DOES HE?

Father Antonio Spadaro has written for CNN and released yesterday something that seems to answer or does it, the meaning of the pope's exhortation to clear up any confusion caused by the four cardinals..

In the meantime, a high Vatican official, Dean of the Roman Rota, declares that the four dissenting Cardinals could have their cardinal status stripped by Pope Francis, who has the authority to do so, as Supreme Pontiff.  It would seem odd that the Holy Father would do this just having concluded the year of Mercy. But who knows. He has the authority!

You can read Fr. Z's take on it:

Dean of Rota: Pope could strip Four Cardinals of Cardinalate because of Five Dubia

 And here is Fr. Antonio Spadaro's clear and concise answer to the Pope's critics or is it?

 

Fr. Antonio Spadaro: An open and interesting debate

I think that Amoris Laetitia has created an open and interesting debate within the Catholic Church thanks to Francis, a Pope who never blocks dialogue, if it is loyal and motivated by the good of the Church. 

The case, however, of those who use criticism for other purposes or ask questions in order to create difficulty and division, would be different, of course.

The interesting questions of the four cardinals, in reality, were already raised during the Synod, where the dialogue was deep, extensive and most of all, frank. Amoris Laetitia is only the mature fruit of Francis' reflection after listening to everyone and reading the Synod's final document.

It is the result of a Synod and not just a personal idea of the Pontiff, as some might think.

During the Synod, all of the necessary responses were given and more than once. Since then, many other pastors, among them many bishops and cardinals, carried on and deepened the discussion, including recently. 

The Pope even indicated Cardinal Schönborn as a faithful interpreter of the document.

Thus I believe that a doubtful conscience can easily find all of the answers it seeks, if it seeks them with sincerity.

In this case, however, as in others, everything which touches the lives of people should not be resolved in the abstract, but must be dealt with -- as the four cardinals themselves affirmed -- continuing, "the reflection and the discussion, calmly and with respect."

ON THE ORGANIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY, THIS BISHOP THINKS JUST LIKE I DO;THEREFORE HE HAS TO BE RIGHT-ON!

This is an excellent interview by Catholic World Report! Not only does this bishop represent my sentiments in a most exact way, he also states what I have been saying over and over and over again: The Ordinariate's Roman Missal is the template for the organic development of our Ordinary Form of the Mass which is here to stay, as I have said over and over and over again!

At the end of this CWR interview there are two links to other excellent interviews!

Bishop Peter J. Elliott on liturgy, "rigidity" and "reform of the reform"

"Of course the Ordinary Form is here to stay," says the auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Australia, "but I am irritated when people refuse to provide for celebration of the Extraordinary Form or even make fun of it in ignorant ways."

November 27, 2016 05:38 EST

CWR Staff

Archbishop Alexander K. Sample of Portland, Ore., celebrates the Eucharist in the extraordinary form with Benedictine monks at the San Benedetto in Monte monastery overlooking the town of Norcia, Italy, Oct. 27. (CNS photo/courtesy Populus Summorum Pontificum)

Bishop Peter J. Elliott is auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, Australia, and is currently a member of the Bishops’ Commission for Liturgy in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. In 2009 he was appointed the Delegate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference for the setting up of a Personal Ordinariate for Former Anglicans. Bishop Elliott is a member of the Vatican commission “Anglicanae Traditiones” preparing an “Anglican Use” of the Roman Rite for the Ordinariates.

Bishop Peter J. Elliott (Photo: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne; www.cam.org.au)

Bishop Elliott is the author or editor of several works on liturgy, including Liturgical Question Box: Answers to Common Questions About the Liturgy,Ceremonies of the Liturgical Year: According to the Modern Roman Rite, and Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite: The Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours(2nd Edition), all published by Ignatius Press.
He recently corresponded with CWR about recent remarks made by Pope Francis about the “reform of the reform” and other liturgical matters.
CWR: Pope Francis has stated in a recent interviewthat “to speak of a ‘reform of the reform’” is an error. What, first, is the “reform of the reform”?
Bishop Peter J. Elliott: It is a hypothetical revision of the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II. Some time ago on the New Liturgical Movement website, I expressed my own misgivings with this expression, “the reform of the reform”. I prefer the wider and deeper vision of a “new liturgical movement”, an organic development, gradual and spiritual. That is better than restricting oneself to an attempt to bring the modern rite in line with the pre-conciliar liturgy.
I worked in the Commission “Anglicanae Traditiones” that put together a “use” of the Roman Rite for former Anglicans in the Ordinariates established by Pope Benedict. Their Eucharistic rite has been described as a “reform of the reform” but in fact it blends three streams that are valued by high-church Anglicans: the Books of Common Prayer and the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite. The text is also a mild form of Tudor English as befits their gracious tradition.
CWR: The Pope has also stated that the Mass reformed after Vatican II is here to stay.
Bishop Elliott: Of course the Ordinary Form is here to stay, but I am irritated when people refuse to provide for celebration of the Extraordinary Form or even make fun of it in ignorant ways. That is most unhelpful when we reflect on efforts to find a secure place in the Church for the Society of St Pius X, a project dear to the heart of Pope Francis and his predecessors, Saint John Paul and Pope Benedict.
Occasionally I celebrate the Extraordinary Form and, while I cannot claim to be deeply attached to it, I find that it makes me “pray the Mass”. That is part of the genius of the “old rite”. It carries you. That came home to me at the recent Fota Liturgy Conference in Cork, Ireland when I celebrated Solemn Mass at the Faldstool in St Peter and St Paul’s Church.
CWR: Where do you see liturgical reform heading in years to come? What are some of the main issues that might need to be addressed in both forms?
Bishop Elliott: Again, why must we speak of “liturgical reform”? Gradual organic development is what we need. That involves first of all respecting the integrity of both forms of the Roman Rite.
Having worked for years to promote the worthy celebration of the Novus Ordo, I am also irritated by some attacks on it made by traditionalists. But their criticisms often stem from the poor way the Ordinary Form is celebrated. Some priests seem ignorant of the principles and ceremonial of the modern rite. They never read the revised General Instruction. The result is sloppy and dull liturgies, often accompanied by vulgar music. Some priests even presume to “improve” the new ICEL translation of the Mass or they casually rattle off these richer texts and the result is an ugly mess.
As Pope Benedict has insisted, the “art of celebrating” calls for a lot of hard work. That involves not only better in-service for priests and deacons (and some bishops!) but a high model of liturgy in our seminaries and houses of formation. I believe there are good signs of development here and I was most impressed by the quality of liturgy at Kenrick Glennon seminary when I visited St Louis last year.
At the same time, it is not good to restrict the Extraordinary Form to Low Mass, without a dialogue between celebrant and people. Nor do I believe it is wise to celebrate the Extraordinary Form in a baroque style because, the “Mass of all times” cannot be locked into the tastes of the Eighteenth Century. My heart sinks when I see some of the tacky vestments younger clergy choose to wear for the Extraordinary Form, imagining that this is “part of the deal”. It is not. The gracious style and modest taste of the pre-conciliar liturgical movement should inspire us here.
CWR: The Pope expressed puzzlement as to why some young people would prefer the “old Latin Mass”, saying he finds rigidity there. In your experience why are some young people attracted to the Extraordinary Form? Are they rigid? Are they nostalgic?
Bishop Elliott: I was also puzzled by this phenomenon until I started to listen to these young people. I learnt that what attracts them to the classical rite is the peace and silence, the prayerful mystery, the predictable order (no surprises here!) and especially orientation, when all of us pray together facing “east” - and the celebrant cannot put on a cabaret act.
Because they were born decades after Vatican II, they cannot be nostalgic, unless this is a “psychological nostalgia”, as a friend recently suggested. That may indicate rigidity. However, with a few wild and wacky exceptions, I have not found rigidity among these young Catholics, rather an enthusiastic love for Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. These are often the same young people who spend time in Eucharistic adoration.
I wish that the young men and women of the Juventutum movement would arrange to dialogue with the Holy Father. He is very approachable, as we saw in Poland at World Youth Day. If we are to further the development of the worthy worship of our merciful God, we need to communicate better, particularly for the sake of the peace and unity of the Church today.
Related at CWR:
• Rigidity in defense of the liturgy is no vice (Nov 16, 2016) by Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille
• Digging into Pope Francis' remarks about the "old Latin Mass", "rigidity" and "insecurity" (Nov 14, 2016) by Carl E. Olson

THE CONSEVATIVE NEW YORK TIMES SPEAKS!

ROSS DOUTHAT!

“This is not normal” — so say Donald Trump’s critics as he prepares to assume the presidency. But the American republic is only the second-oldest institution facing a distinctively unusual situation at the moment. Pride of place goes to the Roman Catholic Church, which with less fanfare (perhaps because the papacy lacks a nuclear arsenal) has also entered terra incognita.
Two weeks ago, four cardinals published a so-called dubia — a set of questions, posed to Pope Francis, requesting that he clarify his apostolic exhortation on the family, “Amoris Laetitia.” In particular they asked him to clarify whether the church’s ban on communion for divorced Catholics in new (and, in the church’s eyes, adulterous) marriages remained in place, and whether the church’s traditional opposition to situation ethics had been “developed” into obsolescence.
The dubia began as a private letter, as is usual with such requests for doctrinal clarity. Francis offered no reply. It became public just before last week’s consistory in Rome, when the pope meets with the College of Cardinals and presents the newly-elevated members with red hats. The pope continued to ignore it, but took the unusual step of canceling a general meeting with the cardinals (not a few of whose members are quiet supporters of the questioners).
Francis canceled because the dubia had him “boiling with rage,” it was alleged. This was not true, tweeted his close collaborator, the Jesuit father Antonio Spadaro, shortly after replying to critics who compared him to J.R.R. Tolkien’s Grima Wormtongue by tweeting and then deleting a shot of Tolkien’s Gandalf growling his refusal to “bandy crooked words with a witless worm.”
Meanwhile one of those four dubia authors, the combative traditionalist, Cardinal Raymond Burke, gave an interview suggesting that papal silence might require a “formal act of correction” from the cardinals — something without obvious precedent in Catholic history. (Popes have been condemned for flirting with heresy, but only after their deaths.) That was strong language; even stronger was the response from the head of Greece’s Catholic bishops, who accused the dubia authors of “heresy” and possibly “apostasy” for questioning the pope.
Who was, himself, still silent. Or rather, who continued his practice of offering interviews and sermons lamenting rigidity and pharisaism and possible psychological issues among his critics — but who refused to take the straightforward-seeming step of answering their questions.
It is not that there is any real doubt about where the pontiff stands. Across a period of vigorous debate in 2014 and 2015 he pushed persistently to open communion to at least some remarried Catholics without the grant of annulment. But conservative resistance ran strong enough that the pope seemed to feel constrained. So he produced a document, the as-yet-unclarified Amoris, that essentially talked around the controversy, implying in various ways that communion might be given case by case, but never coming out and saying so directly.
This indirectness matters because within Catholicism the pope’s formal words, his encyclicals and exhortations, have a weight that winks and implications and personal letters lack. They’re what’s supposed to require obedience, what’s supposed to be supernaturally preserved from error.
So avoiding clarity seemed intended as a compromise, a hedge. Liberals got a permission slip to experiment, conservatives got to keep the letter of the law, and the world’s bishops were left to essentially choose their own teaching on marriage, adultery and the sacraments – which indeed many have done in the last year, tilting conservative in Philadelphia and Poland, liberal in Chicago or Germany or Argentina, with inevitable dust-ups between prelates who follow different interpretations of Amoris.
But the strange spectacle around the dubia is a reminder that this cannot be a permanent settlement. The logic of “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” is too deeply embedded in the structures of Catholicism to allow for anything but a temporary doctrinal decentralization. So long as the pope remains the pope, any major controversy will inevitably rise back up to the Vatican.
Francis must know this. For now, he seems to be choosing the lesser crisis of feuding bishops and confused teaching over the greater crisis that might come (although who can say for certain?) if he presented the church’s conservatives with his personal answers to the dubia and simply required them to submit. Either submission or schism will come eventually, he may think — but not till time and the operation of the Holy Spirit have weakened his critics’ position in the church.
But in the meantime, his silence has the effect of confirming conservatives in their resistance, because to them it looks like his refusal to give definitive answers might itself be the work of providence. That is, he thinks he’s being Machiavellian and strategic, but really it’s the Holy Spirit constraining him from teaching error.
This is a rare theological hypothesis that can be easily disproven. The pope need only exercise his authority, answer his critics, and tell the faithful explicitly what he means them to believe.
But until he

GOOD NEWS FROM THE LAND OF LINCOLN AND THE BISHOP PROVIDES THE LITUGICAL LEADERSHIP!

Diocesan News

Ad orientem Masses encouraged during Advent

 Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Story by S.L. Hansen

LINCOLN (SNR) — During Advent again this year, priests all around the world will celebrate Mass ad orientem in response to a request by His Eminence, Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This will include priests in the Diocese of Lincoln, all of whom are invited to celebrate the Mass in this way during Advent. 

“Ad orientem” means that priests and other altar servers stand on the same side of the altar as the lay faithful. When the priest and the people are facing the tabernacle together in worship, all can focus more fully on Christ.

The cardinal made his request during his opening address at Sacra Liturgica UK July 5. 

“I believe that it is very important that we return as soon as possible to a common orientation, of priests and the faithful turned together in the same direction…” he said. “I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the center.”

He added, “Dear Fathers, we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: ‘They have turned their backs to me and not their faces’ (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord!”

Bishop James Conley addressed this liturgical practice in his November 21, 2014 column in the Southern Nebraska Register. 

“The symbolism of the priest and people facing ad orientem—to the east—is an ancient reminder of the coming of Christ,” he wrote, “Since ancient times, Christians have faced the east during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to remember to keep watch for Christ.”

He noted that this orientation also applies when the altar is not situated on the east side of the building. 

“Even in Churches that did not face the east, the priest and people stood together in the Mass, gazing at Christ on the crucifix, on the altar, and in the tabernacle, to recall the importance of watching for his return,” he said. 

This symbolism is especially appropriate during Advent, the season during which all Catholics eagerly await the coming of the Lord. 

“Today, at a time when it is easy to forget that Christ is coming—and easy to be complacent in our spiritual lives and in the work of evangelization—we need reminders that Christ will come,” the bishop reasoned in his 2014 column.
He is already leading by example.  

“Currently, when the Bishop celebrates Mass at the Cathedral, he celebrates ad orientem, which he will plan to do for Midnight Mass this year,” said Father Daniel Rayer, chancellor. 

Of course, it is far more common for Catholics to attend Mass celebrated versus populum (or “facing the people”).  In this posture, the people see the face of the priest as he prays and are thus encouraged to enter into worship of the Lord. Likewise, the priest sees the faces of the people, which encourages him in celebrating the Mass. 

As Bishop Conley explained in his column, “These positions can have important symbolism too.  They can remind us that we are a community—one body in Christ. And they can remind us that the Eucharist, at the center of the assembly, should also be at the center of our families, and our lives.”

Neither orientation is particularly preferred by the Holy See, so there is no need for any layperson to feel any sort of discomfort whether they attend Mass celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. Also, modern technology enables all the lay faithful to hear priests praying the Mass through the use of microphones. 

Some laypersons miss the face-to-face connection with the priest at an ad orientem Mass, but Father Rayer assures that the unity of worship is still there. 

“This is not about, as many tend to say, the priest turning his back to the people,” he said. “They are facing the same direction toward the Lord.” 

Father Rayer emphasized that Cardinal Sarah’s request to resume ad orientem during Advent is completely optional. It’s up to each priest to decide what is best for the lay faithful, and also what the physical space around the altar allows. 

Bishop Conley has requested that any priest who chooses to celebrate Mass ad orientem during Advent provide appropriate catechesis to the faithful before doing so. For more information, please consult your pastor.

SPEAKING OF THE LATE 1970'S, CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANYONE YOU KNOW AND LOVE IN THE PHOTO AS WELL AS THE LOCATION OF IT FROM THANKSGIVING WEEK, 1978?

This reminds me of my favorite theme song from this era, Hair!

 

IS THE RETURN TOTHE 1970'S THE HOLY SPIRIT'S WAY OF FINALLY MOVING US FORWARD TO PUT THAT HORRIBLE ERA TO REST? TIME WILL TELL

As I have written before, I loved the very liberal/radical seminary I attended in Baltimore, Maryland from August of 1976 to early December of 1979. I am a child of the 1970's Church of what's happening now.

I found it academically challenging and satisfying. Not all did, though. In 1976 we began with a class of about 60 men. Very quickly though, most of those men were too conservative (read rigid) to endure the path my seminary had chosen, a path that denigrated the pre-Vatican II Church, denigrated the older Mass, denigrated chant, denigrated devotions, like Adoration and Benediction as well as the Holy Rosary and cult of the saints, denigrated moral rigidity and the doctors of the law. Canon Law was held in disrepute.  So my the end of the first year, the authorities got rid of about half of our class or rigids keeping us more flexible and gullible ones around or at least those of us who knew how to play by the rules of the institution. By 1980 only about 20 were left in my class and today I think there are only about 9 of us in active ministry, some dead, some suspended and some defrocked.

But more challenging for the legally rigid was the hermeneutic used to study Scripture, called the historical critical method that reached back to the liberal Protestants of the last part of the 19th Century which tried to strip Scripture of anything that actually did not happen in the life of the historical Jesus. It was a method of studying Scripture that denigrated the high Christology of Jesus (read divinity) and exalted a low Christology (read humanity) and a low Church.

The liturgy was stripped to its barest essentials and sometimes the essentials were gone. Vestments were very plain without ornamentation, simply color. The thinking was that the chasuble was the symbol and you don't place additional symbols on the primary symbol.

And of course we had to get back to the early Church's way of celebrating Mass prior to coming out of the catacombs and home churches. Thus anything flashy for vestments and liturgical hardware (read chalices) had to be abolished. Earthenware was the style of the day because it was so early Church!

There was even a ceremony of stripping the old high altar of the main chapel a few years prior to my arrival. The six ornate candlesticks and tabernacle along with the frilly altar clothes were removed as on Holy Thursday night and then creatively placed in a wheelbarrow and carted out of the chapel. A wooden box altar was placed in front of the old high altar, unadorned except for s simple cloth and one candle and one candle by the ambo. Nice, no?

That is just some of what I experienced in the 1970's when I was in my early 20's. Back then I was as open as a child and thought like a child because of that I thought those who were teaching me like a child had an inside track about the future of the Church which I didn't have nor did the pope and bishops of that time had. I wasn't taught about Gnosticism.

Now that I am an adult, I don't think like a child anymore and I no longer see the 1970's as some sort of panacea for the Church. I can smell a Gnostic a mile away.

But unfortunately, those my age and much older, not all but a goodly number, still see the 1970's as some sort of panacea and most powerful working of the Holy Spirit. In fact you will still hear some of those same people today declaring that what is happening in the Church today, is yet another sign of the power of the Holy Spirit working as though He didn't work under other periods of the Church, the most recent being that of Pope Benedict XVI. Such arrogance no? And yes, such Gnosticism.

But as I have written before, I think (and this is my most humble opinion of course, I am not a Gnostic although I am reportedly clairvoyant) that we are in the final battle of the 1970's mentality exhibited in the highest reaches of the hierarchy today. It is their last gasp and it is a battle between two groups of basically the same age, one represented by Pope Francis and his minions and the other by Pope Benedict and his cohorts.

The unprecedented (at least publicly) open challenge to Pope Francis in a public way by four high ranking Cardinals ("doctors of the law who promote small minded rules" to quote Pope Francis) and many others too timid to go public, are demanding that Pope Francis clarify his moral teachings which are quite ambiguous in his recent Apostolic Exhortation, is a sign of this final battle. In what could have been a very powerful exhortation is completely derailed by the Holy Father himself by a single footnote in Chapter 8! This footnote has the potential to collapse the entire moral teachings of the Church like a computer virus or malicious worm. It could bring an end to the Church's understanding of natural law and thus make us like all other liberal protestant denominations which are in total chaos and completely irrelevant to the secular world today as they have turned Christ and their church into a Jesus of the culture, a sort of spongy marshmallow.

Let me say that the two aging factions duking it out in the public arena may not have a clear winner. But what is certain is that rank and file clergy and laity are the losers if the 1970's wins the battle. My personal faith tells me (and this could be Gnostic) that God won't allow His Holy Church to be so maligned. I suspect God is on the side of orthodoxy, not heterodoxy as well as orthopraxis and not heteropraxis. 

And thus the current battle may lead to a brilliant clarification and not a few anathemas. Be patient and wait and see what the Lord can do!

POPE FRANCIS CONFUSES AND CONFOUNDS BECAUSE HIS AMBIGUITIES GO BEYOND CONSERVATIIVE/LIBERAL, ORTHODOX/HETERODOX CATEGORIES. JUST AS THERE IS A POST-CHRISTIAN THRUST TODAY, FRANCIS HAS A POST-VATICAN II THRUST!

Pope Francis visits the Aula with all the delegates, and posing with Pope Francis are Superior General Arturo Sosa, and Orlando Torres. [Credit: Image courtesy of the Society of Jesus.]

Crux has an interview with the closest collaborator of Pope Francis, Fr. Joseph Sparado. It is very telling and quite frankly captures the anxiety that both progressive and conservative Catholics have in Pope Francis post' Vatican II ethos. You can read the interview in its entirety HERE.

Below my comments here, I post snippets of that interview. On one hand Pope Francis appreciates what Pope Paul VI try to do with the Jesuits in the 1970's when they along with most male and female religious orders lost their identity, lost members, lost vocations and were on the road to extinction because of it. One would think this would resonate with more traditional Catholics that Pope Francis did not see the manner of renewal of religious orders and by extension, of the Church of the 1970's which led to a loss of identity of not only religious orders, but of the Church in general, which has seen an unimaginable decline in membership due to that loss of Catholic identity.

Yet, Pope Francis' "post Vatican II" emphasis (and I use post as one would understand "post-Christian") seems to many to be the same old that leads to the same old loss of Catholic identity. Just ask the four cardinals that have pushed Pope Francis against the wall and the bishops who support them, not to mention rank and file clergy and laity.

Pope Francis acknowledges the polarization in the Catholic Church as well as in the world of politics. I am not sure though, that His Holiness acknowledges that he is the source of this recovery of confusion in Catholicism which his two immediate predecessors worked so hard to remediate, one of whom is still living and surely must feel the sting of this movement backwards.

As I mention in my previous post, the greatest problem with those who are anxious about Pope Francis approach him with the logic of deductive reasoning whereas Pope Francis has abandoned those kind of reasoning for deductive reasoning. What strikes me about this is that inductive reasoning is more feminine than deductive reasoning which is masculine and ties into His Holiness' concern about legalism and rigidity which tend to be more masculine characteristics than feminine.

In fact the Vatican II Liturgy is more feminine in this regard (flexible, not regimented or prone to a scrupulosity of rubric fidelity) as is the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

Here are the money quotes from Fr. Sparado who surely has inside knowledge of the mind of Pope Francis who is tenacious in bringing the Church into a post-Vatican II existence. He acknowledges though, that there is anxiety in the Jesuits about the next pope who can be as vicious as Pope Francis in breaking with his predecessor:

The Society of Jesus is right now called to take part in a reform of the Church that in some ways goes beyond what we are used to. We have long thought of ourselves as being out in front, in the trenches and at the crossroads. But now one of our own is pope, and the frontier has shifted in an unexpected direction, so that we are no longer “conservative” or “progressive,” liberal or traditional.

As an Argentine provincial, Bergoglio attended the historic GC-32 in 1974-75, and eight years later, when he was rector of the Colegio Máximo, he was present at GC-33.

The period between these two general congregations was the Society’s most turbulent in modern times: as you say, a time of a fall in vocations in the midst of deep disagreements over the way of understanding and living the issue of justice in the mission of the Society.

The most critical moment came with the intervention in the Society by St. John Paul II in 1981 after the then General, Father Pedro Arrupe, suffered a stroke. In his place the pope placed a vicar-general to govern the Society for a time prior to calling a General Congregation to elect his successor. Fr Paolo Dezza - later made a cardinal - governed the Society as a pontifical delegate for two years.

On December 3, 1974 Paul VI addressed GC-32 with a speech which Bergoglio deeply appreciated. The speech revealed both his love for the Society as well as his anxiety that it was diluting its identity and mission. The underlying risk he perceived was that of falling into ideology.

So it was no surprise, in a way, that Francis gave the delegates at this GC a book bringing together the texts of the speeches Paul VI addressed to the Society in 1974-5. In fact the book the pope gave us included a copy of a note in Francis’s handwriting, dated 8 December 2015, which reads: “We should be grateful to Paul VI who loved, did, prayed, and suffered so much for the Society of Jesus. Francis.”

In the light of this history, I’d say, in sum, that Francis has opened up a new space for fidelity between the papacy and the Society.

In his Q&A with the congregation delegates which you published yesterday at La Civiltà Cattolicà, Francis expressed his deep concern at casuistry and rigidity in a number of seminaries, contrasting these with discernment, at the heart of Ignatian spirituality but also, he says, of the “great scholasticism” of St. Thomas of Aquinas. And he repeated the invitation he made to the Jesuits in Poland to teach spiritual discernment in seminaries. Did you, in your discussions in Rome, discuss how that could be done? Will you be writing to seminary rectors to offer to teach St. Ignatius’s rules for discerning spirits? 

Certainly the congregation delegates reflected on the importance of discernment, both in the discussion about the governance of the Society and in the drawing-up of the document relating to it. But I think the Society, prodded by Francis,  is also recognizing that this is also a mission. Discernment is at the heart of Jesuit spirituality, but we need to realize that nowadays we are being called not only to live it but also to teach it, specially in places of formation such as seminaries.

The pope is asking us to form priests in the discernment of spirits, because this will help people in their concrete situations.  In life not everything is black and white; mostly the shades are gray. We are being called to teach how to discern within the gray. 

The reform of the Church for Francis rests on two pillars: discernment and mercy. The Society is called to take part in this process of reform putting their spiritual goods at the disposal of the Church. We haven’t yet discussed how to do this, but I’m sure that this will be discussed by the individual provinces and by the regional conferences.

THE ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE AMBIGUITIES OF POPE FRANCIS IS THAT HE USES INDUCTIVE REASONING RATHER THAN DEDUCTIVE REASONING OF HIS PREDECESSORS AND MOST BISHOPS

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.^[1]

Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.^[2]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instances (for example, statistical syllogisms, discussed below).

This is from an off the cuff interview from October but only now being communicated. It shows Pope Francis to be an inductive reasoner not deductive:

The pope urged the Jesuits to be on the side of “inculturation,” resisting forces that impose uniformity in faith, ideas or culture. Regretting the “centralist type of hermeneutic” behind colonization, he said the Church now had to “interpret things differently, valuing each people, their culture, their language.”

Repeating a call he made in a meeting with the Jesuits in Poland in the summer, he urged them to help form the next generation of priests in the art of discernment of spirits, which is at the heart of the Jesuits’ ‘method’.

He warned that a number of seminaries these days had reverted to legalism and rigidity which was the opposite of discernment, leading to a casuistic conception of morality with black-and-white prescriptions.

“I am very afraid of this,” he said, likening it to the “decadent scholasticism” which priests of his generation - i.e. prior to the Second Vatican Council - had been taught.

“The whole moral sphere was restricted to ‘yes you can,’ ‘you cannot,’ ‘up to here yes but not here,'” he said, describing it as “a morality very foreign to discernment.”

While avoiding any risk of falling into an anything-goes “situationalism,” in which there is no objective morality, Francis said it was “necessary to bring forward again the great wealth contained in the dimension of discernment” which was characteristic of the “great scholasticism” of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure.

He said their scholastic method - holding fast to general principles, but nuancing and modifying them without changing the principle faced with real-life situations - was the one underlying both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Francis’s recent apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia.

That exhortation, which asks priests to accompany remarried couples in a discernment about their situation, was written, Francis said, following “the discernment made by the whole Church through the two synods.”

Asked about the study of theology in a “real-life context” Francis said that there needed to be “academic study, contact with real life not only at the periphery but at the boundary of the periphery, prayer and personal and community discernment.”

“When one of those things is missing,” he said, “I start to worry.”

Turning to a question about vocations, Francis blamed clericalism for suffocating the call to priestly and religious life.

“Clericalism does not allow growth, it does not allow the power of baptism to grow,” he said, adding that “vocations exist - you just have to know how to propose them, and how to attend to them.”

Vocations are the subject of the next synod of bishops in 2018.

“If the priest is always in a hurry, if he is involved in a thousand administrative things, if we do not convince ourselves that spiritual direction is not a clerical charism but a lay charism (which the priest can also develop), and if we do not call upon the laity in vocational discernment, it is evident that we will not have vocations,” he said.

He added that young people can be demanding and tiring but need to be listened to, and to be invited to work on projects rather than spend time in endless meetings.

In his strongest words yet on the topic, Francis described a failure to promote vocations as “suicide,” likening it to a form of sterilization, because the Church is a mother. “Not promoting vocations is an ecclesial tubal ligation,” he said, because “it does not allow that mother to have her children.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING OR BETTER YET, HAPPY EUCHARIST!

I found this on the WWW and reprint for you and your Thanksgiving joy!

prin
email

When you’re sitting down for that wonderful feast on Thursday, here are 6 interesting Catholic Thanksgiving Facts you can share with your family. Print them out and read them aloud over some pumpkin (or pecan) pie!

The history books will tell you that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated by the Protestant pilgrims of Massachusetts in 1621. Not so. There was the Catholic Thanksgiving of 1565 in Florida and another Catholic Thanksgiving of 1589 in Texas.

1. The first American Thanksgiving was actually celebrated on September 8 (feast of the birth of the Blessed Virgin) in 1565 in St. Augustine, Florida. The Native Americans and Spanish settlers held a feast and the Holy Mass was offered. This was 56 years before the Puritan pilgrims of Massachusetts.Don Pedro Menendez came ashore amid the sounding of trumpets, artillery salutes and the firing of cannons to claim the land for King Philip II and Spain. The ship chaplain Fr. Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales chanted the Te Deum and presented a crucifix that Menendez ceremoniously kissed. Then the 500 soldiers, 200 sailors and 100 families and artisans, along with the Timucuan Indians celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in gratitude to God.
2. The second American Thanksgiving happened on April 30, 1598, when Spanish explorer Don Juan de Oñate requested the friars to say a Mass of Thanksgiving, after which he formally proclaimed “La Toma”, claiming the land north of the Rio Grande for the King of Spain. The men feasted on duck, goose, and fish from the river. The actors among them dressed and presented a play. All this took place twenty-three years before the Pilgrims set sail from England on the Mayflower.
3. The Puritan pilgrims were violently anti-Catholic. They left England because they thought that the Church of England was too Catholic. These Puritans were strict Calvinists. The pilgrims also opposed celebrating Christmas, dancing, musical instruments in church, and even hymns as papistical.
4. Squanto, the beloved hero of Thanksgiving at Plymouth Rock, was Catholic! (Here’s my full article on the Catholicism of Squanto.) Squanto had been enslaved by the English but he was freed by Spanish Franciscans. Squanto thus received baptism and became a Catholic. So it was a baptized Catholic Native American who orchestrated what became known as Thanksgiving.
   
   

   Catholic Squanto teaches the lame English Puritans how to play limbo.
   “How low can you go?!”
   Please take a moment to watch the video below as I explain the story behind the first Thanksgiving and what a group of Franciscan monks did to make it happen:
   Are you having trouble seeing the “Catholic Squanto” video in your browser or email? Please click here to watch it.
5. So while Thanksgiving may celebrate the Calvinist Separatists who fled England, Catholics might remember the same unjust laws that granted the crown of martyrdom to Thomas More, John Fisher, Edmund Campion, et al. are the same injustices that led the Pilgrims to Plymouth.
6. And let everyone remember that “Thanksgiving” in Greek is Eucharistia. Thus, the Body and Blood of Christ is the true “Thanksgiving Meal”.

And don’t forget to raise your wine glass and recite the wonderful limerick of Hilaire Belloc:

“Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!”

― Hilaire Belloc