BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI





My first reaction upon reading the start of this story was: "Hmm, can Cardinal Sarah now do things on his own about the Novus Ordo?" - which the cardinal seems to answer later on in the story... I am awaiting what Fathers Z and H, our 'resident' liturgists, have to say about this.

Cardinal Sarah asks priests
to start celebrating Mass
facing east this Advent
Apparently part of a 'reform of the reform'
Pope Francis has asked him to study
by Dan Hitchens

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Vatican’s liturgy chief, has asked priests to begin celebrating Mass ad orientem, that is, facing east rather than towards the congregation.

The proposed reform is arguably the biggest liturgical announcement since Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum gave greater freedom for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass.

Speaking at the Sacra Liturgia conference in London on Wednesday, the Guinean cardinal, who is Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, addressed priests who were present, saying:

---

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 – eastwards or at least towards the apse – to the Lord who comes...I ask you to implement this practice wherever possible.

---

He said that “prudence” and catechesis would be necessary, but told pastors to have “confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people”.

“Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this is possible, but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year, when we attend ‘the Lord who will come’ and ‘who will not delay’.”

These words were met with prolonged applause in the conference hall.

Cardinal Sarah had spoken on previous occasions about the merits of ad orientem worship, saying that from the Offertory onwards, it was “essential that the priest and faithful look together towards the east”.

But his specifying of the first Sunday of Advent – which falls this year on November 27 – gives a new urgency to his calls for this form of worship.

Speaking after Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Dominique Rey of Fréjus-Toulon said that, although he was “only one bishop of one diocese”, he would celebrate Mass ad orientem at his cathedral, and would address a letter to his diocese encouraging his priests to do the same.

In his talk, Cardinal Sarah also said that Pope Francis had asked him to begin a study of “the reform of the reform”, that is of adapting the liturgical reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The cardinal said the study would seek “to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite”. [As hard as it is for me to believe this, why would Cardinal Sarah say anything untrue - and if this is so, I shall not look this gift horse in the mouth, and God bless Pope Francis! And this is the real BIG NEWS in this story. It would explain why, seemingly on his own, Cardinal Sarah would announce an initiative like celebrating Mass ad orientem and kneeling for the Consecration and communion - but will we see JMB/PF set the example for these changes to the Novus Ordo in his daily Masses at Casa Santa Marta? Will he start genuflecting at Consecration?]

Cardinal Sarah said that much liturgical study had suggested that some post-conciliar reforms “may have been put together according to the spirit of the times” and “gone beyond” of the Fathers of Vatican II, in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the constitution on the liturgy.

He said that some “very serious misinterpretations of the liturgy” had crept in, thanks to an attitude to the liturgy which placed man rather than God at the center.

“The liturgy is not about you and I,” Cardinal Sarah told the conference. “It is not where we celebrate our own identity or achievements or exalt or promote our own culture and local religious customs. The liturgy is first and foremost about God and what He has done for us.”

The Cardinal quoted Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age.”

Cardinal Sarah emphasised a “hermeneutic of continuity”, saying that it was necessary to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium fully: “The Fathers did not intend a revolution, but an evolution.”

He made some specific observations, praising the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham as an example of how the Church could be enriched by other traditions.

In remarks which he did not have time to deliver, but which were later published on Sacra Liturgia’s Facebook page, the cardinal also encouraged kneeling at the consecration and for the reception of Communion. “Where kneeling and genuflection have disappeared from the liturgy, they need to be restored, in particular for our reception of our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion.”

LifeSite News has a more extended account:

Vatican Liturgy Chief asks all priests
and bishops to face east for Mass,
faithful to kneel for Communion


LONDON, July 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Speaking at a conference on the liturgy in London yesterday, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the highest authority on the topic in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis, asked all bishops and priests to adopt the ancient posture [the proper adjective is 'traditional' since the practice was the only universal 'posture' since the primitive Church up to 1969-1970 when the Novus Ordo was introduced] in the Mass where the priest faces the tabernacle along with the congregation, rather than facing the people.

He asked that the posture be adopted by Advent of this year, which begins November 27. During the same talk, Cardinal Sarah encouraged all Catholics to receive Communion kneeling. During the talk, the Vatican’s liturgy chief revealed that Pope Francis had asked him to “continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began.”

The announcement was immediately recognized by Catholic Herald deputy editor Dan Hitchens as “the biggest liturgical announcement since Benedict XVI’s 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum gave greater freedom for priests to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass.”

Vatican watchers are particularly stunned that Pope Francis, who is regarded by many as a liberal, has encouraged a more traditional approach to liturgy. Yet Cardinal Sarah said, “Our Holy Father Pope Francis has the greatest respect for the liturgical vision and measures of Pope Benedict.”

French Bishop Dominique Rey, who was present at the conference, took up Cardinal Sarah’s request without hesitation, vowing to at least begin to implement the change in his diocese by Advent.

Rey, the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, addressed Cardinal Sarah at the conference, saying: “In response to your appeal I wish to announce now, that certainly on the last Sunday of Advent of this year in my celebration of the Holy Eucharist at my cathedral, and on other occasions as appropriate, I shall celebrate ad orientem— towards the Lord who comes.”

Bishop Rey added, “Before Advent I shall address a letter to my priests and people on this question to explain my action. I shall encourage them to follow my example.”

Cardinal Sarah gave thanks for the many celebrations of the liturgy that are devout and give glory to God, but he also lamented the many abuses of the liturgy in the Church. “In recent decades,” he observed, “we have seen many liturgical celebrations where people, personalities and human achievements have been too prominent, almost to the exclusion of God.”

Cardinal Sarah used his African heritage to drive home the point. “I am an African,” he said. “Let me say clearly: the liturgy is not the place to promote my culture. Rather, it is the place where my culture is baptised, where my culture is taken up into the divine.”

Sarah suggested that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council intended liturgical reform to bring more of the faithful to the Mass, yet for the most part the effort has failed. “My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke?” he asked.

The cardinal continued:

---

Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of St John Paul II: many Christians are living in a state of 'silent apostasy'; they 'live as if God does not exist' (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9).

Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much harm to the liturgy!

---

He expressed “profound grief” at the “many distortions of the liturgy throughout the Church today,” and proposed that the “Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.”

One such abuse he mentioned was when priests “step aside to allow extraordinary ministers distribute Holy Communion” which for many priests was thought to be a way of allowing lay people to participate in the Mass in a substantial way.

Rather, said Cardinal Sarah, “This is wrong, it is a denial of the priestly ministry as well as a clericalisation of the laity... When this happens it is a sign that formation has gone very wrong, and that it needs to be corrected."

He encouraged a generous reception of the traditional Latin Mass and also encouraged traditional practices Pope Benedict proposed previously, including the use of Latin in the new Mass, kneeling for Holy Communion, as well as Gregorian chant.

“We must sing sacred liturgical music not merely religious music, or worse, profane songs,” he said. “The Council never intended that the Roman rite be exclusively celebrated in the vernacular. But it did intend to allow its increased use, particularly for the readings.”

Speaking of kneeling for Holy Communion, the Vatican liturgy chief reminded priests that they are forbidden from denying Communion to the faithful for kneeling for reception of the Sacrament. Moreover, he encouraged all to receive while kneeling where possible.

“Kneeling at the consecration (unless I am sick) is essential. In the West this is an act of bodily adoration that humbles us before our Lord and God. It is itself an act of prayer. Where kneeling and genuflection have disappeared from the liturgy, they need to be restored, in particular for our reception of our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion.”

A lengthy section of his talk was devoted to calling priests and bishops to celebrate Mass facing ad orientem or facing the Lord, along with the people. Here are the key excerpts:

---

Even though I serve as the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, I do so in all humility as a priest and a bishop in the hope that they will promote mature reflection and scholarship and good liturgical practice throughout the Church.

I want to make an appeal to all priests… 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—Eastwards or at least towards the apse — to the Lord who comes, in those parts of the liturgical rites when we are addressing God… I think it is a very important step in ensuring that in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the center
.
And so, dear Fathers, I ask you to implement this practice wherever possible, with prudence and with the necessary catechesis, certainly, but also with a pastor’s confidence that this is something good for the Church, something good for our people.

Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this is possible, but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year… may be a very good time to do this. Dear Fathers, we should listen again to the lament of God proclaimed by the prophet Jeremiah: “they have turned their back to me” (2:27). Let us turn again towards the Lord!

I would like to appeal also to my brother bishops: please lead your priests and people towards the Lord in this way, particularly at large celebrations in your dioceses and in your cathedral.

Please form your seminarians in the reality that we are not called to the priesthood to be at the center of liturgical worship ourselves, but to lead Christ’s faithful to him as fellow worshippers. Please facilitate this simple but profound reform in your dioceses, your cathedrals, your parishes and your seminaries.

---

Throughout the talk, Cardinal Sarah stressed the grave responsibility of priests regarding the Eucharist. “We priests, we bishops bear a great responsibility,” he said. “How our good example builds up good liturgical practice; how our carelessness or wrongdoing harms the Church and her Sacred Liturgy!”

He warned his fellow priests, “Let us beware of the temptation of liturgical sloth, because it is a temptation of the devil.”

English translation of
Archbishop Gänswein's
interview for EWTN Germany

July 5, 2016

In a recent wide-ranging interview on EWTN Germany, Archbishop Georg Gänswein discussed several key contemporary issues including his own controversial remark that, by resigning, Benedict XVI expanded the Petrine office.

During the candid conversation with German author Paul Badde (see full transcript below), the Pope Emeritus’s personal secretary stood by his comment, but also underlined that there are not two popes, and that Francis has full authority.

“There is no competition or rivalry,” Archbishop Gänswein argues. “When applying common sense, faith and a little theology, that should be clear.”

Archbishop Gänswein serves under Pope Francis as prefect of the Pontifical Household...

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
Paul Badde: I am glad to welcome you on behalf of EWTN here at Seconda Loggia [second floor of the Apostolic Palace - where the meeting halls are located, including the papal library where the Pope meets official visitors]. I want to talk to you about Benedict XVI's pontificate, since you are still his secretary. First, a question for recall from your memories: What do you recall thinking on the evening of February 11, 2013, when a lightning bolt hit the dome of St. Peter's Basilica, after Pope Benedict had resigned earlier that day?
I remember the storm, but I did not witness the lightning with my own eyes. Indeed, I noticed it the first time in a photo, and after that, of course, many more times. The impression was one of a sign from above, a reaction, which you might – or even must – associate with the happenings of that morning. So, it was some kind of reaction. Then, I wondered whether it meant something good or whether it was meant to say "Take care.”

I still remember the tremendous noise. How did the Holy Father react?
As far as I remember, Benedict only noticed the rumble – only the sound and not the sight of the lightning. I showed him some photos in the news of the lightning. That was perhaps one or two days later; I do not quite recall anymore. He asked me, "Is that real or a photo composite?" In fact, it was real; it is obvious that nature had spoken here very clearly.

It sounded like a roar from the underworld. It reminded me of the rainbow that appeared in Auschwitz during Pope Benedict XVI.'s visit. Were you there?
Yes, I was there. Actually, there were two rainbows; I remember that very clearly. We drove there and the weather was brutally bad. It was raining, so we were prepared to give the speech standing under an umbrella. However, once we got out of the car, the rain stopped and while the Pope was delivering his speech, this rainbow – that no one had been looking for – just showed up. That was really a unique and convincing message from above.

Did you reflect on that together?
We did discuss it briefly in the evening, but we spoke more about it in the car during the ride, since that is when you have some time to talk. It helps to ease the stress, when you do not discuss important issues and difficult topics, but you talk about what you have just experienced. So, the rainbow was a welcome invitation to talk. Not only did it touch Benedict, but it even fascinated him.

On the evening of February 28, 2013, the whole world could see your tears when you left the Pope. You were as sad as if it was a funeral. You seemed almost in shock. Since then, you have passionately defended this step. How did you manage to make peace with the decision, which changed your life from one second to the next?
You are right, leaving the Palazzo here on February 28th was very painful and it hurt me much. We went down out of the Palazzo, crossed the Cortile di San Damaso, took the car to the helipad and had the helicopter take us to Castel Gandolfo. Indeed, I found myself compelled to openly cry. I was not able to keep myself together anymore.

Three years have passed since that day and much has happened in the meantime. There has been a lot of reflection, personal reflection included. Also, many things have occurred on the outside. Pope Benedict was — and to this day all the more is — very much at peace with his decision to resign and that it was the right step to take. That helped me personally to overcome my initial resistance and accept what Pope Benedict truly realized after much struggle and prayer, what he found to be the right thing and then decided on.

It was a very sad day. What was the happiest day in your service for Pope Benedict?
I do not know whether it was the happiest day, but it was perhaps the most incisive day: the Election Day [in 2005]. At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger had chosen me to follow him to the conclave as a so-called Ecclesiasticus. Along with the doctors and everyone else, who were not allowed to be present at the election, we waited with excitement for the outcome in the Sala Regia or in the Sala delle Benedizioni. It was a peculiar atmosphere.

When then the door to the Sistine Chapel opened and the youngest of the cardinals came out, saying that they had reached a decision, I saw Pope Benedict in the back standing under the Last Judgment artwork, dressed all in white. That was the most incisive moment in my whole life.

Because your life has changed from one second to the other.
It was a great turning point in his life and, indirectly, of course, in mine as well.

You were consecrated archbishop on January 6, 2013. At the time, you had already known for months that he would resign soon.
I knew it, yes.

How did you manage to stay so cheerful and relaxed? You were very happy on this day.
It was the day of my Episcopal Ordination, which is the fulfillment of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and it was celebrated by Benedict himself in a very solemn act – maybe the most solemn worship which I have ever experienced. It moved me like nothing before and nothing after.

Sure, it was not easy for me, after Pope Benedict had told me about his resignation under the seal of papal secrecy, of course. I had tried to accept what he had chosen for him. The fact that he shared his decision with me in high confidence demonstrates that he had put much trust in me, which, however, means that he expects me to be worthy of his trust and keep silent. And I have kept his secret, even if I struggled with the Lord from time to time. But eventually, I am proud to say "Thank God, I have persevered."

Now we have the saddest day and the best day. So, which day do you regret the most, looking back at the time of the pontificate?
Regret? I regret the day I stayed in bed, as I was sick, when I saw all the difficulties connected to the name Williamson rolling towards the Pope like an avalanche that came, and no one knew where to go. There was no escape. That was the most difficult and the saddest day, but also the most painful day in my life as Pope Benedict´s secretary.

And you were too paralyzed to intervene?
I could not intervene, because it was just too late. Benedict has indeed said much about this case, but most importantly, he has written the famous letter to the Bishops – which is unique. I will never forget the day of March 10, 2010, when he published this famous letter, in which he said what had to be said, and I agree with that position.

We know from exorcisms about the strength of prayer. Prayers can even cast out demons! Sometimes I have thought – and I think so to this day – that the papacy requires more than what is humanly possible, and that it can be only carried out by the support of these millions of prayers for the Pope, which are prayed daily – every morning, in every Mass, every night, in all Masses, worldwide. What was the difference, when all these prayers were suddenly removed from the Pope? Was it not an enormous fallout and could you physically feel it?
Yes, that was indeed a small departure from the norm. I do not know if, in fact as you described, the prayers were removed from him at once. Surely, with the election of Pope Francis, the official prayers for the Pope passed to him – and rightly so. It was the same with John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Based on many letters and contacts, I can say that the prayer commitments are still enormous and looking at communications, I would even say they have increased.

They have increased?
Yes, and I am convinced that Pope Benedict has not been forgotten as far as prayers are concerned, that many people still pray for him.

Can you tell us what Benedict enjoys the most now that he is retired?
He had certainly been looking forward to the time that he now has, time with the Lord. That is time for prayer, for reflection and reading — but also for personal encounters.

Could one say that he is now living like a monk?
He says so himself. He says “I live in a monastery. I have a monastic life style.” Since I am with him every day, I can confirm this.

I know a number of Cardinals who are still upset that the Church currently has two living successors to Peter. Recently, you spoke about an expanded Petrine office, which Pope Benedict is said to have introduced. Could you explain that a bit further?
Yes, you refer to a book launch of an Italian professor, Roberto Regoli, who has written a book dealing with a first evaluation of the pontificate. He is a professor at the Gregorian University, where the book was also presented. I was one of the two persons presenting it and yes, I spoke of an exponentiated [enlarged] pontificate.

To make this very clear, because I saw from among the reactions that I was imputed to have said a number of things that I did not say: Of course, Pope Francis is the legitimate and legitimately elected Pope. Any talk of two Popes, one legitimate, one illegitimate, is, therefore, incorrect.

What I did, in fact, say, and what Benedict also said, was that he continues to be present in prayer and sacrifice, in the "Recinto" of Saint Peter (within the walls of the Vatican,) which bears spiritual fruit for his successors and the Church. That is what I meant. For three years, we have had two Popes living [This is the kind of loose expression that caused great problems in his May 21 address], and I stress that the reality of the perception of conflict is covered by what I have explained.

So, if I have understood correctly, he has remained in service, but in the contemplative role only, without authority to decide. Does that mean that we have now, as you said, an active and a contemplative part, which together form an extension of munus petrinum?
That is how I said it. To be more precise, it is very clear that Pope Francis owns the plena potestas, the plenitudine potestatis (full authority). He is the one holding the succession of Peter. As I have said as well – there are no difficulties. There is no competition or rivalry. When applying common sense, faith and a little theology, that should be clear.

Can you imagine two papi emeriti, two retired Popes who live in the gardens or three, or even a papal office of four?
Pope Benedict has in fact opened a door when he took this step. I am not a prophet to say whether further Popes will follow him, but personally, I have no difficulties to find it realistic.

And if necessary to make room for Pope Francis…
Whether it will be the same place or another, is actually secondary or tertiary.

Your father was a blacksmith and "a tree of a man", as you have once said. How would you characterize your Holy Father Benedict? He, instead, was obviously not a "tree of a man.” Is there a sentence, a phrase, with which you could describe him?
Pope Benedict is the person who embodies mental clarity to me – and he does so with an incredibly intellectual presence, as well as with a disarming gentleness. I do not know any person like him. He has become a lasting role model for me, as well as a great person of reference.

What will remain of his pontificate?
Time will tell and history will show that the major topics that Pope Benedict has addressed and that initially were challenges to the Office, and that his answers to these issues or challenges, have consolidated and shaped the Church’s foundation. That will remain.

Mercy is Pope Francis's great keyword. Is there a keyword for Benedict's pontificate as well?
Benedict has a fundamental word that always accompanies him, from when he was a professor, and a cardinal – I have mentioned that as well at the book launch. It is Veritas, the truth. The key is that truth became man in Christ, and truth is the great theme of Benedict’s life, a theme which has repeatedly appeared in his life in various forms.

That means that we know the truth in Jesus Christ, in whom it has found a face. So, Benedict has left his successor a controversial dossier regarding the situation in the Vatican. For three years now, Pope Francis has tried to reform the Curia. Before Christmas 2014, he criticized them dramatically. A twofold question: Does the reform of the Curia already show any effects? And is there a connection to the dossier, which the Pope has left for his successor?
First, to clarify: The dossier, which Pope Benedict gave his successor on that 23rd March, 2013 in Castel Gandolfo, the first meeting of the two. I am talking about the dossier of the Cardinal Commission, the three Cardinals personally selected by Pope Benedict and asked to examine the so-called Vatileaks situation, in order to bring some light into the darkness. These three Cardinals reported to the Pope only – there was no intermediary, and they did a good job. They delivered the fruits of their labor, including all the documents and related documentation to Pope Benedict, who took them with him to Castel Gandolfo.

In the helicopter?
(Nods, with a small laugh) Yes, and then he has passed them on to Pope Francis. Regarding the question about the reform of the Curia and whether it shows effects or not, I have much to say.

Especially at the beginning of the pontificate, many theses have been trumpeted, assuming the Curia was in a disastrous state: Everything was in disarray and it was way past time to reform everything, not only the IOR, but also everything one would understand as Curia.

I have 20 years’ experience now, and I think, well, some of those who have a lot to say about the Curia, know it only from the yellow press, or have no precise knowledge, and they should take a step back and slow down. Of course, there were, and there are, some difficulties and even some necessities to bring about change regarding specific issues. How much all of that falls under the scope of a reform of the Curia is a different question.

Looking at it seriously, not much has changed. Sure, two new bodies have been created. We will see, whether they will clarify much. Regarding the IOR or the so-called Vatican Bank, work continues that began under Pope Benedict. It is clear and simple: A reform in that matter needs time until it shows effects. With regard to the so-called reform of the Curia, I am very curious about what the final product, the outcome, the eventual result will be. I am excited, and I like getting surprised.

Shortly after his election, Pope Francis maintained that the shepherds must have the “smell of the herd.” You know many Bishops. Have they changed, or do they now simply leave their aftershave off?
Well, in terms of external behavior, there are quite a number of visible changes. I do not dare to say whether that has altered the inner attitude and behavior as well. I am not the confessor of these gentlemen, and I have too little contact with them, to make a sincere and honest statement. I can only hope that external changes correspond to an inner attitude and that they do not serve to conceal something, or last as long as one is here in the Vatican, and do not revert to old ways once they get out of sight.

“The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church which is built on the rock of Peter,” says the evangelist Matthew. How do you feel about the prophecies of Malachy, which assumingly derive from St. Philip Neri, and which end with Pope Francis in the order of the Popes?
Yesterday, May 26, was the Feast of St. Philip Neri. Indeed, when looking at the prophecy and considering how there was always a sound reference to Popes mentioned in its history, it gives me the shivers – I admit that honestly. However, it [the prophecy] is in no part of the Book of Revelation; no one is required to accept the prophecy of St. Malachy. But from an historical perspective, one has to say, "Yes, it is a wake-up call.”

Personally, I have to say that I miss the light from the rooms of the Palazzo [Papal Apartments] when I walk by in St. Peter’s Square in the evening. How do you feel when you see the apartment, where you lived for so long, which has now become dark?
In the evening, I am usually in a small room, preparing the post for the next day and I have other things to do, so that I do not see the Palazzo a lot at night. Of course, I have seen it several times. When I walk the Via della Conciliazione – which is mostly when I come from out of town – I am very keen on walking there, because it is good and helpful for me. So, when I walk towards St. Peter's Square, I look at the Palazzo and notice that some lights are still switched on in the Prima Loggia, where the Cardinal Secretary of State is. Noticing the second and third loggia to be dark, however, I feel a little wistful. I had to get used to it and I do not know if I will ever get used to the sight of dark windows in the evening.

We come to the last question. One day, you spoke about your dream, your childhood dream, to become a Carthusian. Do you still have dreams and what are they?
Indeed, it appealed to me when in the second semester of theology, I went with a friend for a week to the Marienau, in the Charterhouse in the Allgäu. Back then, I actually felt this call, so I talked to an old Carthusian who advised me: "Listen, if the call you are receiving is serious, it will stay. First, however, go back and finish your studies – you would have had to finish them anyway if you joined us now. Moreover, if the dear Lord wants you to become a Carthusian, then he will make sure you will in five or six years as well. If not – then the call was perhaps just a little voice triggered from the moment of enthusiasm."

I took his advice to heart and in fact, in the course of my study, it became obvious that the good Lord intended something else for me. Calling it a dream would be an exaggeration.

Sometimes I wish to be more inclined with real pastoral care, though, and to adopt more “the smell of a sheep” – to use a reference to Pope Francis. Here, instead, the smell of the second loggia and the smell of the Vatican are still very strong. I try to make a little more time for it [pastoral work], but currently it is impossible – I simply do not have time. So I try to adapt and to pass on the smell that spreads here in the Vatican.

Dear Archbishop, thank you very much for this interview. We wish that the good Lord will continue to hold you in His hands.





In case you wish to watch the full CTV coverage of the Vatican ceremony for Benedict XVI last week, here is the video again (too bad that the camera placements necessarily placed Benedict XVI in a secondary or background position most of the time):

How the pope's words have enlisted him
in the secular world's pantheon of
champions of deviant lifestyles

Last week, the Washington Post had an editorial that, at first glance, appeared to come out of the blue, unsolicited, a no-occasion opinion. But it was occasioned after all by one of JMB/PF's latest remarks which the Post seized upon triumphantly as this pope's latest flag-hoisting for the cause of homosexuals (and by implication, other sexual deviants), now the new 'civil rights' frontier for all full-blooded liberals, and which, of course, the Post, like the rest of secular MSM, has been championing for the past several years...

---

The pope’s welcome surprises
Editorial

July 2, 2016

THREE YEARS ago, Pope Francis charted a new course in compassion for the Roman Catholic Church when, in response to a question about gay priests, he asked, “Who am I to judge?” This week, “I” became “we.”

“The question is: If a person who has that condition, who has goodwill, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?” Francis said in an airplane news conference Sunday. The pope’s choice to switch from the singular to the plural was promising in itself.

[Whatever pronoun he uses does not change the fact that the pope, more than any other Christian, is obliged to judge the sins of his flock, that the sinners may repent and amend their life - and his very reiteration of a sanctimonious 1968 Cultural Revolution mantra is a blunt rejection of his Christian duty as a priest, never mind as pope! And let's not even go into its tacit endorsement of deviant lifestyles, because that is what it is. But this slogan which has come to be emblematic of him has simply been mindlessly taken up, reported and endlessly reiterated without any hint of reproach by the Catholic media and the Catholic blogosphere (outside of a few conscientiously orthodox writers). That is a chilling sign that the secular mindset of not just acceptance but even celebration of deviant lifestyles has taken hold of many thinking Catholics as well, including and especially those who 'make' and 'shape' public opinion.]

But Francis went further. “I think the church must not only apologize . . . to a gay person it offended, but we must apologize to the poor, to women who have been exploited, to children forced into labor,” he said.

Empathy for the oppressed has always been a hallmark of Francis’s papacy. In this case, the pontiff has acknowledged that, at times, the church has been and can still be the oppressor — whether by discriminating against gay people, treating women in its ranks as second-class citizens or preaching clerical celibacy while protecting child abusers in the priesthood.

His comments show a long-overdue willingness on the part of the church to grapple with its troubled past and to try to do better in the present.

Of course, doing better will require more than just words. At synods and other church gatherings, Francis has forced conversations on contested issues the Catholic Church had been dodging for decades — from homosexuality to divorce to contraception. But he has not developed doctrine that would change the status quo.

Even an initiative to try bishops who sheltered pedophile priests in a Vatican tribunal has stalled — though Francis announced last month in an apostolic letter that those officials should be removed from office.

The church has a long way to go, and Francis is responsible for getting it there. But already he has offered more to the gay community than has ever been offered before. Certainly, Francis has split sharply from his predecessor, who as a cardinal called homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil.”[First of all, 'his predecessor' never said any such thing, because homosexuality in itself is not evil - it is the practice of homosexual acts that is sinful. The words of Cardinal Ratzinger are the words in the Catechism which say "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" - and they are, objectively, because they are unnatural. God created man and woman to 'go forth and multiply', and his punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates he considers the practice of unnatural sexuality as evil. But these are fundamental Biblical facts that the secular gay/LGBT/perverted lifestyle advocates refuse to see.]

And words alone can force at least some change: Pope John Paul II, for example, is credited with helping inspire the Polish people to shake off Soviet control.

Francis’s rhetoric could inspire Catholics around the world to change their own communities.

In his closing address at the 2014 Synod of the Family, Francis urged church traditionalists to open themselves to a “God of surprises.” The surprises the pope has given us so far have been more than welcome.

---

Fr. Schall comments on the Post editorial:

The 'Washington Post' explains
Pope Francis to us
by Fr. James Schall, SJ

July 5, 2016

On July 2, 2016, the Washington Post carried an interesting Editorial entitled, “The Pope’s Welcome Surprises”. The Editorial is short and can be read in a few minutes, and what follows presupposes acquaintance with the Post Editorial itself.

That this Editorial is written is not a particularly great “surprise”. It reveals, in my opinion, just how responsible non-Catholic observers understand what the Holy Father has been saying and doing. Whether they have him exactly right can and should be debated. [That, among Catholics, any pope's teaching and preaching that tends to support sinful lifestyles should even be debated at all is emblematic of this Pontificate.]

What follows here is one man’s “reading” or “re-reading” of what is said and implied in this Post Editorial. This “re-reading” and “re-writing” is not a parody or a critique of what the Post wrote or what the Holy Father may hold.

It is putting in my own words what can fairly be taken to be what at least some of the public hear the Pope saying. Others may see it differently, but I think what follows comes close to what is implied in the Editorial:

---

“The Pope Surprises the World”

Under Pope Francis, the Catholic Church now, in principle, accepts the liberal/humanist concepts of modern morality and justice. This view emphasizes state authority (positive law), unlimited moral freedom, theoretic relativism, and universal tolerance.

Francis has not yet formally managed infallibly to install these principles--such as the feasible goodness of divorce, the gay life, abortion, and the denial of any dogmatism or rigidity. He is a severe critic of inequality in all forms, a champion of the downtrodden. He approves ecology’s concern with earth’s dwindling resources.

He is systematically working his way through these issues and will, no doubt, soon define these concepts in formal ecclesial terms.

This ‘Francis’ revolution in the Catholic Church is unexpected but welcome. It is long overdue. The old order of doctrine, tradition, and unchangeable moral principles can gradually be set aside. This new freedom and scientific understanding of the Catholic Church are what we now witness in the memorable words of this Argentine pope.

They come from the last place from whence we might expect the long-awaited modernization of this venerable but stubborn institution. [Except I doubt that the Post - or any in secular MSM which have used the Church as punching bag, doormat and scapegoat for virtually all the ills of the world - thinks of the Church as 'venerable' at all!]

---

Again, this is how one man reads the minds that composed the Post’s Editorial. I take it to be a fair interpretation.

As such Editorials on the intentions of Pope Francis multiply in the world press, it seems to be up to the Holy Father to clarify himself for the benefit of everyone. [But we know he never will because 1) he does not want to do so - ambiguity serves him best, but even better, unequivocal words of applause for anything he says or does; and 2) he appears constitutionally incapable of clarifying anything other than his deep dislike, if not contempt, for anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent - against whom, BTW, he has absolutely no problem being as judgmental as he wants to be.]

Because of the high profile of this Post Editorial, I do not think ‘the Vatican’ bureaucracy can any longer perform this clarifying task. [Not that they would have any intention of clarifying anything as Bergoglio-laudatory as the Post editorial!] In this sense, the Editorial is welcome as a basis of deep reflection about the nature of the Church.

What's to reflect upon? Jesus said that his followers - the Church - would always be 'a sign of contradiction' in the world. But when his own Vicar on earth has voluntarily and gladly passed over to the world as lead champion of its secular causes, does he not, in effect, cease to be 'a sign of contradiction' to the world, and in that case, can he still be considered Christian?

I wish I had software that would allow me to morph Martin Luther's face into Jorge Bergoglio's, since IMHO, JMB is bidding well to be the Luther of our time with his church of Bergoglio
and its Bergoglians (analogous to Lutherans), and his relentless protestantization, and therefore, denaturation, of Catholicism...


Joseph Ratzinger has probably studied Martin Luther more extensively and in depth than anyone in the Church today. This was quite evident
in an 18-page interview he gave to COMMUNIO magazine on 'Luther and the unity of the churches' in November 1984, which can be found here:
http://www.communio-icr.com/files/ratzinger11-3.pdf

What we learn militates so strongly against JMB's decision to 'concelebrate' the fifth centenary of the Lutheran schism, which is like celebrating
the anniversary of a disaster that burned down half your house and cost you an arm and a leg. (BTW, it is the first time I have seen Luther's
words about Jesus committing adultery, which only underscores the utter blasphemous farce of JMB's - and by association, the Church's -
participation in the Reformation festivities.)

Immediately relevant to the apparent Bergoglian intention to rehabilitate Luther somehow in time for the fifth centenary of his schism from
the Catholic Church is Cardinal Ratzinger's answer to the question:
Are there still any serious differences between the Catholic Church and the Reformed Churches and,if so, what are they?

---

The fact that now as ever there are serious differences is illustrated by the existence of 'papers of agreement' which have been published in great numbers in recent years. This is particularly evident in the most progressive dialogues: in the Anglican-Catholic and the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

To be sure, the Anglican-Catholic documents, made public in 1981, claim to have come up with a basic pattern with which to solve the controversial issues, but they do not insist, by any means, to have arrived at any final solutions. Not only the official reply of the Congregation of Faith but also diverse other publications have amply emphasized the grave problems inherent to these documents.

Similarly, the Catholic-Lutheran document concerning the Lord's Supper does not conceal the old controversies, and in spite of the many important convergences, the fact that many unsolved issues remain.

The skillful approach leading to unity as suggested by H. Fries and K. Rahner in their theses, remains an artificial exploit of theological acrobatics which, unfortunately, does not live up to reality.

It is impossible to direct denominations toward each other as in a military exercise and then to pronounce: the importance lies in the marching together; individual thought is of lesser importance. Church unity feeds on the unity of fundamental decisions and convictions. [A fundamental concept and practical reality that JMB appears to ignore completely in all his generic and specific statements about ecumenism.]

The operative unity of Christians is something different. It does, thank God, already exist in parts, and it could be much stronger and more comprehensive, even without solving the actual questions of unity.

To get back to the original question about what separates the Churches, entire libraries have been written on the subject. To answer it succinctly and concisely is rather difficult.

Of course, one can readily focus on a number of questions where controversies exist:
- Scripture and tradition, that is, especially, Scripture and magisterium. Also, in conjunction with this,
- The question of the spiritual magisterium per se.
- Apostolic succession as a sacramental form of tradition and its epitome in the papal office
- The sacrificial character of the Eucharist and the issue of trans-substantiation and, thus, of Eucharistic Adoration and prayer outside the Mass (while there is fundamental agreement on the presence of Christ)
- The sacrament of penance
- Varying views in the area of Christian morality whereby, of course, again the magisterium figures very prominently, and so on.

Yet such an enumeration of controversial matters of doctrine will trigger the question concerning the fundamental decision: Does all this rest on a fundamental difference, and, if so, can it be pinpointed?

When, during the festivities surrounding the anniversary of the Confessio Augustana in 1980, Cardinal Willebrands noted that the roots had remained despite the separations during the sixteenth century, Cardinal Volk, afterwards, asked both humorously and seriously: Now I would like to know if the contraption of which we speak here is, for instance, a potato or an apple-tree? Or, to put it differently: is everything, with the exception of the roots, merely leaves, or is it the tree which grew from the roots that is important? How deep does the difference really go?

Luther himself was convinced that the separation of the teachings from the customs of the papal Church - to which separation he felt obligated - struck at the very foundation of the act of faith. The act of faith as described by Catholic tradition appeared to Luther as centered and encapsulated in the Law while [he thought] it should have been an expression of the acceptance of the Gospel.

In Luther's opinion, the act of faith was turned into the very opposite of what it was Faith, to Luther, is tantamount to liberation from the Law, while its Catholic version appeared to him as a subjugation under the Law.

Thus Luther was convinced that he now had to carry on St. Paul's fight against the so-called Judaizers in the Epistle to the Galatians and turn it into a fight against Rome and Catholic tradition per se. The identification of the positions of his time with those of St. Paul (we may see in it a certain identification of himself and his mission with St. Paul) are fundamental aspects of his life.

It has become fashionable to insist that there are no longer any controversies concerning the teachings on justification. The fact is that Luther's questioning is no longer valid: neither Luther's consciousness of his sinfulness and his fear of hell, nor the terror he felt vis-a-vis divine Majesty and his cry for mercy. His views on the freedom of the will which had already roused the opposition of Erasmus of Rotterdam are also hard to understand now.

Conversely, the justification decree of Trent had already emphasized the pre-eminence of grace so strongly that Harnack believed that, if its text had been available, the Reformation would have had to take a different course.

However, after Luther's lifelong insistence on the central differences in the teachings on justification, it seems justifiable to assume that it is here that we will, most likely, discover the fundamental difference. I am unable to elaborate on all this within the context of an interview.

Thus, I will try briefly, though in necessarily biased and fragmentary fashion, to comment and, in doing so, attempt at least a perspective on the issues at hand.

It seems to me that the decisive cause of the [doctrinal] breach cannot be found solely in changes in the constellation of ideas and in the concomitant shifts in theological theory, no matter how important these elements are.

For there is no denying the truth that a new religious movement can be generated only by a new religious experience which is, perhaps, aided by the total configuration of an epoch and which incorporates its resources but is itself not consumed by them.

It seems to me that the basic feature is the fear of God by which Luther's very existence was struck down, torn between God's calling and the realization of his own sinfulness, so much so that God appears to him sub contrario, as the opposite of Himself, i.e., as the Devil who wants to destroy man.

[In Luther's mind] To break free of this fear of God becomes the real issue of redemption. Redemption is realized the moment faith appears as the rescue from the demands of self-justification, that is, as a personal certainty of salvation.

This "axis" of the concept of faith is explained very clearly in Luther's Little Catechism: "I believe that God created me. . . . I believe that Jesus Christ ...is my Lord who saved me ...in order that I may be His ...and serve Him forever in justice and innocence." Faith, he believed, assures, above all, the certainty of one's own salvation.

The personal certainty of redemption becomes the center of Luther's ideas. Without it, there would be no salvation. Thus, the importance of the three divine virtues, faith, hope, and love, to a Christian formula of existence undergoes a significant change: the certainties of hope and faith, though hitherto essentially different, become identical.

To the Catholic, the certainty of faith refers to that which God worked and which the Church witnesses. The certainty of hope refers to the salvation of individuals and, among them, of oneself. Yet, to Luther, faith represented the crux without which nothing else really mattered.

That is why love, which lies at the center of the Catholic faith, is dropped from the concept of faith, all the way to the polemic formulations of the large commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: maledicta sit caritas, down with love!

Luther's insistence on sola fides (by faith alone) clearly and exactly excludes love from the question of salvation. Love belongs to the realm of "works" and, thus, becomes "profane."

If one wishes, one may call this a radical personalization of the act of faith which consists in an exciting and, in some sense, exclusive "eye for an eye" relationship between God and man. At the same time, man has to depend time and again on the forgiving God against a demanding and judgmental God,that is, Christ, who appears sub contrario (as Devil).

This dialectic view of God corresponds to a dialectic of existence which Luther himself once formulated as follows: ". . . it is necessary for a Christian to know that these are his own sins, whatever they are, and that they have been borne by Christ, by whom we have been redeemed and saved."

This "personalism" and this "dialectic," together to a lesser or greater degree with an anthropology, have also altered the remaining structure of his teachings. For this basic assessment signifies that, according to Luther, faith is no longer, as to the Catholic, essentially the communal belief of the entire Church.

In any case, according to Luther, the Church can neither assume to guarantee personal salvation nor decide definitely and compellingly on matters (that is, the content) of faith.

On the other hand, to the Catholic, the Church is central to the act of faith itself: only by communal belief do I partake of the certainty on which I can base my life. This corresponds to the Catholic view that church and Scripture are inseparable while, in Luther, Scripture becomes an independent measure of Church and tradition. This in turn raises the question of the canonicity and the unity of Scripture.

In some respects this incorporates the point of departure for the entire [Reformation] movement; for it was exactly the unity of
Scripture - the Old and the New Testament, the gospels, the epistles of St. Paul, and the Catholic letters - on the basis of which Luther felt confronted with a Devil-God whom he felt compelled to resist and whom he resisted with the assistance of the divine God.

The unity of Scripture which had hitherto been interpreted as a unity of steps toward salvation, as a unity of analogy, is now replaced with the dialectic of Law and Gospel. This dialectic is particularly sharpened by the two complementary concepts of the New Testament - that of the "gospels" and that of the epistles of St. Paul - of which only the latter were adopted and even radicalized by the earlier described Lutheran sola fides.

I would say that the dialectic of Law and Gospel expresses most poignantly Luther's new experience and that it illustrates most concisely the contradiction with the Catholic concepts of faith, salvation, Scripture, and Church.

To sum up, Luther did indeed realize what he meant when he saw the actual point of separation in the teachings on justification which, to him, were identical with the "gospel" in contra-distinction to the "law." To be sure, one has to view justification as radical and as deep as he did, that is, as a reduction of the entire anthropology - and thus also of all other matters of doctrine - to the dialectic of Law and Gospel.

Since then, there have been many revelations based on all his individual pronouncements so that one should hope to have arrived at the point where the basic decision can be thought over and integrated into a more expansive vision. However, this has, unfortunately, not yet happened.

To follow Fries' and Rahner's suggestions, and thus apparently to skip over the quest for truth with a few political maneuvers when it presents itself in terms of clear alternatives would be entirely irresponsible.

Earlier in the interview, he says this:
Luther's excommunication does not have to be lifted; it has long since ceased to exist. Luther's excommunication terminated with his death because judgment after death is reserved to God alone.

However, it is an entirely different matter when we ask if Luther's proposed teachings still separate the churches and thus preclude joint communion. Our ecumenical discussions center on this question...

To be sure, one must keep in mind that there exist not only Catholic anathemas against Luther's teachings but also Luther's own definitive rejections of Catholic articles of faith which culminate in Luther's verdict that we will remain eternally separate. It is not necessary to borrow Luther's angry response to the Council of Trent in order to prove the definiteness of his rejection of anything Catholic:

---

We should take him - the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riffraff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness - and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows. . . Then one could allow them to hold a council, or as many as they wanted, on the gallows, or in hell among all the devils.

---

[Little wonder that all of Luther's spiritual heirs - generations of Protestants - grew up so uncompromisingly anti-Pope and anti-Catholic.]

After his final break with the Church, Luther not only categorically rejected the papacy but he also deemed the Catholic teachings about the Eucharist (Mass) as idolatry because he interpreted the Mass as a relapse into the Law and, thus, a denial of the Gospel.

To explain all these contradictions as misunderstandings seems to me like a form of rationalistic arrogance which cannot do any justice to the impassioned struggle of those men as well as the importance of the realities in question.

The real issue can only lie in how far we are today able to go beyond the positions of those days and how we can arrive at insights which will overcome the past. To put it differently: Unity demands new steps. It cannot be achieved by means of interpretative tricks. If separation occurred as a result of contrary religious insights which could locate no space within the traditional teachings of the Church, it will not be possible to create a unity by means of doctrine and discussion alone, but only with the help of religious strength. Indifferentism appears only on the surface to be a unifying link.

---

I really had been meaning to post the full 1984 interview with Cardinal Ratzinger about Luther, given the to-do in the Bergoglio Vatican over the fifth centenary of the Reformation. But I was prompted to post the above excerpts by this short piece in korazym.org that makes reference to it...

Luther's 'sola fides'
and his rejection of 'love'
as a necessary virtue
by Michelangelo Nasca
Translated from

July 4, 2016

At a time that is burdened by confused doctrinal interpretations and pastoral misunderstanding, one must be patient and diligent in returning to study the fundamental principles that generated our faith.

If only to clear up the vacillating considerations that are sowed here and there like wheat cast on the hillside to disorient the faith of so many Catholics.

In the case of Martin Luther, who started the Protestant Reformation - and one of his principal theological convictions, sola fides [that man can be saved by faith alone and nothing else] - it is interesting to bring up a reflection by Carmelite theologian Antonio Maria Sicari, taken form his newest book, Il «Divino Cantico» di San Giovanni della Croce (The Divine Canticle of St. John of the Cross) (Jaca Books, 2011):

"The most serious price Luther had to pay was his tragic misunderstanding of the two other theological virtues, hope and charity. He had no qualms teaching that only faith justifies "before charity, and without charity", and that faith does not require charity to give it 'form'. And in order to sustain that principle, he did not hesitate to manipulate some famous Biblical passages." [Now why does that last sentence sound so familiar about somebody we all know? In any case, this is the man whose schism JMB will be celebrating, whose core teaching means no Christian has to do 'good works' at all, which violates everything JMB has been exhorting rightly! How does he think he will enlist Protestants in his world goals to 'end poverty, hunger and war' if they have been taught with their mother's milk that they do not have to support their faith with 'good works'?]

As he writes in his Diaries, Soren Kierkegaard wrote about this with great disapproval: "Luther always wanted to explain love as simply love of neighbor, almost as if we were not obliged to love God. Substantially, Luther replaced love of God with faith, and reduces love to love for one's neighbor".

Sicari notes that it was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who explained - "in a balanced and profound way" - the tragedy of Luther who, in his attempt to clarify and achieve "his own personal certainty of salvation" came to look at the act of faith in a disordinately exclusive manner. [Sicari is obviously referring to the long interview on Luther cited above, from which he quotes.]

Ratzinger said that Luther's considerations altered the theological essence of the theological virtues, especially charity - which represents for the Catholic, the most intimate form of faith - but for Luther, becomes alien to the concept of faith itself.

---

Luther's insistence on sola fides (by faith alone) clearly and exactly excludes love from the question of salvation. Love belongs to the realm of "works" and, thus, becomes "profane."

If one wishes, one may call this a radical personalization of the act of faith which consists in an exciting and, in some sense, exclusive "eye for an eye" relationship between God and man.

---

Sicari observes: "Cardinal Ratzinger said at the time that the insistence of some experts to consider as 'simple misunderstandings' the harsh protests with which Luther left the Catholic Church was mere 'rationalistic arrogance'.

For this, he was severely attacked, but he stood his ground well and was not intimidated, explaining further the real weight of Luther's aggression against caritas, love.

One must note, in this connection that as Pope Benedict XVI, he dedicated his first encyclical to the third theological virtue, thus frustrating with his magisterial authority the attempts of those who now consider Luther's ideas on faith more interesting and modern than the Catholic concept of love.

1P5 informs us that Fr. David Nix was an EMT and paramedic in Boston and Denver, attended Regis Jesuit High School and Boston College and became the first FOCUS missionary ordained priest (2010). [Knowing nothing about FOCUS, which turns out to be a Catholic outreach to university campuses, I found this link to their site: www.focus.org/what-we-do/overview]
In light of the 2007 Motu Proprio from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, he has chosen the traditional (1962) sacraments, blessings and calendar. He will be on loan for a year from his home diocese to run a Traditional Latin Mass parish in Louisiana (which is, of course, in union with the diocese and Rome).


Back to the Four Marks:
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
- in spite of Vatican II
by FATHER DAVID NIX

JULY 6, 2016

The four marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. With so many changes having happened within the Church during the past century, many are left wondering: what vestiges remain of the Apostolic deposit of faith?

In the post-Vatican-II era, the two most important evaluations of the four marks of the church are probably going to be the following.

1) Evangelization of the modern world is the main thrust of the actual documents of Vatican II. Have the missions improved since 1965?

2) Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI speaks of the “hermeneutic of continuity.” This means that any council, especially Vatican II, must be interpreted in light of the previous councils. Has this happened since 1965?

More specifically, the hermeneutic of continuity is the teaching of Benedict that the tradition of the Catholic Church before Vatican II can be lived with the new expressions of the faith that were supposed to follow the Council.

“Hermeneutic” basically means a tool of interpretation, and “continuity” signifies the idea that Catholic doctrine, worship, and life after the Council should be the same as the previous generations, but renewed.

While this is theoretically possible, it may not be practically possible (barring a worldwide miracle). [It certainly was practically possible with Benedict XVI, and his example was contagious to those who were not unreconstructed progressivists. Fr. Nix himself, from the biodata that accompanies his piece, appears to have been one of those infected with Benedettian continuity.]

Miracle or not, the following seven aspects need to be accepted by faithful Catholics before we experience any possible “hermeneutic of continuity”: [Actually, for older people like me who led a thoroughly satisfactory Catholic life before Vatican II, it's much simpler: I practice continuity, not just its hermeneutic, by continuing to follow the doctrine and practice of the Church in which I was raised.]

1. Things (good and bad) were already in motion before Vatican II. Some say liberal humanism entered the Church in the Renaissance era (16th century). Some say it entered the Church because of Vatican II (1962 to 1965). Most well-read traditionalists recognize that heresy successfully infiltrated seminaries just before World War I (1905-1915).

The heresy of Modernism (“the synthesis of all heresies,” according to Pope St. Pius X) actually began as an attack on the Bible: Fr. Loisy was a Scripture scholar at a French seminary and made waves in doubting the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. St. Pius X excommunicated him after numerous attempts at rehabilitation.

Of course it starts with this, since Satan’s first words to man and woman were, “Did God really say…?” (Genesis 3:1). In any case, it was probably because Sacred Scripture was questioned in the first half of the 20th century that clerics in the second half of the century had the hubris to question the Church’s prohibition of contraception within marriage.

The cancer we now experience in the Church may have little to do with Vatican II. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said in a 1978 interview: “I would not say that Vatican II would have prevented what is happening in the Church today. Modernist ideas have penetrated everywhere for a long time.”

But the good may not be due to Vatican II, either: while many Catholics now rightly recognize that they need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to keep His commandments, so did St. Ignatius of Loyola in writing the Spiritual Exercises in the 16th century. [I don't think that the generations upon generations of orthodox Catholics who have lived on this earth needed to think in terms of 'a personal relationship' with Jesus in order to keep his commandments. No thanks to Vatican-II or any other council, for that matter, we were taught and raised to pray to God - that's personal relationship enough, without having to define it as such - and obey his commandments in order not to offend him whom we ask to receive us into eternal life.]

Jesus Himself said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15). So this timeless understanding of relationship was not introduced at the Council.

2. No council will ever be able to change Divine Revelation. But [our understanding of] it can be deepened. Jesus Christ gave the Deposit of the Faith once and for all to the Apostles. A council should help the faithful grow in understanding of the deposit of Faith.

For example, the Council of Chalcedon gave new depth to the already revealed truths of Christology, now buttressed by new parameters on the wording of Christ’s hypostatic union. Councils should offer organic additions to or extrapolations upon the Sacred Scriptures to meet new social needs or tackle new heresies. But a true Council cannot offer a mutilating subtraction from the deposit of the faith.

I’m not saying that Vatican II does this, but “the spirit of Vatican II” surely does. For example, people say ridiculous things like “Vatican II prohibits Holy Communion on the tongue” or “Vatican II allows contraception.” This would be less of the Catholic faith, which a true Council cannot effect.

Vatican II is difficult to evaluate on this front, since none of the documents were issued with the weight of infallibility. Thus, Vatican II must be weighed against the other 20 ecumenical councils. Had we done that honestly as Catholics, our worship and lifestyle would have experienced only subtle and beautiful changes. [Catholics worldwide really had no choice, did they? Once the Mass of the ages was replaced literally overnight by the heavily Protestantized Novus Ordo, the masses could hardly be blamed if they accepted as 'newly valid' every novelty and distortion of the faith dreamed up the 'spirit of Vatican II' progressivists who held sway in the two decades that followed Vatican II!]

3. The new Mass wasn’t necessary to go Ad Gentes. Ad Gentes is the missionary chapter of Vatican II, meaning “Towards the Nations” as a missionary call. Vatican II was completed in 1965. Then, from 1965 to 1969, the Mass was radically changed.

Did the new Mass help the missionaries go “to the nations”? Well, first we must recognize that Western missionaries to Africa and Asia were abundant before the council, especially from 1800 to 1960. After 1965, almost all mission work to foreign countries was replaced with social justice workers. [That may be an overstatement, but social activist priests and nuns certainly sprung up suddenly everywhere and spread their wings sanctimoniously to media accolades, especially in the Americas, spouting much Marxist rhetoric in the guise of liberation theology and its many variants. Personally, I have one standard for measuring these ideologically-motivated social activists: Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and their pure mission motivated only by Christian charity!]

Native evangelization seems to have continued after the council. For example, we have the astonishing examples of Chinese Christians evangelizing their countrymen at the constant price of torture and martyrdom. But how about the West? Did the new Mass succeed in the U.S. and Europe?

The architects of the new Mass (like Msgr. Bugnini) told us that the new Mass would be attractive to Protestants. However, decades after these changes, we see that more Americans have left the new Mass for what Protestants do best (praise and worship and exciting preaching) than probably ever before since the days of Luther.

I can’t prove causality, but at least the liturgical changes were concurrent with sunken vocations, plummeted Mass attendance, unitarian-sounding catechesis, and the closing of beautiful old parishes along the entire Eastern seaboard.

Not far from a chunk of such parishes in Boston, Dr. Peter Kreeft reminds us that this was nothing short of a “liturgical holocaust.” I cannot recall any such experimentation plaguing the Traditional Latin Mass in 1,500 years, even during the doctrinal crises within the Church.

4. The revamping of the sacraments after the Council is not necessarily a part of the hermeneutic of continuity. Following Vatican II, a small group of elitist bishops (admittedly influenced by their progressive Protestant “doctors”) convinced the rest of the bishops in the world to accept a new set of gutted blessings, a gutted exorcism rite, a gutted calendar, a gutted Divine Office, a gutted anointing, and a gutted Mass. Strangely, this became the norm for the Catholic Church, with cruel brainwashing for anyone who holds to the so-called “hermeneutic of continuity.”

Thankfully, God in His great mercy kept all the newly gutted sacraments valid. [Not 'God in his great mercy', but the fact that the Catholic sacraments are valid if they are administered by validly ordained priests. It would have been unthinkable to say that Holy Orders given according to the Novus Ordo could not be valid, because then, we would have been left with a handful of pre-1969 ordained priests, and the present pope we have would not have been validly ordained!]

But there is more than “just valid” for the priest to aim for. For example, there were minor exorcisms to be prayed over the dying man or woman in ancient extreme unction. Why would any “liturgical experts” take exorcisms away from the dying?

5. We can accept the fullness of tradition and still live for the missions. According to Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum document of 2007 (and numerous 16th-century documents), I, as a priest, don’t have to reject the traditional sacramentals or sacraments of the Catholic Church. I am permitted to hold fast to the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments in my worship and evangelization.

All of my study of it has proven that it is not a Mass 500 years old but somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 years old. Most of the Mass I offer daily is the same as the 5th-century Mass, but the “old Mass” may go even earlier. The Council of Trent calls the so-called “extraordinary form” of the Mass one of “apostolic” origin.

While I prioritize the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass and the institution of traditional sacraments, I also want to bring Christ to the nations, as St. Paul and St. Francis Xavier did. Yet the thinking today seems to be that the new Mass is best for the missions and that the Traditional Latin Mass is best for the neurotic and psychotic who simply wish to “pull up the drawbridge” for a cultish lifestyle.

We need to stop thinking this way – after all, who were better missionaries than the Apostles? The nations were all successfully evangelized by priests using the Traditional Latin Mass.

6. Lex orandi, lex credendi. We believe as we worship. Bad liturgy will inevitably lead to bad learning, even without bad catechesis. For example, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and still American Catholics have all but lost the Faith.

Following Vatican-II, Catholics came to a consistent conclusion: experiment in liturgy warrants experiment in doctrine. Can you blame them? It is only natural for fear of God to be lost in doctrine if first lost in liturgy.

The Mass is to bring peace and comfort, yes, but worship is also to reveal an awesome sense of the transcendent. That forgotten union with God – a God infinitely powerful and holy – is nearly impossible to believe in when you walk into Mass amid drab communist marching songs like “Gather Us In.” How could replacing the transcendent grandeur of the Solemn High Mass with Marty Haugen possibly lead more souls to God?

I used to think that this “liturgical holocaust” was a problem exclusive to the United States, but I have found worse music and sacrilege elsewhere in the world (like ants eating the Holy Eucharist in a tabernacle I saw in Brazil). How can anyone fear God if we treat Him this way?

I can say in good conscience that Protestant mega-churches treat God with more holy fear than the average Catholic parish does, at least externally. And I make this statement after travels to parishes on five continents since my ordination.

7. Collateral circulation. There have been some extremely beautiful and powerful movements in the Church since Vatican II. These lay movements are analogous to collateral circulation. Collateral circulation is when blood finds new routes through smaller arteries to perfuse the tissue with oxygen – despite the fact that there are still occluded larger arteries, originally intended for the bulk of the work.

The smaller arteries in my analogy could be things like FOCUS, the Augustine Institute, Theology on Tap, and even the charismatic movement (outside the Mass), where I have seen the hand of God work miracles.

The Holy Priesthood in this analogy is the large but occluded artery. It is charged with Apostolic greatness, but currently it is blocked by fear and politics.

Hasn’t this always been the case? No, for this occlusion is due to a lot of new things, like the child abuse scandals along with less recognized deterrents to young men. For example, the relativism plaguing our doctrine is so ubiquitous that recently a holy and gentle bishop said that even the Pope’s theology is “objectively erroneous.” What young man would want to follow this confusion into celibacy?

Where do we go from here? Well, I don’t want us to return to the 1950s, as some angry people do. My proposal is simple: let the Church move forward with all of her great lay movements, but have all bishops and priests offer the timeless 1962 sacraments. [That's obviously not a simple proposal at all! You'd have to start with the pope!] We can keep “the New Evangelization”, but let’s be careful against modernist doctrine. Then we will see a new wave of inspiring priests come from believing families.

In fact, the Mother of God promised a nun in the 16th century that the 20th century (after experiencing a great loss of the Catholic Faith) would be followed by God “sending to His Church the Prelate who shall restore the spirit of her priests.” I believe that this renewal and this “Prelate” are coming in our lifetime, even if the triumph has to follow a few more global and ecclesiastical catastrophes.

I don't hold much with prophecies, but let us just each live our faith as best we can, invoking God's grace for the Church, i.e., all its members, and all those whose daily task it is to work in the vineyard of the Lord.

Profound thanks and admiration for the Archbishop's courageous action - he is the first bishop I have read about to have specifically given this directive. Other bishops who have said that the only way to read AL is to read it in continuity with existing Magisterium, i.e., pre-Bergoglio, were cardinals 9and one monsignor - Schneider of Kazakhstan - who were in no position to implement policy in any actual jurisdiction, as Mons. Chaput does.

I don't want to imagine the secular/liberal fallout on him for his guidelines, but it may well be ballistic if not thermonuclear! Do you suppose any other diocesan bishop in the USA will follow his example?

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, July 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy,” Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput announced in new diocesan guidelines for the implementation of Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

“Anything less” than upholding the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and thus the adulterous nature of second unions “misleads people about the nature of the Eucharist and the Church,” Chaput wrote.

Amoris Laetitia seems to contradict longstanding Church teaching on the subject of admitting to the Sacraments the divorced and civilly remarried. The document, which was released after two contentious synods on the family, seemingly opened the door for those living unrepentantly in relationships the Church labels objectively sinful to receive the Sacraments in certain circumstances.

But Chaput, who is part of a committee overseeing the exhortation’s implementation in the United States, wrote that AL should “be read in continuity with the great treasury of wisdom handed on by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the witness of the lives of the Saints, the teachings of Church Councils, and previous magisterial documents.”

“As with all magisterial documents, Amoris Laetitia is best understood when read within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life,” Chaput’s guidelines declare.

“Catholic belief, rooted in Scripture, reserves all expressions of sexual intimacy to a man and a woman covenanted to each other in a valid marriage,” wrote Chaput. “We hold this teaching to be true and unchangeable, tied as it is to our nature and purpose as children of a loving God who desires our happiness.”

Chaput’s instructions make it clear that individuals living according to the Church’s teachings on human sexuality despite having entered an invalid second “marriage” may receive the Sacraments. In administering the Sacraments to such individuals, Chaput wrote, priests must take care to avoid committing scandal by seemingly indicating approval of behaviors condemned by the Church.

Chaput wrote:

---

With divorced and civilly-remarried persons, Church teaching requires them to refrain from sexual intimacy. This applies even if they must (for the care of their children) continue to live under one roof.

Undertaking to live as brother and sister is necessary for the divorced and civilly-remarried to receive reconciliation in the Sacrament of Penance, which could then open the way to the Eucharist. Such individuals are encouraged to approach the Sacrament of Penance regularly, having recourse to God’s great mercy in that sacrament if they fail in chastity.

Even where, for the sake of their children, they live under one roof in chaste continence and have received absolution (so that they are free from personal sin), the unhappy fact remains that, objectively speaking, their public state and condition of life in the new relationship are contrary to Christ’s teaching against divorce.

Concretely speaking, therefore, where pastors give Communion to divorced and remarried persons trying to live chastely, they should do so in a manner that will avoid giving scandal or implying that Christ’s teaching can be set aside.

In other contexts, also, care must be taken to avoid the unintended appearance of an endorsement of divorce and civil remarriage; thus, divorced and civilly remarried persons should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish (e.g. on a parish council), nor should they carry out liturgical ministries or functions (e.g., lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion).

---

Chaput’s directives and reasoning are in line with the Church’s historic teaching that Pope St. John Paul II articulated in his exhortation Familiaris Consortio:

---

…the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

---

Chaput also wrote that unmarried cohabitating couples must either separate before marriage or cease sexual intimacy until they are married in the Church. If the couple already has children, it may be best for them to remain living together until marriage for the sake of their children, Chaput wrote, but such couples must not be sexually active until they are validly married.

Chaput’s guidelines also addressed the need to provide authentic pastoral care to those with same-sex attraction.

“Those who work in pastoral ministry often encounter persons with diverse forms of same-sex attraction,” Chaput wrote. “Many such persons have found it possible to live out a vocation to Christian marriage with children, notwithstanding experiencing some degree of same-sex attraction.”

Chaput’s new guidelines acknowledge that there may be same-sex couples who “live together in chaste friendship and without sexual intimacy,” and encourages pastors to handle such situations with prudence. The archbishop’s guidelines warned that any seeming acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle undermines the Catholic faith and “can only produce moral confusion in the community.”

“Two persons in an active, public same-sex relationship, no matter how sincere, offer a serious counter-witness to Catholic belief, which can only produce moral confusion in the community,” wrote Chaput. “Such a relationship cannot be accepted into the life of the parish without undermining the faith of the community, most notably the children…those living openly same-sex lifestyles should not hold positions of responsibility in a parish, nor should they carry out any liturgical ministry or function.”

Meanwhile, the German Catholic bishops’ conference allows Church employees to openly defy and act contrary to the teachings and beliefs of the Church. In April, three German bishops claimed that AL allows for Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried on a case-by-case basis.

And Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who Pope Francis chose to present AL at the document’s debut, has said that he allows the divorced and civilly remarried to receive the Sacraments in some circumstances. Schönborn is the Archbishop of Vienna.
[1. Pope Francis specifically advised us all to read Schoenborn's presentation of AL - which was broadly permissive of communion for RCDs - as his position on this issue, after having said, "Yes, period" to a question on whether "there are new concrete possibilities that did not exist" before publication of AL. A YES that Mons. Chaput has now courageously bucked by reading AL in continuity with pre-Bergoglio Magisterium.
2. In his own diocese, Cardinal Schoenborn allows everything about homosexual couples that Chaput expressly forbids in his guidelines.]

Pope Francis recently stirred up a storm by claiming that the “great majority” of Christian marriages are invalid, yet many couples who cohabitate partake in the grace of the sacrament of marriage.

Lawrence England recently had an amusing take-off on the initiatives for a Brexit recall vote in the UK... Not that the blogger meant it to be 'amusing' at all. The quotations seem authentic, to each of which he gives name, age and provenance (except the unnamed cardinal). More importantly, what they say is true.

Guess which vote
they are protesting

July 3, 2016

...The mass protests have taken the authorities by surprise, with Londoners demanding that the ballot of 13 March 2013 that voted in the heir apparent and chief nominee of the 'St Gallen Mafia', relativist and authoritarian Peronist, Jorge Bergoglio, as Pope be overturned.

Protesters were interviewed by media agencies over the weekend. Reasons for their presence at the protest were varied, but one thing united the protesters in their desire for a second vote. Said one protester...

---

"I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, but this new Pope is clearly Protestant in his thinking. I want the Pope to be Catholic, to talk about Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. Is that too much to ask?" ~ James Hinchthorpe, 20, from Barnet

---

Some protesters were more fierce in their criticism of the result with their words expressing palpable anger.

---

"What do I want? I want a real conclave! When do I want it? Three years ago!" ~ Sandra Gillespe, 28, from Putney

"I am sick of this Pope's self-adulation. I am sick of the insults. I am sick of his interviews. I am sick of his manipulation of the Church, his willingness to sacrifice everything and everyone - those in the Church and those outside of it - to his false god. I want a real Pope... God will not be mocked forever! Is there nobody this lunatic would not give Holy Communion to?" ~ Sebastian Whitstable, 15, of Earl's Court

---

Others, visibly upset and scandalised by three years of mixed messages, confusing signs and the recent exhortation that has been described as a 'dossier even dodgier than that which took us to war in Iraq' spoke of their pain at the decision made by the Cardinals in 2013...

---

"This result of this vote was made by old people. Basically, these old people have taken us back 40 years. My eternal salvation and that of my friends has now been thrown into jeopardy by these old people. I'd like to say to those people: You've stolen my future! Yes! You've ruined my life! You've ruined Eternal Life for everyone!" ~ Ralph Clarridge, 18, of Crystal Palace

---

Some even openly questioned whether people who voted for Bergoglio should be entitled to have a vote.

---

"This is what happens when you let uneducated people with no brains vote in something as important as a conclave! My 4-year-old daughter can tell you that of all the people to vote for to be Pope, an elderly Latin American Jesuit is THE LAST MAN ON EARTH for whom you should vote!" ~ Gerald Sinister, 32, of Elephant and Castle

---

The Cardinals of the Church are stung by such criticism. It is true that by an overwhelming margin, the participants in the conclave that voted in, on a 52/48 percentage, the ultra-modernist Jorge Bergoglio were, for the main part, over 60 years of age.

Therefore, the charge that the old have robbed the young of an eternal future has some traction in Rome, where the mass protests have been observed with great concern.

Vatican officials are publicly indifferent to the protests, saying that these protests make no difference to the result, which - despite claims of vote canvassing - was, according to the competent authorities, conducted according to the normal rules of the Church.

However, privately, some Cardinals are questioning their choice of Successor of St Peter and have sympathy with the crowd. One member of the Sacred Hierarchy, who did not wish to give his name said...

---

"We would be wise to heed the voice of the younger generation crying out for those in authority to teach the Catholic Faith whole and entire. When it is not, they are justified in their anger that the teachings which will lead them to the Eternal Life - their rightful inheritance - are not being given to them and we must listen to their heartfelt cry. We can apologise to the whole world if we want, but ultimately it is to Jesus Christ Himself, that we Cardinals shall have to give an answer. For these souls, yes, we shall have to answer."

---

Pope Francis:
Toward what kind of Pontificate?

July 4, 2016

Another week, another infuriating essay from Gagliarducci that I could choose to ignore, except that he makes many statements that cry out to be rebutted. Mr. G's abiding folly is to claim that there are people at the Vatican promoting their own agenda behind JMB's back, when the only agenda that anybody at the Vatican openly pushes is unmistakably the Bergoglian agenda. AG does not mention any specific agenda other than the Bergoglian agenda. And what does it say of JMB as a leader if he allows any such 'backstabbing' to take place unchecked?

With a short, off-the-cuff speech during celebrations for the 65th anniversary of his priesthood, Benedict XVI clarified that Pope Francis alone is Pope. [That was not exactly the thrust of the remarks, which were intended as a 'thank you' to those, starting with Pope Francis, who had spoken to honor B16 on the occasion. Besides, regardless of what Mons. Gaenswein has said, I don't think anyone in his right mind doubts that for Benedict XVI , as for all Catholics, there is only one pope at a time.]

However, the turmoil generated by the notion of an “enlarged papacy” comprised of “an active member and a contemplative member” reveals a certain nervousness around the question, as though Pope Francis’s opponents were organizing a sort of resistance centered on the Pope Emeritus. The notion of a party that is willing to block Pope Francis’s reform attempt is a sort of leitmotiv in the narrative concerning this pontificate. [A narrative invented by and nourished by the courtiers of Bergoglio himself, and by no one else!]

In his speech Benedict XVI thanked Pope Francis, said he felt protected by his goodness, and invited him to go forward down the path of mercy – it was Benedict XVI who uttered the phrase “the name of God is mercy”, that Pope Francis quoted and that became the title of the book interview he gave to the Vaticanista Andrea Tornielli. [Important to note that B16 said 'Divine Mercy', not just 'mercy' as JMB habitually does. It can be argued every which way that B16 and JMB do not necessarily mean the same thing when they say 'mercy'!]

For his part, Pope Francis thanked Benedict, showing in his address that he feels close to the Pope Emeritus and also hinting that they meet often. Pope Francis even reiterated that, for him, Benedict is the wise grandfather whom one asks for counsel.

Certainly, the notion of an enlarged papacy hit 'in vivo' [I suppose AG means 'hit a live nerve', among JMB's people] - the reason being not only that it was Archbishop Georg Gaenswein who first spoke about it – and Archbishop Gaenswein is both Prefect of the Pontifical Household and Private Secretary to Benedict XVI.

Taken out of context and beyond what Archbishop Gaenswein actually wanted to say, [the notion could be also used to minimize Pope Francis’s authority.] [Oh please! As if anyone could think that at all, about a probably ill-advised Gaenswein proposition that no one, as far as I can tell, has agreed with.]

In this way the perception arose [was deliberately created] of a group of loyalists to Pope Benedict ready to oppose Pope Francis with all their force and means. A discussion [Discussions! I presume there would have been more than one!] ensued.

As every theological discussion [I bet the discussions were anything but theological! Even the main brunt of AG's argument in this piece says outright that JMB - or his people, for that matter - are not concerned about the theology of anything, only the 'reality', as JMB would call it, of meetings and 'dialog']
inevitably becomes “pro v. contra” Francis” (no matter what is actually being debated), the same happened with the notion of an enlarged papacy.

Are Benedict XVI’s loyalists really ready to oppose Pope Francis? [An artificial question, because there is no indication whatsoever that 'Benedict's loyalists' have ever come together and organized themselves! Why, even the Fondazione Vaticana Joseph Ratzinger/Benedetto XVI - established with the emeritus pope's own money before his retirement - went out of its way after GG's problematic propositions to issue a statement saying it is at the service of the Church and this pope!]

A reasonable glance at the facts proves the opposite, and we can provide at least three examples.

Archbishop Georg Gaenswein – who was targeted even during Benedict XVI’s pontificate – does not neglect to underscore in any interview or statement he makes the continuity between Benedict XVI’s and Pope Francis’ pontificates [Too much, IMHO, as in 'he doth protest too much'], emphasizing the aspects of the present pontificate that he deems to be the more positive. There are no clues of infidelity in his public statements. Moreover, even in his personal life, he accepts many invitations to take part in local festivals and religious celebrations, thus following the pastoral path indicated by Pope Francis.

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has kept to a profoundly theological point of view in his public statements. He never speaks publicly against this pontificate, but merely clarifies doctrinal points of view.

Beyond this, with a certain German rigor, Cardinal Mueller is the only one who has built an idealist bridge [????] in the Roman Curia between the Latin-American mentality and Roman Catholic theology.

Mueller brought about in liberation theology a substantial departure from Marxism, a move to which Gustavo Gutierrez, the “Founder of Liberation Theology,” is in debt. . [Let's not be revisionist here! Doesn't AG have this upside down? Mueller became interested in LT because of Gutierrez, went to Latin America many times to work with him, and has since claimed that Gutierrez's brand of LT is not the Marxist kind denounced by the CDF. None of that 'mitigation' was apparent when Gutierrez was invited to the Vatican by JMB in what Vatican observers interpreted rightly as Bergoglian rehabilitation of LT - socialist LT, if you do not want to say Marxist - consistent with so many of his statements and his support of the Evo Morales-style 'popular movements'.]

True, in many cases, Cardinal Mueller is on the other side with regard to those theological currents developed around Pope Francis and that exploit the Pope by using him as a shield to bring about an “agenda of mercy” bereft of theological foundations. [Please, AG, stop blaming people around the pope for an 'agenda of mercy' that is completely his - in which he has consistently ignored the truth-and-justice elements that are always part of the Gospel passages on mercy. This is not just being 'bereft of theological foundations' - it is a deliberate distortion of the Gospel.] But Mueller’s opposition to these currents does not make him an enemy of the Pope. [Not that his 'opposition' has been active in any way - it has been mostly indirect, by way of generic statements of Catholic doctrine that he writes about or talks about, while openly endorsing Amoris laetitia as an unexceptionable statement of Catholic teaching. JMB keeps him there as CDF Prefect because he can used him - being a known protege and close associate of B16 - to trump opponents of his multiple heterodoxies ("Mueller is my CDF Prefect, and he hasn't faulted me - who are you to do so???")

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Pope Benedict XVI’s Secretary of State, has always been targeted with even specious accusations. But he never publicly criticizes Pope Francis, and he has also worked as a sort of hidden collaborator for the Pope. For example, Bertone’s experience with Cuba brought him to be a facilitator of the rehabilitation of US-Cuba relations, considered to be Pope Francis’s first diplomatic success. [And to whose benefit, so far, if at all?]

Certainly, all of these people are loyal to Benedict XVI; they share his approach, they defend the work done during his pontificate. They can disagree with Pope Francis, but nothing they say or do [nothing they have said or done] can be considered as opposition or disloyalty to the Pope.

Most likely, the Pope’s enemies should be sought elsewhere. One of the major issues of the day is the narrative being generated around this pontificate. [Being generated by whom? Isn't it by the Vatican itself, and the Bergoglian courtiers, aided and abetted by the media?] It describes this pontificate as a revolutionary one, and it defines every move of Pope Francis as brand-new, whereas it also obscures certain aspects, such as the Pope’s strong stances against gender ideology, in favor of the natural family, and even – speaking about reforms – his general support for a hierarchical Church. Certainly, none of these issues are part of the agenda in the official narrative. [There you are, AG! You yourself call it 'the official narrative'!]

To some extent, one would be correct in thinking that pointing the finger at the old establishment is a rather useful tactic for hiding what the new establishment is doing. [Really??? As if pointing innumerable fingers against 'the old establishment' has not been a feature of the Vatican since the pre-Conclave days of 2013! As if JMB himself had not recently told his La Nacion interviewer that Benedict's resignation 'brought to light all the problems of the Church' - a euphemism for what he and his electors hammered home every way they could in the pre-Conclave - that Benedict XVI was responsible for the whole mess that the Church was in, and hallelujah, good riddance!]

Under Pope Francis, there has not been a very large spoils system in operation. [Which implies that there was, under his predecessors. If anything, the story was that in pontificate after pontificate, incompetent people were left in place to run the Vatican bureaucracy.

While just a few curial posts have changed, Vatican diplomats have gained positions of power and influence as never happened under Pope Benedict. [And is that not a 'spoils system', favoring specifically the 'diplomats'?]

The diplomats’ influence is not proved by the choice of Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a long-term diplomat, as Secretary of State. The influence is proved instead when long-standing diplomats are chosen for non-diplomatic posts, as, for example, Cardinal Beniamino Stella as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, and Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri as General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops.

Some of the reconstructions by observers say that Cardinal Stella played a very important role in bringing about Pope Francis’s “revolution of mercy” within the Vatican ranks. [What exactly does AG mean by 'Vatican ranks'? The rank and file of the Curial Bureaucracy? And what clout exactly might he have with them?]

Cardinal Stella was reportedly a reference point during the pre-2013 Conclave meetings, when he was still an archbishop and President of the Ecclesiastical Academy (the Vatican training center for diplomats). He allegedly worked as a matchmaker, as a meeting point or a mail box for some of the Cardinals who were going to take part to the Conclave. [In other words, a henchman for the Sankt-Gallen mafia!]

Later, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Cardinal Stella has made some changes in the modus operandi. For example, it is rumored that evaluation boards for priests or seminarians must now base their assessments on Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, rather than on the Code of Canon Law.

These details must not be underestimated. The impact of diplomacy in current Church government can be glimpsed in the new doctrine concerning the Holy See’s relations with States that takes its cue from the “culture of encounter” that Pope Francis has developed. Under this rubric it is time for negotiations and dialogue rather than for affirming truth. [Does AG realize what he has just written - that for this pope, truth takes second place behind 'negotiations and dialog', or to put it another way, 'negotiations and dialog' by this Vatican are not concerned with truth?]

And this new rationale is found at work among the issues involving diplomacy – for example, the Holy See has made the vocabulary of the United Nations its own, albeit with some qualifications, without being willing to make use of its own, new language. [It's called 'political correctness' - expedient indulgence in hypocrisy and double-talk . Is this what Catholics expect of the Holy See???]

Moreover, it is no surprise that no one from the Holy See defended Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera from accusations of homophobia in Spain, or protested that religion classes in Belgian schools have been cancelled.

This approach based on the culture of encounter might bear some fruit, however. ]['Culture of encounter' is a confusing term. I think what is meant is 'cultivating encounter (and dialog)' - as the preferred way of dealing with the world. Not being the 'sign of contradiction' that Jesus said his followers ought to be in the world.]

There is the possibility of a papal trip to China in the offing, supported by the fact that the “nunciature to China” in Taipei is still vacant after its highest ranking representative was appointed nuncio to Turkey; ecumenical relations are being developed on several levels, with the support given to the Pan-Orthodox Council, the meetings with Patriarch Kirill, and the renewed ecumenical approach to the Armenian Apostolic Church; and the Holy See is involved in various mediations, while not by chance Cardinal Parolin has considered opening an “Office for Papal Mediation”, perhaps the only one among the many proposals of curial reform rooted in a real papal tradition.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that discussion of major issues is choked by the specter of a revolution that eventually fizzles into a mere change of structures. [Was it not emblematic that all the talk about Curial reform in the first two years of this pontificate revolved around structural changes, and then suddenly, in December 2014, JMB mercilessly tonguelashes the Roman Curia for all their supposed moral and professional sins? Should he not have underscored the need for moral integrity and professionalism in the Curia from the very start, and not as a seeming afterthought 19 months into his pontificate? In fact, he did not do, and has yet to do, any housecleaning in the Curia - which should not be difficult when there are only 2500 persons involved - outside of getting rid of Cardinal Piacenza from the Congregation of the Clergy because he is too conservative.]

After the two synods on the family, it seems that no one wants to carry forward that particular discussion, perhaps because the Church’s peripheries showed a certain toughness in defending established doctrine, thus blocking the aims of those who were working out an agenda behind Pope Francis’s back. [Will you stop it, Gagliarducci??? Anything negative (from the viewpoint of Catholic orthodoxy) that happened in the synods was entirely out of JMB's own playbook and promoted assiduously by his known henchmen, not mythical 'people working behind the pope's back'.]

One motive for the push-back is that even behind synods, lobbies can operate to steer the definition of the Church’s positions and the contents of its documents.[DUH!] This happened during the 2014 Synod, as was seen in the controversial mid-term report. It happened with the final document of the 2015 Synod inasmuch as it did not reflect the totality of the synod members’ positions.

It happened even with the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, which in fact just put on the table all the issues at stake and left everything open as a matter of conscience, rather than giving clear indications. ['A matter of conscience' is an indirect way of saying 'individual discretion' because that is what the entire Bergoglian/Jesuitic discernment process is about. Of course, AL is not exactly coy about what its author's intent is - pastoral leniency as much as the individual bishop or priest considers appropriate.]

Another motive is that Pope Francis himself does not fully appreciate synodality. [No, AG! He is not that obtuse. He does know exactly what it is - he just practices it as his discretion and convenience!]

On the one hand, he enhanced the importance of the Synod of Bishops, established many commissions and appointed a Council of Cardinals to advise him on the government of the Church. But at the same time, he loves to make his own decision alone after listening to all opinions. [But isn't that what every pope has to do and has done? He's no different from his predecessors this way.]

This independence of Pope Francis [Please do not convert a leadership SOP into a virtue, as if this were a distinction specific to him alone!] is the main hurdle that promoters of the agenda of mercy have discovered in their project to change the Church, a project that is discussed in secular rather than divine terms. [Whoa! Whose project is it to change the Church? Who is the lead promoter of the agenda of mercy? Why does Gagliarducci insist on foisting Bergoglio's goals and methods on others, as if he had nothing to do with them?]

Hence, on the basis of the premise of dialoguing with the secular world, the Church, on this view, is not supposed to propose a model of life any more, but is supposed to conform itself to a model given by society. [Which is precisely the direction and goal of the church of Bergoglio.]

It is a more secular Church [which is a contradiction in terms, Mr G. – the Church of Christ is not supposed to be secular in any way!] , exactly the opposite of what the “Salt of the Earth Party” looked at when they campaigned for Pope Benedict XVI’s election in 2005.

This model [the church of Bergoglio, much more a reality today than simply being a 'model] is media friendly, and this is the reason why every step in a secular direction is praised by the secular world, thus creating a media image of the Church that is far from reality. [Well, aren't you in chronic denial, Mr. G? The media image of 'the Church' - really, of the church of Bergoglio - is exactly what JMB and his Vatican want the image to be, and have been laboring to make sure that image remains and is enhanced continually!]

The final risk is that of a Humanae Vitae effect, given that Blessed Paul VI’s famous encyclical was preceded by similar expectations carried forward through the media. [Please, spare us any talk of the HV effect - he had an 'HV moment' with AL but he chose anyway to live up to the worst orthodox expectations. Gagliarducci cannot argue that the 'program' of governance laid down by JMB in Evangelii gaudium and in Laudato si is not now being advanced in everything JMB and his Vatican say and do!]

It is easy then to focus media attention on suspicions surrounding Benedict XVI’s “establishment” in order to play down the fact that Pope Francis’s revolution is not taking place as some had hoped. [What 'establishment' exactly does Benedict XVI have, other than his little household (Mons. Gaenswein and the Memores)? His fairweather friends in the hierarchy turned on him the moment he was no longer pope, and the few genuine friends he may have in the Curia and the College of Cardinals have all chosen to keep their heads down and not expose themselves to retribution from the Bergoglian court.]

After three years of his papacy, Pope Francis’s reforms move ahead slowly. Wild claims that the Curia is being fundamentally changed, statements about the possibilities of reforms in doctrine [Really, Mr G? 'Reforms in doctrine'? Please be careful what you write] , even new ways to exercise the Petrine ministry, were expected. Now, no one is expecting them anymore.

During the papal trip to Armenia June 24-26, the Armenian Apostolic Church showed huge appreciation for the Pope and his effort in favor of 'an ecumenism of blood, meeting and prayers'. [Dear Lord, what a meaningless phrase11] But nothing more.

Asked whether the Pope was going to establish something like a Council where Pope and Patriarchs were on a par, thus making concrete the synodality that the Armenian Apostolic Church looks for, Archbishop Kahjog Barsamian of the US Armenian Apostolic Church said clearly that nothing of that sort is in the offing.

That means that theological debates will produce no tremors, since for Pope Francis meetings and examples are more important than theology. Hence, we can easily foresee there will be no theological earthquakes. [Can we really expect any non-destructive 'theology' from this Pontificate?]

The final suspicion is that we are currently witnessing a long “end of pontificate” era. This does not mean that this pontificate is coming to an end soon. It means that Pope Francis’s major themes will be insistently reiterated, feeding his popularity with meetings, but without theological roots that can produce real, concrete and long-term changes.

[Oh yes, he can produce real, concrete, longterm changes even without theology. Bergoglian theology is, in effect, whatever he says. What theology, for example, is behind his legislation of fast, easy and virtually free declarations of marriage nullity? Or his dissimulated 'open sesame' for Eucharistic sacrilege in AL? Or his persistent refusal to say that homosexual practice and unmarried cohabitation are chronic states of mortal sin?]

Some Vatican observers note that this outcome can be glimpsed by the way the latest motu proprios were written, and from the fact that both the new dicasteries and the yet-to-be-established dicasteries are still not included in an apostolic constitution that could gave them a legal framework to operate in the Roman Curia. [Is that not more a criticism of the Bergoglio Vatican's bureaucratic sloppiness than of anything else?]

During this month of vacation [two actually - July and August, even if July will be interrupted by WYD 2016 in Cracow], while holding private meetings, reading, studying dossiers and preparing for the World Youth Day in Poland, Pope Francis will be called to reflect on how to give definite shape to his pontificate. [You think??? I'd say he would think himself very successful so far, indeed, in building the church of Bergoglio as a parasitic incubus that it is on the back of the Roman Catholic Church! Or, to put it more charitably but with the same effect, that he is well on his way to changing the Church instituted by Christ as he thinks it ought to be!]

Will it just be an extraordinary pontificate of people [What is that, exactly?], but yet transitional, with no theological high points, only a change in the profile of bishops? Or will it be a pontificate that produces something profoundly new in terms of theology, or at least in terms of Church government? [What about a pontificate of chaos, which is what it has been so far?]

Vatileaks journalists cleared,
PR consultant and priest found guilty
by Rosie Scammell


VATICAN CITY, July 7, 2016 - A Vatican court has convicted a priest and a PR executive over their roles in leaking secret documents to two journalists, ending a trial during which scandal and intrigue returned to haunt the seat of the Roman Catholic church.

Eight months after the Vatican launched its case against five defendants caught up in the “Vatileaks II” scandal, only one – the Spanish monsignor Angel Lucio Vallejo Balda – will be heading for a jail cell in the city state.

Announcing their verdict on Thursday, judges ordered the priest to serve 18 months in prison for leaking confidential documents to the reporters Emiliano Fittipaldi and Gianluigi Nuzzi, who wrote books exposing the inner workings of the Vatican.

Francesca Chaouqui, an Italian public relations consultant, was given a 10-month suspended sentence [it means she does not have to spend any time in jail - there goes her martyrdom fantasy of writing her memoirs while in jail!]] and the court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over Fittipaldi and Nuzzi, who received the leaked documents on Italian rather than Vatican soil, and therefore could not convict them. [If it did not have jurisdiction over them, why did it try them to begin with???]The fifth defendant, Nicola Maio, who worked as Balda’s assistant, was acquitted.

The sentences, which came after a lengthy trial dominated by accusations of mafia ties, threats and romance, not to mention serious concerns over the Vatican’s commitment to press freedom, were more lenient than those requested by prosecutors, who had called for Chaouqui and Balda to serve more than three years each in jail.

Before the trial, Fittipaldi and Nuzzi said they risked sentences of up to eight years, based on the Vatican’s strict anti-leaks law, a possibility that alarmed media groups. [But surely their lawyers ought to have known that the Vatican court had no jurisdiction over them and should have asked that the charges against them be dismissed outright before the trial went forward!]

The books by Nuzzi, Merchants in the Temple, and Fittipaldi, Avarice, alleged widespread financial mismanagement and waste at the heart of the Catholic church. The journalists exposed the workings of a Vatican commission set up in 2013 to advise Pope Francis on reforming the Vatican bureaucracy.

Balda was an obvious choice for the papal commission because of his work at the Vatican’s prefecture for economic affairs, although the inclusion of Chaouqui, a laywoman, raised some eyebrows. The pope has since described their appointments as a mistake. [He did???? When was that?]

Fittipaldi said he had spent years working on his investigation before receiving a limited number of documents from Balda, whereas closer ties were established between Balda and Nuzzi. The books revealed strong resistance among the Vatican hierarchy to Francis’s transparency drive, and detailed lavish spending and a lack of accountability.

In March, Balda admitted having passed information to journalists but suggested he had been coerced into it.

While the trial may serve as a warning to other insiders considering speaking to journalists, it shone a greater spotlight on the secretive Vatican, and the two books became bestsellers.

The Vatican’s chief spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi, rejected suggestions that the trial had been an over-reaction. “It needed to be done, to demonstrate the will to fight with determination the manifestations and the mistaken consequences of internal Vatican tensions and controversies,” he said.

Indiscretion and leaking documents to the media had negative consequences on public opinion, Lombardi said in a statement, arguing that people had a right to “objective and clear information”.

The work of Fittipaldi and Nuzzi is regarded has having already had a positive impact on Vatican policy. They exposed a lack of accounting in the sainthood process, which could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds a time. In March, the pope tightened controls on the path to canonisation, ordering more stringent bookkeeping and greater supervision during staff investigations into whether a person qualifies for saint status. [Strange that not one Vaticanista has bothered to report this story in detail for the benefit of the great majority who do not and will never have access to the expose books. And that the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood has not presented its case to the public - as if, or unless, the allegations made are all true, and thus, the necessary corrections have been made. I feel terrible that Cardinal Amato has to be associated with all this.]

The court case against the journalists began to fall apart [Apparently, they never should have been tried in the Vatican, to begin with, as the Vatican has no jurisdiction over Italian citizens when their supposed crime took place in Italy, not at the Vatican] when Balda admitted he had not been directly threatened by the two journalists. But during the trial he said he feared repercussions from Chaouqui, who he believed had powerful connections in Italy. Chaouqui dismissed the Spanish priest’s claims that she was a high-ranking secret service agent or could appeal to the mafia for support.

One of her lawyers, Laura Sgro, told the court this week that Chaouqui should not be convicted just because she was “unlikeable, unpleasant, insufferable, arrogant and presumptuous”. [What kind of woman is this if her own lawyer can volunteer to say all that about her in court?]

The Italian was pregnant during the trial and recently gave birth to a son, Pietro, whom she vowed to take to jail with her if convicted and given a custodial sentence.

Balda has been in custody since November, although he has recently been allowed out on day release. He will have three days to appeal against the verdict, although he could put his hopes in a papal pardon.

The priest’s conviction came four years after the first Vatileaks scandal, in which Nuzzi published the private correspondence of Pope Benedict XVI. The pope’s butler, Paolo Gabriele, was jailed in October 2012 after he admitted having handed over the secret documents. Gabriele claimed he acted out of love for the Catholic church and the pope, who pardoned him after two months in prison.

Lombardi said on Thursday it would be up to Francis to decide whether or not to pardon Balda and Chaouqui.

It is, of course, unfair to lay all the blame on the Archbishop of Vienna for articulating in more explicit terms what his master only 'suggests' in appropriately hedged but hardly enigmatic ways! After all, with his 'communion for everyone' policy in Buenos Aires, JMB has been advocating Eucharistic sacrilege far more openly than Schoenborn even dares articulate today. But of course, no one dares say the future pope was, in fact, aiding and abetting Eucharistic sacrilege. In fact, everyone pretends that the family synods and AL were JMB's first efforts to universalize Eucharistic leniency, which is simply a euphemism for sacrilege.

Cardinal Schoenborn and
his explicit invitation to sacrilege
by Paolo Deotto
Translated from

July 8, 2016

The Archbishop of Vienna, interviewed by [Pope Francis's chief surrogate for now and unofficial chief spokesman] Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, should rid all kindly-inclined persons of every illusion:Amoris laetitia is Magisterium.

He also adds that "in certain cases", persons in an objective state of sin may avail of the sacraments. Which is called, whether you like it or not, a permit to commit sacrilege.

The 'astuteness' [the proper word is casuistry] with which the anime belle (let us call them that, to put it mildly) [which is not putting it mildly at all, though certainly euphemistically, because in Italian, 'anima bella', which literally means beautiful soul, is an expression used to describe a misguided person in general] have been using to justify the incredible papal affirmations in AL is this: It is not Magisterium, it is merely the pope's opinion on matters related to the family.

A grotesque claim clearly, and in any case, contradictory, because it would be singular for any pope to express his personal opinion on matters involving faith and doctrine. [In fairness, eminent commentators like Cardinal Burke who insist that neither AL nor Evangelii gaudium constitute 'magisterium' say this is so because, on many points, they contradict the Magisterium as it stood before March 13, 2013. But to the great masses of the faithful out there, 'magisterium' is whatever the pope says, and this pope himself has said that whatever he says is magisterium. So why quibble on a theoretical point that has no practical consequences whatsoever on the damaging effects of these Bergoglian documents, whether you consider them magisterial or not???]

In short, we have the singular case of a pontiff who alternates between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And when he is being Mr Hyde, he calmly blasts forth heretical statements. [Heretical-sounding, maybe, but so far, he has been very careful not to be caught out, in writing or orally, saying anything that meets the full definition of heresy according to the Code of Canon Law.]

One has to sympathize with the beautiful souls n0netheless. Some, through a misguided sense of duty "The boss is always right"), others out of mere servility, others for congenital inability to use their reason, but regardless, they all need to clutch at straws [the Italian idiom used is 'arrampicarsi sugli specchi', literally 'climbing up mirrors', a far stronger image to suggest futility] in trying to square the circle. [Which is all completely unnecessary striving. Even in simple literal terms, magisterium means teaching (teaching authority is its formal definition in the ecclesial context). Surely, Cardinal Burke et al are not questioning the fact that whatever the pope - any pope - says or does is 'teaching' in some way, which is the way JMB and probably 90% of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics understand it.]

Corriere della Sera published an 8-page English excerpt of the interview given by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn to Fr. Spadaro. Remember that Pope Francis himself named Schoenborn as the authentic interpreter of AL, so drop your illusions! The 'beautiful souls' should come tumbling down fast from those mirrors.
www.laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/extra/INTERVISTA%20SCHONBORN%20ING...
Here is a sampling:

---

It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is clear that the Pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two Synods.

I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the Word of God.

I have read it many times, and each time I note the delicacy of its composition and an ever greater quantity of details that contain a rich teaching.

There is no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively. This can be recognized from the tone and the content of what is said, when we relate these to the intention of the text – for example, when the Pope writes: “I urgently ask …”, “It is no longer possible to say …”, “I have wanted to present to the entire Church …”, and so on.

AL is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the Church present and relevant today. Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. [Excuse me, say again!THAT IS QUITE A REVERSAL OF WHAT THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS TAUGHT - THAT NEW 'TEACHINGS' MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS MAGISTERIUM, which is what Archbishop Chaput did in issuing his diocesan guidelines for the implementation of AL. For which the Mayor of Philadelphia denounced him as 'not being Christian'.]

---

Can Schoenborn be any clearer???
I don't claim to make any deep analysis of the interview [From the eight pages I've read, every word and every sentence appears to cry out to be fisked! I mean, Schoenborn has really flipped his noggin completely in total and abject servility to JMB. It is unbelievable.] But I think it is useful to dwell on a few words that show us, with immodest clarity, how relativism has come to dominate some 'theology'. According to which it is perfectly right that AL is an act of magisterium, without the slightest equivocation. Of which magisterium it purports to be, is something else!

Let us read this passage with close attention:

---

Q: The Pope states that “in some cases,” when a person is in an objective situation of sin – but without being subjectively guilty, or without being totally guilty – it is possible to live in the grace of God, to love, and to grow in the life of grace and of charity, receiving for this purpose the help of the Church – including the sacraments, and even the eucharist – which “is not a reward for those who are perfect, but a generous medicine and a nourishment for those who are weak.” How can this affirmation be integrated into the classical doctrine of the Church? Is there a rupture here with what was affirmed in the past?
[After a great deal of contortionist casuistry, Schoenborn's answer ends with more casuistry:] The Pope invites us not only to look at the external conditions (which have their own importance), but also to ask ourselves whether we have this thirst for a merciful pardon, so that we may respond better to the sanctifying dynamism of grace. [One understands from this that having 'a thirst for pardon' converts the sin from being an objective state of sin to not being sin subjectively. Schoenborn does not even have the presence of mind to add to the thirst for pardon "the firm resolve to do penance and to amend my life" which makes up the rest of the Act of Contrition! Why do we even need confession, when all we have to do is 'thirst for pardon' and voila!, we are no longer in an objective state of sin! Surely, no one needs a doctorate in theology from the Sorbonne as Schoenborn has, to see what a well-catechized First Communicants knows clearly.]

One cannot pass from the general rule to “some cases” merely by looking at formal situations. It is therefore possible that, in some cases, one who is in an objective situation of sin can receive the help of the sacraments.

---

So here, Schoenborn has somehow 'officialized' interesting new categories: the 'objective situation of sin' in which, however, one may not be 'subjectively guilty' or 'not entirely'. The chaos of the question is not accidentally followed by the equally not accidental chaos of the answer.

Thus we learn that one can be in sin but not really in sin, or be in sin but not entirely in sin [It's like saying someone is half-virgin!] the moment the distinction is made between the 'objective' and 'subjective' situation of sin! [What the hell is a subjective state of sin, anyway? The sinner gets to decide whether he has sinned or not??? Sin is sin, and the sin of adultery, in the case on hand, is clearly defined objectively.]

And what about he who has sinned "but not entirely" - what should he do? Repent but only percentually? Nonetheless, "in certain cases" (which cases, we are not told) [this has to be 'discerned' by the priest or bishop along with the sinning couple whom they are 'accompanying', so AL tells us - therefore, theoretically, it could be any and all cases!], whoever is in an objective state of sin - without specifics as to whether he has 'subjectively' sinned, or sinned only partially - can receive 'the help of the sacraments'.

But is not the only 'help' a sinner can receive absolution at confession? Which carries with it sincere repentance and the resolve not to persist in sin.

No, Schoenborn and AL speak of 'sacraments', plural, and since everyone has blathered on - pardon, debated enough - on whether remarried divorcees should be given communion, hello!, we find out that practically everyone can receive communion because the apparent chaos of situations of sin that are 'objective', 'subjective','not entirely sin', really embraces everyone. The [studied] generic scope of 'in certain cases' obviously is meant to open the door to the most diverse interpretations.

But it remains incontrovertible that "Whoever eats the Bread and drinks from the chalice of the Lord unworthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation".

Though one would say that [in the church of Bergoglio] this is of no concern any more. Obviously, eternal salvation no longer counts among the interests of this singular new church which expresses its own 'magisterium'. Such that the statements from Schoenborn reported above
constitute a permit for sacrilege.

In closing, I will limit myself to underscoring one thing only: This mishmash (and the rest of it which you can read in the link) does not come from just any joker out there tossing out para-theological bizarreries. It comes from Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna, named to us by the pope himself as the best interpreter of AL.

Everything is that much more terribly clear. God help us!

If I had the time and the wherewithal, I would perhaps be able to put together a small book by now about how the man who was the chairman of the editorial committee that put together the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church has in the past several years seen fit to be the living incarnation of virtual and actual violations of what the Catechism says. Before AL, it was chiefly against the Catechism's teachings on homosexuality. After AL, he has now proceeded to contradict the Catechism on the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and matrimony, as well as the nature of sin and of God's grace.

Yet he has apparently drunk in too much of the infernal libations of Bergoglio Kool-Aid that he does not seem to realize the enormity of his transgression - or even, that he is transgressing any way. The Christian thing is to pray for him and all his fellow belle anime especially their supreme mastermind.

P.S. Will Fr. Fessio or Fr. Twomey, or anyone in the Ratzinger Schuelerkreis, please disavow the false statements that have been made by their 'colleague by courtesy' - and most unfortunately, I believe, still president of the Schuelerkreis Foundation?[Schoenborn was not a bona fide student of Prof. Ratzinger in Regensburg, though it seems he sat in on some of his courses for a semester or two.]

PPS - With all due respect, I do not see why Fr. Z argues AL is not Magisterium because JMB himself 'says so' in Paragraph 3, to wit:

---

3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. [Fr. Z's note: Did you get that? If not, go back to the beginning and read it again.] Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it.

---

And according to the good father,

---

This is the only reference to “magisterium” in all of Amoris laetitia. Did you get that, too? Because “time is greater than space”, he sets aside the concept of magisterium in the THIRD PARAGRAPH.

---

Maybe I've lost my ability to understand English, but the bolded statement from AL does not say AL is not an 'intervention of Magisterium'. It says Magisterium does not always have to intervene in 'settling' issues, and it makes more sense to think JMB was referring to the fact that he deliberately 'left open' to discernment, etc, the most important issue he needed to settle in AL.

Which is not to say that AL was not intended to be magisterial at all. Quite apart from JMB's self-assertion that everything he says and does is Magisterium, there is the fact that 98% of those who have commented on AL, including Fr Z, have felt obliged to acknowledge that other than Chapter 8, much of the rest of the document is an 'admirable, poetic, passionate' Bergoglian repackaging of the Magisterium as we know it.. So all that carefully gift-wrapped orthodox ballast is not Magisterium either??? I rest my case.

In order not to open another 'anti-JMB' post unncessarily, let me add on this item here from an Italian online journal. Too bad they did not put a byline to the piece:

A pope who divides:
Is he not criticable?
Translated from

July 6, 2016

Prudence is a Christian virtue, and imposes that we carefully weigh judgment, especially if it is about a pope. Because no pope, as pope, is immune from being judged.

That is because no pope possesses power on his own, since he is a Vicar who has been entrusted with the deposit of faith, namely, something that already exists - which could be developed and better understood but never changed.

Blessed John Henry Newman taught us, among other things, the importance of listening to our conscience, that is, to a rightly formed Catholic conscience ("I would raise a toast to conscience first, and only after, to the Pope")..

But at the same time, he reminded us, in commenting on the dogma of papal infallibility [new in his time], how much it is limited to specific actions and circumstances.

"Undoubtedly, there are papal actions in which no one would have wished to have any part," he wrote, adding that the teaching Church has not always been, in history, "the most active instrument of infallibility: consider the Arian crisis".

"Was Peter infallible," he asks, "when Paul opposed him to his face in Antioch? Or was St. Victor infallible when he separated the churches of Asia from communion with Rome, or Liberius when he excommunicated St. Athanasius?"

Reasoning this way, Newman said he was saying nothing new, citing illustrious theologians from the past like Cardinal Torquemada and St. Robert Bellarmine.

Said Torquemada: "If the pope ordered something contrary to Sacred Scripture, the articles of faith, the truth of the sacraments, the commandments of divine and natural law, he must not be obeyed, and we do not need to concern ourselves about such contrary orders."

And St. Robert Bellarmine [Jesuit and subsequently Doctor of the Church], said:

---

In order to resist and defend oneself, we do not need any authority... Therefore, just as it is licit to resist a pope if he assailed a person physically, it is equally licit to resist him when he assails souls... and more so when he tries to destroy the Church. It is licit to resist him, I declare, by not doing what he commands and impeding the execution of his projects. (cited by J.H. Newman in Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)

---

Finally, Newman recalled the importance of the lay faithful in the history of the Church in keeping the barque of Peter steady throughout various circumstances in history.

Well, it so happens that today, while there is much talk about laymen and their role; while the Pope is praising Luther (who considered the papacy a diabolical institution that had to be toppled); while decentralization from the Vatican is all the talk; while collegiality and synodality are evoked at every step...an internal debate within the Church appears to have become impossible.

Whoever dares murmur about his perplexity in the face of some papal actions (like his unqualified praise of Napolitano, Bonino and Pannella) or of specific doctrinal statements, automatically becomes a reprobate, a schismatic, an enemy of the pope.

Friends of the Church and of the pope, instead, are persons like Luther, Pannella, Scalfari... while enemies are cardinals who under the past two popes were held in the greatest esteem. It seems that the courage to speak now belongs only to a few laymen, Vaticanistas like Tosatti, Valli, Socci, Magister...

Around Francis, like a Praetorian guard, are those who yesterday had dismissed and fought the magisterium of Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Thus, as never in recent memory, one breathes despondency in the Church, an empty triumphalism, a rhetoric fed by the major secular newspapers who continue to speak of 'the Bergoglio effect' - even if
confessions have not increased, fewer people to to Sunday Mass, there are fewer vocations - that the pope's incense-burners purported to see in the first months of his Pontificate.

Instead, what he have is great confusion, great disconcertment, about a pope who speaks much about secular politics (Trump, Pannella, Argentine affairs, immigration policy...) but never when civilian laws would impact negatively on life issues and the family. Who speaks much about the poor but is cossetted by media in the hands of the wealthy bourgeoisie. Who welcomes Benigni and Di Caprio and
Scalfari but refuses to meet with persecuted orders (their founders and priests) who have been begging to see him for years...

Confusion, and division. Fueled by autocratic decisions like episcopal nominations that bypass the concerned congregation; by often very caustic statements against 'spinsterish' nuns, worldly priests, hard-of-heart Catholics; by a teaching that says substantially: "In the Church, everyone is at fault, except me... In the Church, it is I who discovered mercy, tenderness... Before me, there was nothing". Such that there are those who now speak of current church events, as not of the Catholic Church, or the Church of Christ, but of the church of Bergoglio.

Let us consider some of the latest statements given in one of his now numberless freewheeling interviews that have done much to inflate his figure in the media.

The interviewer asks: "What is your relationship with the ultra-conservatives in the Church?"

Now, one could answer such a question in many ways - diplomatically, to begin with. And one could first protest the polemic contained in the term 'ultra-conservative', which is one of the terms used to divide the Church into the good guys and the bad guys.

But no, this pope answers promptly and dismissively.

---

They do their work and I do mine. I want a church that is open and understanding, that accompanies 'wounded' families. They say NO to everything.

But I continue along my way without looking to the side. I don't cut off heads. I never enjoyed doing it. To them I repeat: I reject conflict. You can take off nails by applying pressure upwards. Or one can put them aside, until they reach retirement age.

---

[The smug hubris of these statements is unbelievable. Coming from a pope, yet!]

And who might these 'ultra-conservatives' be? Let us name names. The cardinals who did not approve of the method (its imposition) nor the merits in some key passages of Amoris laetitia: Pell, Mueller, Caffarra, Burke...the American synodal fathers, many of the African bishops and those from Eastern Europe...

How can a pope speak this way about some of his cardinals, whose duty, among other things, is to advice the pope? How can he deride them publicly and compare them to old nails?

How can a pope define himself for months as nothing but the Bishop of Rome; write Hans Kueng that the Petrine primacy can, yes, be considered debatable; plan a trip to commemorate someone who had tried to destroy the papacy and the Church herself in northern Europe;
and when he wants to decide something on his own against a majority, as in the 'family synods', declare that everything must be done cum Petro e sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter)?

And what does he mean when he says "They say no to everything"? These cardinals say No to abortion, divorce, adultery, same-sex marriage, and doing so, they are saying nothing new, nothing strange, but are merely reiterating what the Church and all the popes have always taught. Eight of the 10 Commandments say NO, and the Church has always taught that this NO is really a YES - YES to true love of God.

To measure the distance between this pope's way of speaking and that of Benedict XVI, one can note two things:
- Benedict never used and would never have used such harsh words against the progressivist cardinals who were adverse to him, and whom he never set aside as this pope did with Burke.
- He would never have fed the secular rhetoric that those who defend Catholic doctrine - 'doctors of the law who are hard of heart' - are persons who "say No to everything".

Benedict, in Caritas in veritate, said that those who see simple prohibition in the NOs which the Church insists upon have not really understood the moral of the Gospels: "...With this, the German philosopher [Nietszche] expressed a widespread perception: Does not the Church with her commandments and prohibitions spoil life's most beautiful things? Does she not perhaps raise cards of prohibition precisely where the joy predisposed for us by the Creator offers us a happiness that give us a foretaste of the divine? Is it really so?..."
[This is my translation of what the writer quotes, but I am not sure it comes from CIV... I am checking.]

And John Paul II? Evangelium vitae, Familiaris consortio, etc. say things other than what this pope says, and in a different language.

If he says things that contradict previous popes, if he publicly declares that after the 'family synods', things have 'changed' concretely, cannot laymen ask questions, discuss, try to understand and if necessary, object?

They can and they should.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 09/07/2016 13:15]

7/8/16 HEADLINES

From PewSitter


From Canon212



The very model of a bishop
in the image and likeness of JMB



On the latest Bergoglian gambit to wreckovate the US Church into the church of Bergoglio under surrogate Cupich....


Pope names left-wing Archbishop Cupich
to key role in picking future U.S. bishops
by Claire Chretien


July 7, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis has named Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich to serve as a member of the Congregation for Bishops, the Vatican office that recommends to the Pope candidates to be appointed bishops. The move has alarmed traditional-minded Catholics since Cupich has shown himself to be an extremely liberal bishop.

In this role, Cupich will now exercise one of the most prominent roles in deciding who to appoint as new bishops in the United States. Cupich is said to have been hand-picked by Pope Francis for his prominent position as Archbishop of Chicago.

Cupich will join Washington, D.C.'s Cardinal Donald Wuerl, who Pope Francis named to the congregation in December 2013 to replace Cardinal Raymond Burke. Burke had been credited with influencing several strong appointments to U.S. sees in the latter years of Pope Benedict XVI's pontificate.

The news of Cupich's appointment has been met with consternation by many U.S. Catholics because Cupich is a prominent “progressive” who has earned frequent criticism for his actions on issues such as life and family.

When he was the bishop of Spokane, Washington, Cupich requested that priests and seminarians of his diocese not participate in 40 Days for Life prayer vigils outside abortion facilities.

In August 2015, in the wake of the Center for Medical Progress videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking scandal, Cupich wrote that unemployment and hunger are just as appalling as killing children in the womb.

Cupich has openly contradicted Catholic canon law on giving Holy Communion to those in a state of mortal sin. Shortly after his appointment as Archbishop of Chicago, Cupich said that giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians can be a good thing.

Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law instructs those “conscious of grave sin” on their soul to refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

At the 2015 Synod on the Family, Cupich said that it is permissible for same-sex couples and the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion in accordance with their consciences.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, proper consciences are formed according to the teachings of the Church. “Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgements. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt,” the Catechism teaches (CCC 1801).

Cupich’s comments on the matter caused such a stir that another Illinois bishop, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, issued a public statement clarifying the Church’s teaching.

Cupich praised Pope Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia as a “game-changer” that could normalize his unorthodox approach to those living in situations the Church labels objectively sinful.

In 2002, when he was the Bishop of Rapid City, South Dakota, Cupich locked the doors of a Catholic parish during the Easter Triduum, one of the holiest points of the Catholic liturgical year, in order to prevent Traditional Latin Masses from taking place. The church was forced to hold its Good Friday liturgies on the sidewalk.

At Catholic World Report, editor Carl Olson comments:

---

After the news came out yesterday morning that Abp. Blaise Cupich of Chicago was named by Pope Francis to the Congregation for Bishops, veteran Vatican reporter Francis X. Rocca tweeted: "The pope has named Archbishop Cupich of Chicago to Vatican's congregation for bishops, a sign of where he intends to move US episcopate".

And where is that, exactly? To be rather blunt about it, Abp. Cupich's record, as it were, is underwhelming at best. He almost destroyed the seminaries in his two previous stops (Rapid City, SD, and Spokane, WA), and his record in Spokane was, in sum, anemic. Perhaps because he was hardly ever actually in the diocese, as I reported early last year:

---

The overall sense, expressed in varying degrees of detail, is that Cupich's time in Spokane was quite disappointing and frustrating, especially for those looking for vibrant, clear, and accessible leadership. Those familiar with Cupich's schedule and activities say that he was often out of the diocese for long periods of time, even more so than the amount of time Skylstad traveled while president of the USCCB. When Cupich was in the diocese, he was not readily available, rarely meeting with diocesan priests, especially not on an individual basis, although he apparently met often with certain, older Jesuit priests at Gonzaga.

---

And that is one of the more mild criticisms. Cupich is often described as "pastoral" [i.e., Bergoglio-like], but I've talked to some two dozen people who have first-hand knowledge of his style, and none of them use that word or anything similar to it. Quite the contrary. For more, see my editorial "A Tale of Two Bishops" (Feb 2015).

---

Even Rocco Palmo who normally drumbeats ardently for JMB is not exactly flattering in his reportage of the Cupich nomination:

The table has turned -
Pope sets Bishops a-Blase
by Rocco Palmo
WHISPERS IN THE LOGGIA
jULY 7, 2016

Well, that was quick – less than a month since Cardinal William Levada's 80th birthday left Washington's Cardinal Donald Wuerl as the lone American member of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope has added a second hand in his top Stateside pick to date.

At Roman Noon today, Francis tapped Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago to join the all-important Thursday Table, which recommends appointees to the pontiff across the developed world. The first Windy City prelate to sit among the 30 Hatmakers, the move provides a significant boost in the handling of the US's sprawling docket of nods [??? Does he mean pending episcopal appointments?], and likewise ensures that the process will produce choices in the "pastoral" mold [So even Palmo uses the inverted commas with 'pastoral'!] which the Pope explicitly indicated to the membership shortly after its 2013 reboot, and then reinforced to the Stateside bench in a potent message during last September's visit.

Having made a sound impression on Papa Bergoglio and his allies with his contributions at last year's Synod, it is nonetheless rather rich that Cupich – no stranger to the process from his days as an aide at the Washington Nunciature – has been named to the very body which Francis bypassed on the Chicago appointment, taking the file to himself upon its arrival in Rome to conduct his own consultations and make the choice alone. [So the idol has feet of clay, but Rocco won't be calling him His Clayiness the way he used to disparage Benedict XVI by the silly stupid sobriquet His Fluffiness!]

In any case, as Wuerl and Cupich have long had a sound working relationship in managing the rungs of the USCCB, the new arrangement is certain to make for a minimum of conflict, with the duo likely to split the respective oversight of nods East and West of the Mississippi, and forging a solid consensus in terms of votes...

Along those lines, it's critically important to recall the task both Wuerl and Cupich will trade off for the States as the ponente – the designated member who, in each case, is assigned to review the reams of documentation in depth to present a summary and recommendation to the entire congregation to guide its choice.

Had just one American remained on board, the home workload involved could've seen some files entrusted to the other two English-speaking members – Cardinals Vincent Nichols of Westminster or George Pell, the Australian prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy. Now, the domestic files will remain in domestic hands, and given the congregation's freedom to disregard a Nuncio's terna [the list of three names a Nuncio usually submits as his recommendations for a vacant episcopal post in the country where he serves] – which has been exercised with some frequency over the last decade on US picks – some interesting results are practically bound to crop up.

At the same time, another competence of the congregation bears noting: far more than merely providing for appointments, Bishops enjoys sweeping authority to investigate prelates for alleged misconduct and recommend their removal from office.

Having scored high marks for his handling of abuse, child protection and other good-governance issues both as a diocesan bishop and USCCB chair [HE HAS????], as Cupich has already made a public call to urge the effective implementation of Franciss' new norms to combat abuse of office by bishops and religious superiors, he's now been placed squarely in a position to push the project to a thorough conclusion[Sounds ominous for any 'conservative', i.e., orthodox, bishops and religious superiors, if there are any left out there!]...

Two days late, mea maxima culpa, and thanks to Rorate caeli for this beautiful reminder. I particularly appreciate the use of the Memorare,
one of the prayers that was a daily staple in my Catholic grade-school years.

Sometimes the banner can mean an expression of eye-rolling exasperation, as in "Mercy me!" or "Lord have mercy!"

Fr. Schall gives us another one of his illuminating reflections on mercy at a time when it must be the most misused and abused word
in the Catholic lexicon - abused to the point of distortion as to be meaningless or non-sensical.

Jesus gave priests the power to forgive
as well as to retain forgiveness
by James V. Schall, S.J.

TUESDAY, JULY 5, 2016

Mercy – and forgiveness-talk – is, of late, almost non-stop. The mercy of God, we know, may forgive any sin, except, perhaps, that one against the Holy Ghost. [Much has been written about this, more commonly referred to as 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit', which amounts to continued unbelief in Jesus and therefore of God's work in him.] That latter one has more to do with the one needing forgiveness than with God’s stated inability to forgive it.

If someone firmly “wills” not to be forgiven, he cannot be forgiven. Or, better, he cannot receive the consequences of God’s forgiveness. If he could be forgiven but still “will” the sin, he would himself be God, though a voluntarist one, one who makes good to be evil. Such a god is not God.

Because God has the power to forgive all sins, it does not follow that all sins will therefore be forgiven. It depends on the sinner. Mercy is a secondary issue. It is not needed unless something goes wrong in the world.

In a sinless world, no one needs mercy. Still, it is not a sinless world, however much we might deny, privately and publicly, that certain sins are not sins.

Before anything needing forgiveness existed, Aquinas held that the universe was created in mercy, not justice. God was not necessitated to create anything. Creation did not occur because God “owed” something to someone in justice. God in creating did understand that free creatures, if He created any of these wobbly types, might well need mercy in addition to justice. So he proceeded with His plan.

Mercy is not “opposed” to justice, as if it makes justice somehow disappear in God and man. It is not either mercy or justice, but both justice and mercy. Mercy comes into play only when justice is requited.

In John’s Gospel (20:23), the disciples receive the Holy Spirit. Then, they are told: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, are retained.” We hear a good deal about the first part of this sentence but little of the last part, this “whose sins you shall retain.” The “retaining” of sins means that they are not forgiven.

A couple of things seem to be clear, at least in logic. Things that are not sins do not need to be forgiven. Most of the things we do are not “sins.” Even to someone who denies that sins exist (if there be such, and there seem to be), the logic is clear. Some things we do or think are sins; others are not. We can identify both what are sins and whether we decided to put them into effect. If someone thinks it is a sin to brush his teeth in the morning, he does not need forgiveness but information, though even erroneous consciences bind.

Thus, the power to forgive sins is bound up with the retention of sins. Which ones are to be forgiven? Which ones retained? What sins ought to be “retained”? A confessor is not free to forgive what ought to be retained. What, in other words, are the principles of retention?

The Gospels, it strikes me, have no doubt that some sins should be “retained.” With all due respects to those theories that want to empty hell and save everyone, they seem, if true, to undermine any need to worry about our sins. They will be forgiven no matter what we do. But that is not possible. If no act on our part exists to indicate that we realize what a sin is and that we did it, we cannot be in the forgiveness business.

Forgiveness demands something to be forgiven and, not least, some indication that we want to be forgiven. We acknowledge that we destroyed the order of good in our sins. I, for one, do not want a God who simply “forgives,” no questions asked, no demands made.

What sins are “retained”? Only those that we present or fail to present to be judged as to what they are, along with our participation in their coming to be. The act of “retention” belongs to the same one who is given the power to forgive. Grounds of retention are many – denying that sins are sins, denying that we knew what we were doing, denying that the power to forgive or retain exists.

“Retention” is an act every bit as solemn as forgiveness, perhaps more so. If those in charge of forgiveness and retention obscure or obliterate the difference so that everything is forgiven, no matter what, the very purpose of Christ’s delegation is defeated.

This retention, paradoxically, is mercy. It is the mercy of truth that comes to the sinner. He knows “officially” that he is not in good standing with his God or himself. Only if he knows this truth about himself can he realize that he still must acknowledge and repent.

To call a sin a sin is simultaneously an act of courage, justice, and mercy.



Also from THE CATHOLIC THING, though not about mercy. This about a remarkable 17th-century 'Renaissance man' whose name has come up quite frequently these days, mostly because of his classic denunciations of Jesuit casuistry in his day - which he called more or less as extended excuses to allow sin. Hmmm, why does that sound so familiar and immediate????

Pascal’s fire
by Robert Royal

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016

I’ve been thinking a lot about Blaise Pascal (1623-62) lately, a great mathematician and scientist, as well as a great Christian apologist and controversialist. Imagine, say, Stephen Hawking crossed with Hillaire Belloc, and you start to take the measure of the man – a very useful type in an age of seemingly endless controversy.

In the mid-seventeenth century, people began to feel the collapse of the old geocentric science, “tis all in pieces, all coherence gone,” John Donne wrote at the time.

The ancient Ptolemaic system with earth at the bottom (not “the center,” as C. S. Lewis shows in his great little book The Discarded Image) was a pagan, not a Christian model. Dante used it marvelously to sort sins and vices, virtues and holiness. But it wasn’t essential to Christianity.

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician, developing our understanding of conic sections and cycloids in geometry, and studying probability (in his not very worldly “worldly” period, he tried out the numbers in betting establishments.) In his early teens, he invented a kind of computer, correctly understood vacuums (as Descartes did not), and much more.

But Pascal also thought about cosmology in a novel way, still not much appreciated by the world. The old hierarchical order was psychologically satisfying, but the new universe – essentially the sprawling, horizontal one we still have – lacked a proper vision of our human place in creation.

“Pascal’s Wager” – that it’s better, even in mere mathematics, to bet on the existence of an infinite God than not – is well known. That argument never really moved anyone, however, and maybe was not even intended to do more than merely to state a fact.

But in cosmology, Pascal made a brilliant move. The modern universe is much larger than the older one, and God larger still. Indeed, Pascal realized that the universe revealed by the new science was still finite. It’s a textbook definition that God is infinite, which is to say, not finite. He’s not an object in the world, not even the whole world, but immeasurably beyond the world.

Spiritually speaking, that means we cannot go to God on our own steam. In mathematics, if you move 1, or 1000, or 1,000,000 miles closer to an infinitely distant point, it’s still infinitely distant. We may turn our minds and hearts to God and find Him, of course. But that’s because He crosses the infinite distance between Himself and us. He alone has the infinite power needed to do so.

An abstract view, you may say. Until you realize that this might be a mathematical way of suggesting why Jesus needed to come to us. We couldn’t go to Him; He made the crucial move first.

At the same time, Pascal looked at the infinitely small, all the way down to absolute nothingness: no matter, energy, time, space. In a way, we – as created beings – are infinitely greater than nothing because it took God’s infinite power to bring us into being out of nothing. No being in our cosmos can cause another being to exist ex nihilo. It’s a power that transcends all the beings and forces in the universe.

It was in this strange in-betweenness of human life that Pascal rooted his view of us as wretched and exalted: wretched in our poverty, weakness, and sin; exalted in our position not only as created beings, but a special kind of being that can understand its own position in Creation. His most famous work, Pensées (Thoughts), is an unfinished effort to show how the Bible offers precise answers to the big questions.

Pascal worked out all of this while being involved in various religious controversies. The first, with the Jesuits, who in his day, he believed, were using a false casuistry to exonerate wealthy penitents and confuse moral judgments.

For a taste of how Pascal skewered them, try the Provincial Letters, especially number 4, which begins: “Nothing can come up to the Jesuits. I have seen Jacobins, doctors, and all sorts of people in my day, but such an interview as I have just had was wanting to complete my knowledge of mankind.”

Controversy, however, was only valuable for him as a means to an end. There’s an old Zen Buddhist proverb: “Better to see the face than hear the name.” After all the polemics and analysis, Pascal was granted a special grace. After his death, there was found, sewn into his clothes, a memorial that read:

---

The year of grace 1654,
Monday, 23 November, feast of St. Clement, pope and martyr, and others in the martyrology.
Vigil of St. Chrysogonus, martyr, and others.
From about half past ten at night until about half past midnight,

FIRE.

GOD of Abraham, GOD of Isaac, GOD of Jacob
not of the philosophers and of the learned.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
GOD of Jesus Christ.
My God and your God.
Your GOD will be my God.
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except GOD.
He is only found by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Grandeur of the human soul.
Righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you.
Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy.
I have departed from him:
They have forsaken me, the fount of living water.
My God, will you leave me?
Let me not be separated from him forever.
This is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and the one that you sent, Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ.
I left him; I fled him, renounced, crucified.
Let me never be separated from him.
He is only kept securely by the ways taught in the Gospel:
Renunciation, total and sweet.
Complete submission to Jesus Christ and to my director.
Eternally in joy for a day’s exercise on the earth.
May I not forget your words. Amen.

---

Two HOURS of illumination. There is perhaps nothing like it – or Pascal – in all Christian history. We could do with another such Christian today.

Left, 'John the Evangelist sees the Great Whore', illumination, ca. 1450. Right, Pinterest image of the Woman Clothed with the Sun''

The writer, only 46, is one of Spain's most awarded literary authors and is also a journalist who writes regularly for the ABC newspaper, and wrote for L'Osservatore Romano during the Benedict XVI years. His most memorable article, to me, was one in which he answered frivolous allegations about Benedict XVI's 'luxury tastes' starting with the British canard soon taken as gospel truth that his papal red shoes are from Prada [no relation]. Prada's answer: 'Benedict does not wear Prada - he wears Christ'....Now it appears he is grappling with a personal crisis of faith brought on by the new pontificate. He offers this consolation

The great crisis of the Church:
Between the Great Whore and
the 'woman clothed with the sun"
by Juan Manuel de Prada
Translated by Rorate caeli from

Madrid, July 3, 2016

Numerous readers write me, troubled, some very shaken in their beliefs, others in a state of anguish nearing the loss of faith, begging me to speak up on this or that ecclesiastical insanity.

For many years, I offered my naked face so that the enemies of the Faith could strike it; until a certain day on which its supposed guardians started to strike it as well (and with such ferocity!).

At present, I am going through a dark night of the soul of uncertain outcome; due to which, apologizing immensely, I cannot handle the requests of my anguished readers, but rather add myself to their own tribulation.

However, I will remind them of a passage of the Scriptures that, in dark moments, one should have present, so that hope shall not die. And these lines shall be the last ones I will dedicate to this heartbreaking matter.

One of the visions of Revelation mentions the Great Whore, who "fornicates with the kings of the earth" and "makes drunk they who inhabit the earth with the wine of her whoredom."

This Great Whore is religion that is adulterated, falsified, prostituted, delivered unto the powers of this world; and she is the antithesis of that other woman who appears in Revelation, the delivering Woman clothed with the sun, and crowned with stars, who has to flee to the wilderness, persecuted by the Beast.

If the Great Whore represents the religion kneeling before the "kings of the earth", the delivering Woman represents the faithful and martyr religion. These two sides of religion, which are perfectly distinguishable for God, are not always so for men, who frequently confuse one with the other (sometimes out of candor, sometimes out of deceit).

And they will only be fully distinguishable on the harvest day, when wheat and tares are separated.

In the meantime, in order to identify this prostituted religion, we have to guide ourselves with the signs that Christ gave us:
It is the religion that has become salt without savor, it is the religion that keeps silent so that the stones cry out, it is the religion that allows for the "abomination of desolation", adulterating, hiding, and even persecuting the truth.

"They will put you out of the synagogues," Christ prophesied, in a last warning to the sailors, "whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth a service to God." Evidently, he was not speaking of the persecution decreed by the kings of the earth, but of a much more terrifying persecution -- a great mystery of iniquity -- driven by the Great Whore.

How does the Great Whore fornicate with the kings of the earth? By surrendering to their laws, by compromising with their ideological dictatorship, by keeping silent about their aberrations, by coveting their riches and honors, by clinging to the privileges and sparkles with which they bribed her, in order to have her at their feet: in sum, by placing the powers of this world in the place that belongs to God.

And how does she intoxicate the peoples with the wine of her whoredom? By adulterating the Gospel, reducing it to a despicable mush of do-goodism, by muddying the millenary doctrine of the Church, by courting the enemies of the Faith, by disguising as mercy the submission to error, by spreading confusion among the simple people, by condemning to anguish and bewilderment the faithful, whom she even points as enemies before the dumbed-down masses, who will then be able to massacre them more easily.

[Perhaps JMB has not read Revelation lately. Otherwise, how he cannot pause and ask himself if his 'church of Bergoglio' has not come to embody the Great Whore, and how does he square this with his much-advertised Marian devotion?]

In the end, these faithful will be very few; but, on the other hand, they will be very visible, provoking the hatred of the prostituted religion, that will persecute them all the way to the wilderness: "And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved."

Meanwhile, God will keep his promises on the permanence and infallibility of his words: "Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass." And this last light will be our only consolation, while the dark night of the soul overwhelms us

When a pope, any pope, re-opens an already settled article of Church discipline - like the ban on communion for unqualified remarried divorcees who, by definition, live in a chronic state of sin - to be decided on the case-by-case 'discernment' of the bishop or priest responsible for the spiritual direction of such couples, then he is openly saying "do as you think best'. And of course, different individuals will do differently because they do not all think alike. What could be more obviously divisive?

JMB/PF's deliberate equivocal language on this issue in Amoris laetitia clearly causes such a split. Bishops and priests who think like him will go the way of maximum leniency, aka pastoral mercy in the Bergoglian lexicon, and allow communion for all such couples, not just on a case-by-case basis.

Orthodox bishops and priests, like Archbishop Chaput of Pennsylvania, will clearly lay down guidelines interpreting the casuistic language of AL in the most most genuinely charitable way, i.e., in the light of the Magisterium, based on Scripture and Tradition, that has been in force in the Church and has not been abrogated formally in any way.

In other words, for orthodox Catholics, i.e. correct-thinking Catholics, the Magisterium on the communion ban for remarried divorcees stands as John Paul II and Benedict XVI reaffirmed it - clearly and unequivocally - in Familiaris consortio and Sacramentum caritatis, respectively.

If Jorge Bergoglio does not have the courage to contradict them just as clearly and unequivocally in a papal document - even if he does so in so many other statements and actions - then he compounds with cowardice the fact that he has been derelict to his duties as Pope:
1) To uphold and defend the deposit of faith handed down to him to preserve and not to tamper with
2) To confirm his brothers in the faith - because the opposite of confirming is to confuse them continually, on this and other matters of faith and morals as this pope does
3) To preserve the unity of the Church - which he openly undermines by promulgating an obviously divisive document, whatever its 'technical status' is (formal or informal, magisterial or not).

In this context, the following article in the Wall Street Journal, now the widest circulated newspaper in the USA, is long overdue. Like DUH!!!

Pope’s teaching on divorce divides bishops
Elliptical language leaves meaning open to interpretation,
with dioceses going divergent ways
[And when has this happened in the Church except during the Arian crisis?]
By FRANCIS X. ROCCA

July 10, 2016

ROME — Conservative and liberal prelates in the Catholic Church have put forth sharply different readings of Pope Francis’s teaching on divorce[among Catholics] — a situation complicated by the pontiff’s own ambiguity.

In April, Pope Francis published “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”), which responded to a turbulent meeting of bishops on family issues by urging a more lenient approach to divorced Catholics, in effect encouraging priests to grant some of those who remarry Holy Communion.

Instead of settling the issue, the pope has opened the door to divergent interpretations as local bishops implement the document. Conservatives argue that nothing has changed while liberals see more flexibility — with broader implications for teachings on sexual morality.

On July 1, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia published guidelines for his archdiocese, the sixth largest in the U.S., on how to carry out the teachings.

The archbishop, a leading conservative at last October’s Vatican synod, reaffirmed the traditional rule that divorced Catholics who remarry without getting an annulment may not receive Communion — unless they abstain from sex with their new spouses, since the church considers such relations adulterous.

Archbishop Chaput said that the pope’s own words showed that he had no intention of changing this teaching. [Tactful but simply untrue!]

The reaction from liberal critics was severe, with even the mayor of Philadelphia tweeting that “Chaput’s actions are not Christian.”

Then last week, a Vatican-supervised theological journal published an interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna, a leading liberal at the family synod. The cardinal said Pope Francis had reinterpreted the church’s teaching to mean that some Catholics in an “objective situation of sin,” including remarried divorcées, may receive Communion.

A central issue is the pope’s characteristically indirect language. In AL, he didn’t explicitly amend the existing rule. To have done so would have been awkward, since Pope Francis often stresses the importance of consultation with his fellow bishops and the family synod didn’t endorse any change.

But in a news conference, the pope said that his document had opened new possibilities of access to the sacraments for remarried divorcées.

Declining to be more specific, he referred reporters to a commentary by Cardinal Schönborn. [How much more specific can he be? He admits he has opened new possibilities which were not there before - in his questionable re-opening of an issue, about which his two immediate predecessors had written and spoken unequivocally, and clearly contradicting the majority sense of the two family synods he convoked in 2014 and 2015. He already warned us at the end of the 2015 synod that in the end, it is only he who decides. Collegial schmolleggial! Synod schmynod!]

The cardinal, in last week’s interview, likewise refused to be specific, saying “there is no general norm that can cover all the particular cases,” and that the matter is ultimately one of “individual discernment.” [In other words, the communion ban does not hold up at all, because individual bishops or priests can discern that it should not apply. No casuistry can overcome that simple logic. And it's not as if it were more obvious than the black pants under his white cassock that JMB really wants to give communion to everyone, sinners repentant or unrepentant, Catholics or non-Catholics - it doesn't matter to him.]

In other words, the change isn’t so much a looser rule as a loosening of the very idea of rules. [That's a tactful way of saying that the change consists, in short, of enabling mass sacramental sacrilege.]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan has gone as far as any bishop in challenging the papal document, which he wrote contains “objectively erroneous expressions” that pose “real spiritual danger.”

Others, including U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, have chosen to play down AL as a “personal reflection of the pope,” rather than authoritative teaching.

But conservatives who object to changing tradition also generally tend to be the most reluctant to oppose a pope.

“The people who traditionally have been defenders of papal authority for the last 50 years suddenly find themselves out of step with the pope, and that’s a very strange situation,” says the Rev. Gerald Murray, pastor of Holy Family Church in New York and a frequent commentator on EWTN Catholic television. [Because the papal authority they defended - that we defended and continue to defend - is that which is exercised in the defense of the deposit of faith, not in changing it underhandedly; in confirming the world's 1.2 billion Catholics in their faith, not confusing them serially; and in promoting Catholic unity, where JMB directly and actively foments division.]

According to the Rev. Thomas Reese, senior analyst at the National Catholic Reporter, Pope Francis is untroubled by the debate.

“He believes that it is up to the local bishop to look at the concrete situation in his diocese and make the pastoral judgment about what is possible,” Father Reese says. “We may have 10 or 20 years of this situation where different bishops are doing it differently in different places but I think there will come about a consensus on where we go.” [And Reese finds nothing wrong in that "different bishops are doing it differently in different places" in what is supposed to be the Catholic i.e. universal Church, not a collection of dioceses each doing as they please! It's indicative of how the Bergoglian rah-rah boys (and girls) are so entangled in the ideological biases they share with this pope that they do not even realize the import of what they are saying.]

Conservatives like Father Murray find such a situation untenable.

“This is an exploding land mine and I regret that it’s going to be a continual fight until it’s changed back to the old discipline,” he says. “The unity of the church’s pastoral ministry is affected severely when you have contrasting practices in different places.”

During the family synod, some bishops spoke privately of the danger of a schism over the issue, similar to the looming split in the Anglican Communion over homosexuality.

“There may not be a schism in the sense of a rejection of papal authority, but there is going to be a debate in the church about the directions in which the pope is taking the church and whether we should go along or we should resist,” said Father Murray.

The only schism right now is the undeclared and well-camouflaged but very real de facto schism of the church of Bergoglio from the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. Except that unfortunately, that he was legitimately elected the leader of the Catholic Church, and can therefore carry off everything he does to advance the church of Bergoglio, as efforts in behalf of the Catholic Church, when what he's really trying to achieve is a wreckovation of the Church established by Christ.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/07/2016 23:41]

Lest we forget...


HAPPY NAME DAY ONCE AGAIN

TO OUR BELOVED BENEDICT XVI

Thanks to Beatrice for this lead to a story from 11 years ago resurrected by the benedettogaenswein Facebook site... When B16 became Pope
in 2005, my printouts of online recollections by various individuals who had met him over the years filled a 2-inch binder. This is one I didn't get
to see at the time...

'Such a serene and loveable person!
Nothing at all like what most media say'
An Argentine sister speaks of the new Pope
she worked with for 10 years at the CDF
Translated from
LA NACION, Argentina
April 25, 2005



Ana Fernandez, Argentine, diplomate in Church History from the Pontifical Gregorian University, worked for 10 years with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

A member of the Servidoras* community, she worked from 1989-1999 in the CDF secretariat and the support staff during the preparation of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church. [*Formally called Instituto Servidoras del Señor y la Virgen de Matará (SSVM), the Servidoras are a missionary order founded by Fr. Carlos Miguel Buela in San Rafael, Argentina, in 1988. Along with the Instituto del Verbo Incarnado and its Third Secular Order, the Servidoras constitute the Family of the Incarnate Word.]

"I would be lying if I said that in 10 years I ever saw him angry or impatient," she said in a conversation in Buenos Aires after the cardinal was elected pope.

She underscores above all his goodness, saying he always stopped to chat with the 'portress' at CDF, an elderly woman called Clelia

Music enchanted him, she recalls, and that if one had to give him anything, he would like nothing better than any Mozart recording. Once, he recounted a chat with Protestant theologian Karl Barth, to whom he said, in jest: "Doubtless, the music in heaven is Bach, but the little angels are happy to listen to Mozart".

She remembers the meetings in the preparation of the new Catechism, in which the editorial board members spoke in their respective languages - Italian, German, French, English by the US representative, and Spanish by a Hispanic member. The cardinal listened to each one, she says, and then he would summarize their points, highlighting what was positive in each of their presentations.

"How much peace his very presence communicated to each of us, what respect! He inspired maximum confidence in us!" She remembers his warm and spontaneous smile, his penetrating gaze which, she says,
"left an atmosphere of serenity".

He said the cardinal always listened attentively and answered all questions asked of him, "whether it was from cardinals or from me. Or even, as he walked to work everyday crossing St. Peter's Square, with anyone who approached him - "a student or say, a 17-year-old Argentine boy who walked up to him with great confidence, and to whom he spoke at length and at ease".

"He was not 'Prussian' in any way. His roots are in Catholic Bavaria - a more 'Latin' kind of German. A priest and man of faith, above all. Happy, sensitive, artistic and a genuine intellectual. A theologian who is always thinking, never tires of thinking".

When Ana's mother died, Cardinal Ratzinger offered a Missa cantata in Latin.

She also tells of little details she learned about his family. For example, that his father had retired prematurely from his police service because he anticipated religious persecution from the Nazis. That his mother worked as a hotel cook for three years to pay for his early seminary studies. That his brother, also a priest, was a famous cathedral choir director. And that his sister Maria had trained to be a secretary and lived in Rome to take care of him until her unexpected death.

Ana thinks the papacy is a great service that carries with it an enormous responsibility. But she thinks Jesus made a great gift to the cardinal by taking him out of his confinement at the CDF.

She thinks that being in the Apostolic Palace, rather than being enclosed, has liberated him for the world. That all the young people he had to leave behind in the university when he was named Archbishop of Munich, and all the faithful he had to leave behind when he came to Rome to serve in the CDF, are all back with him now that he is Pope - many of them literally in St. Peter's Square - to see and hear him again.

About the numerous recollections of 'encounters with the future Pope' that abounded in 2005 and even after from persons in all walks of life who had the privilege of meeting or knowing Joseph Ratzinger before he became Pope: Perhaps it is just an impression in my biased mind, but I do not recall anything similar following the election of JMB as Pope. Other than testimonials that came out over the next several months from close friends from his childhood, or a few associates from his career years (as a Jesuit superior and as bishop), there was a notable lack of testimonials from the 'common folk' whose lives he was supposed to have touched in all the years he was known as 'the bishop of the slums'. At the time, I kept expecting a whole book of such recollections.

July 12, 2016

Canon-212.com had the more 'Catholic' emphasis in its choice of top headlines today. Surely the petition sent to each of the living cardinals asking them to advise the pope to withdraw questionable statements from AL is unprecedented in the history of protests against the pope in the media age.


And yet, two other developments from the Vatican were noteworthy today:
1) The retirement of Vatican press director Fr. Federico Lombardi after 10 years of service, and his replacement by Greg Burke, a civilian but an Opus Dei numerary who takes on a job held for over 20 years by another Opus Dei numerary, Joaquin Navarro Valls... Unprecedented is that the new vice-spokesman (which used to be Fr. Ciro Benedettini) is also a civilian, Paloma Borrero, who was the longtime Vatican correspondent for Spanish radio COPE. [More on her later, and her irresponsible canard about a dying Benedict XVI a few months after his retirement.]
2) A delayed but ballistic reaction from the Vatican and the pope to Cardinal Sarah's advice for priests to start saying the Mass ad orientem.

PewSitter's headlines had a bigger mix of secular news:

In the time that it took me to take a screenshot of the above headlines and crop it appropriately, PewSitter posted a new headline mix, with a new 'banner headline', as follows:

Two previous massive online petitions to JMB in the two years that his 'family synods' spanned were not even acknowledged by the Vatican. So now a new initiative is taking a 'Hail Mary' run by writing each living cardinal a letter asking him to advise the Holy Father about widespread objections to statements and propositions his post-synodal apostolic exhortation. How many, do you suppose, of those cardinals will acknowledge receiving the letter, much less act upon it? I can imagine not a few will acknowledge by denouncing the letter, the initiative and its advocates to hell and back, but otherwise????

Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy ask cardinals
to petition the pope to repudiate ‘errors’ in AL

July 11, 2016

A group of Catholic scholars, prelates and clergy have sent an appeal to the College of Cardinals asking that they petition Pope Francis to “repudiate” what they see as “erroneous propositions” contained in Amoris Laetitia.

In a statement released today, the 45 signatories of the appeal say AL — the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation (summary document) on the recent Synod on the Family that was published in April — contains “a number of statements that can be understood in a sense that is contrary to Catholic faith and morals.”

The 13-page document, translated into six languages and sent to Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, as well as 218 individual cardinals and patriarchs, quotes 19 passages in the exhortation which “seem to conflict with Catholic doctrines”.

The signatories — described as Catholic prelates, scholars, professors, authors, and clergy from various pontifical universities, seminaries, colleges, theological institutes, religious orders, and dioceses around the world — then go on to list “applicable theological censures specifying the nature and degree of the errors” contained in AL.

A theological censure is a judgment on a proposition concerning Catholic faith or morals as contrary to the faith or at least doubtful.

The statement says those who signed the appeal have asked the College of Cardinals, in their capacity as the Pope's official advisers, “to approach the Holy Father with a request that he repudiate the errors listed in the document in a definitive and final manner, and to authoritatively state that AL does not require any of them to be believed or considered as possibly true.”

“We are not accusing the Pope of heresy,” said Joseph Shaw, a signatory of the appeal who is also acting as spokesman for the authors, “but we consider that numerous propositions in AL can be construed as heretical upon a natural reading of the text. Additional statements would fall under other established theological censures, such as scandalous, erroneous in faith, and ambiguous, among others.”

Such is the climate in much of today’s Church, one of the appeal's chief organizers told the Register, that most of the signatories prefer to remain publicly anonymous because they “fear reprisals, or they are concerned about repercussions on their religious community, or if they have an academic career and a family, they fear they might lose their jobs.”

Among the problems they cite in the exhortation, the signatories believe AL “undermines” the Church’s teaching on admission to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics. They also believe it contradicts the Church’s teaching that all commandments can be obeyed with God’s grace, and that certain acts are always wrong.

Shaw, an Oxford University academic, said the signatories hope that by “seeking from our Holy Father a definitive repudiation of these errors, we can help to allay the confusion already brought about by AL among pastors and the lay faithful.

That confusion, he added, “can be dispelled effectively only by an unambiguous affirmation of authentic Catholic teaching by the Successor of Peter.”

Various interpretations and criticisms of AL have followed its publication. In particular, cardinals have debated whether or not the document is magisterial.
[They really have not. A handful of them spoke out but there has been no discussion, much less debate, about it. Which is a moot point, anyway. Who cares what kind of a document it is - it's a formal document from the pope, and will be listened to, right or wrong, by many Catholics.]

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who presented the document in April, firmly believes it is, telling La Civilta Cattolica last week that there is “no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively.”

Cardinal Raymond Burke, however, believes the document contains passages that do not conform to the Church’s teaching and it is therefore non-magisterial, something Pope Francis “makes clear” in the text. [I truly disagree with the good and learned cardinal - and Father Z - about this!]

Last week, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia issued pastoral guidelines for implementing AL in which he clarified passages in the exhortation which appeared ambiguous with regards to caring for the souls of Catholics living in difficult or objectively sinful situations. Archbishop Chaput was part of the U.S. delegation of synod fathers at the Synod on the Family last October.

You did not have to be a prophet to predict the ballistic reactions from the 'spirit of Vatican II' founding members of the church of Bergoglio to Cardinal Sarah's appeal to bishops and priests to celebrate the Mass ad orientem starting this Advent. From an aggressive anti-Sarah tweet by Fr. Spadaro, JMB's in-house confidante/adviser, to erroneous citations by Fr. Lombardi in a Vatican communique [!] seeking to downgrade and 'erase' any public awareness of the cardinal's appeal, it is virtual war on Cardinal Sarah.


From my initial post on this topic:

---

During the talk, the Vatican’s liturgy chief [
[Cardinal Sarah] revealed that Pope Francis had asked him to “continue the liturgical work Pope Benedict began... to begin a study of 'the reform of the reform', that is of adapting the liturgical reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council. The cardinal said the study would seek “to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite”.

---

[As hard as it is for me to believe this, why would Cardinal Sarah say anything untrue - and if he says this is what JMB told him, I shall not look this gift horse in the mouth, and God bless Pope Francis! Because this is the real BIG NEWS in this story. It would explain why, seemingly on his own, Cardinal Sarah would announce an initiative like celebrating Mass ad orientem and kneeling for the Consecration and communion - but will we see JMB/PF set the example for these changes to the Novus Ordo in his daily Masses at Casa Santa Marta? Will he start genuflecting at Consecration?]



And so for several days, I savored the prospect of a Bergoglian initiative I could heartily support. Last Sunday, at Holy Innocents, the featured article in the parish bulletin was the original LIFESITE report on Cardinal Sarah's address to Sacra Liturgia. And our new parish priest, Fr. Miara, happily announced that by Advent, or even earlier, all the Novus Ordo Masses at Holy Innocents would be celebrated ad orientem, in which the Mass celebrant - like the rest of the congregation - has before him that precious ceiling-high Crucifixion (40ft x 20ft, painted on a concave surface) by Constantino Brumidi, a 19th-century painter who went on to paint the frescoes in the US Capitol rotunda.

My first thought was that "Now the church will find some other use for the altar they wheel in for the 12:30 Novus Ordo Sunday Mass that follows our 10:30 Missa Cantata". Anyway, I don't think the Vatican and 'spirit of V2' attack on Cardinal Sarah will change our pastor's decision to go ahead with ad orientem Masses only at Holy Innocents.

Anyway, here is how Fr. Lombardi played his anti-Sarah cards - via a formal communique, no less:

---

Vatican City, 11 July 2016 – It would appear opportune to offer clarification in the light of information circulated in the press after a conference held in London a few days ago by Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Cardinal Sarah has always been rightly concerned about the dignity of the celebration of Mass, so as to express appropriately the attitude of respect and adoration for the Eucharistic mystery.

Some of his expressions have however been incorrectly interpreted, as if they were intended to announce new indications different to those given so far in the liturgical rules and in the words of the Pope regarding celebration facing the people and the ordinary rite of the Mass.

Therefore it is useful to remember that in the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal), which contains the norms relating to the Eucharistic celebration and is still in full force, paragraph no. 299 states that: “Altare extruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebratio versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit. Altare eum autem occupet locum , ut revera centrum sit ad quod totius congregationis fidelium attentio sponte convertatur”(“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns”.)

Pope Francis, for his part, on the occasion of his visit to the Dicastery for Divine Worship, expressly mentioned that the “ordinary” form of the celebration of the Mass is that expressed in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the “extraordinary” form, which was permitted by Pope Benedict XVI for the purposes and in the ways explained in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, must not take the place of the “ordinary” one.

Therefore, new liturgical directives are not expected from next Advent, as some have incorrectly inferred from some of Cardinal Sarah’s words, and it is better to avoid using the expression “reform of the reform” with reference to the liturgy, given that it may at times give rise to error.

All the above was unanimously expressed during a recent audience granted by the Pope to the same Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

---

The purpled statements were promptly contested by people who know better, no offense intended, than Fr. Lombardi about liturgy because, not being Jesuits, they make it their business to know better about liturgy. This one is from an Australian Benedictine monk who serves in England.

The fallout and propaganda:
Cardinal Sarah and Sacra Liturgia 2016

July 12, 2016

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of matters ecclesiastical knew it would come. The boat had been rocked so there was bound to be some shouting, mounting insecurity and a sense of control lost. Having lost the battle of the Missal, certain forces would be certain to move quickly so as not to lose the battle of the Altar.

However it it is not going to work so well this time around. The young laity and the young clergy and seminarians, in whose hands lies the future of the Church on earth for the next few generations at least, are now far more up to speed on the issues, and connected to each other across the globe in ways never possible when I was a baby Jesuit, thanks to the internet.

Moreover, when the forces seeking to put Cardinal Sarah’s genie back in its bottle use highly deficient arguments, the young will see it, and will spurn it, even scorn it.

Cardinal Sarah’s opening speech at Sacra Liturgia 2016 included a specific invitation to priests to begin offering the Eucharistic sacrifice facing east — facing God — in common (in communion we might say) with the congregation, from the 1st Sunday of Advent (the standard date for liturgical change (I almost said “traditional date” but 46 years hardly makes a tradition in light of the Church’s two millennia of existence).

There was a roar of approving applause from the delegates. It was not triumphalist applause, but the effusion of relief, even liberation. To hear the cardinal in charge of the liturgy encourage the Church to return to the traditional orientation at the altar — an African cardinal no less, and raised in what we westerners still think of as mission territory — this was a healing moment for many of us.

Yet, one man’s healing is another’s irritation, though why it should be so is not so clear. One tactic is to cloud the topic is confusion and misdirection, like a magician.

Thus we find the American Jesuit Fr Bruce Morrill, of Vanderbilt University, claiming that the cardinal’s remarks were “not official” and that he was not giving a directive as this would require Vatican approval and an official statement from the Congregation of Divine Worship.

In the same article Fr Andrew Menke, the associate director of the US bishop’s liturgy office, asserts:

---

Some people have the opinion, Cardinal Sarah apparently being one of them, that (those) who carried out what Sacrosanctum Concilium said to do went too far and did things that the bishops of the council never envisioned, and so it seems he’s starting to talk about proposing some changes that would pull back a little bit from some of the changes that they made.

---

Fr. Menke said that as new editions of the Roman Missal are released, liturgical law is bound to shift, but he doubts anything would happen regarding the direction the priest faces, except perhaps more encouragement of ad orientem Masses in future missal editions.

In Crux, an online journal that seeks to take the Catholic pulse, we find this report of recent reactionary manoeuvres:

---

Although his comments were phrased as suggestions and not an edict, Sarah’s desire for a return to the ad orientem posture nevertheless generated wide reaction and debate, in large part because the posture is widely associated with the older Latin Mass in use prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

In truth, the rules for the post-Vatican II Mass also allow for the use of the ad orientem posture, and some priests celebrate it that way. In the public imagination, however, it’s generally seen as a more traditional way of doing it.

In the aftermath of Sarah’s comments, Cardinal Vincent Nichols of Westminster in the UK sent a letter to priests in his diocese saying that the Mass was not the time for priests to “exercise personal preference or taste." [OH PUH-LEEZ!!! As if too many Novus Ordo Masses have not been vehicles for personal preference and taste all these past going-on-50 years!]

According to the Catholic Herald, Nichols also noted that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), which lays out the rules for celebrating Mass, states in paragraph 299 that “the altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.”

In his statement, Lombardi quoted the same paragraph both in Latin and in Italian... [About which, more later, because we have here a classic case of willful mistranslation aggravated, it appears, every time the line is repeated and further distorted.]

Lombardi said that when the pope visited Sarah’s dicastery, Francis expressly told the Guinea cardinal that the “ordinary” form of celebrating the Mass is the one promulgated in the missal by Pope Paul VI, meaning, after the Second Vatican Council. The pope also said that the “extraordinary” form while accepted under the means expressed by Benedict XVI in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, shouldn’t become the norm.

“There are therefore no new liturgical directives for next Advent, as some have wrongly inferred from some of Cardinal Sarah’s words,” Lombardi said.

Lombardi’s rejection of the phrase “reform of the reform” is also noteworthy in light of Sarah’s comments in early July.

In his remarks, Sarah had said that during a private audience with the pope last April, Francis had asked him to study “the question of a reform of a reform” to see how to enrich the twofold use of the Roman rite – the “ordinary form,” meaning the post-Vatican II liturgy in the vernacular languages, and the “extraordinary form,” or the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass.

---

The propagandist’s art is not dead, but indeed it is ever perfecting its technique. So let’s briefly unpack the propaganda of reaction.

1. That a public, prepared speech from the cardinal in charge of overseeing the Church’s liturgy on behalf of the Pope, can be fobbed off as “not official” is extraordinary. We are meant to infer that things unofficial can be safely ignored. [Oh no! Not when it comes to anything this pope says which, he insists, is always Magisterium, because he is always 'teaching' in everything he says and does.]

2. However, what Fr Morrill would be correct in saying is that, indeed, this is not a “directive”. It was an exhortation, formally delivered, powerfully and thoughtfully presented. When far more informal and spontaneous exhortations come from Pope Francis’s mouth, the same people fall over themselves to apply the same to all and sundry. Remember “Whom am I to judge?”

Yet Cardinal Sarah’s is to be dismissed as “unofficial”, and “opinion”. No one, of course, claimed this had been a “directive”, certainly not the cardinal, and certainly none of us who were there.

The reactionaries have been presenting this as an underhand way of making something mandatory and so they can now valiantly expose the ploy, and reassure all those whose liturgical boats were rocked that they can relax again since the nasty conservatives have been exposed and thwarted.

3. No one, of course, claimed this had been a “directive”, certainly not the cardinal and certainly none of us who were there. The reactionaries have been presenting this as an underhand way of making something mandatory and so they can now valiantly expose the ploy, and reassure all those whose liturgical boats were rocked that they can relax again since the nasty conservatives have been exposed and thwarted.

4. Note, too, that the egregious Fr Menke equates Mass facing the people with the changes made by the bishops of Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Really?! You do not need me to tell you that the bishops do not even hint at such a change in the document, which was very formal and very “official”.

So we find a subtle insinuation made against Cardinal Sarah that he is trying to undo Vatican II, that he is seeking to “pull back a little from the some of the changes they made”. This is pure fantasy as you cannot pull back from changes in Vatican II that were never actually made by Vatican II.

5. Cardinal Nichols politely waited till he had met and then seen off Cardinal Sarah before sending his letter to the clergy of Westminster. In that letter he makes two errors of judgment, as others more competent than I have already noted.
(a) He equates ad orientem with “personal preference or taste”.
(b) To support this misjudgment, he uses the flawed English translation of #299 of the GIRM which asserts that Mass facing the people is “desirable”.

However, this is not what the Latin (and thus normative and “official”) text of #299 says. Fr Zuhlsdorf does the comprehensive refutation of the incorrect English translation.

Suffice it to say that the key relative pronoun quod is neuter and so cannot refer to celebratio which is feminine. It must therefore refer to altare which is also neuter. In fact the entire paragraph is about the altar, so a directive on facing the people in this paragraph would be incongruous, to say the least. Thus, that “which is desirable” (quod expedit) is not facing the people but the placement of the altar away from the wall.

As for ad orientem as personal taste or preference, you will note that such arguments are always made on a certain reading of various documents, but never of the rubrics of the Missal themselves. The rubrics are the primary source for how to celebrate the Mass, and any subsequent legislation can only allow for clarifications or exceptions, such as the priest facing the people at the altar.

If facing the people was actually the norm, then the rubrics would have to be changed. In the third edition of the Roman Missal of 2010 they were not.

In an earlier post here I explain (rather presciently it now seems!) how the rubrics clearly assume the traditional eastwards position of the priest at the altar. In fact, the logic of the ritual, even the modern ritual, demands it.

So let’s be unambiguous: Ad orientem is the norm in the Missal; versus populum is the exception, and it is facing the people that is in fact the expression of personal preference and taste.

If there is any ambiguity, it is in the Latin of #299, with the placement of the quod phrase at the end of the paragraph. This mimics the syntax of languages such as English in which word placement is crucial for meaning (unlike Latin, properly translated). Conspiracy theorists would rightly have a field day here!

6. Fr Lombardi’s introduction of the matter of the Extraordinary Form into this discussion is a red herring, to put it mildly. It is impossible to infer from what Cardinal Sarah said that he was advocating making the Extraordinary Form the “norm” for the Latin rite.

This is more confusion and misdirection, and appears at first glance to be an attempt to associate Cardinal Sarah’s remarks with advocacy for the old Mass, employing guilt by association. Fr Lombardi, soon to retire, has no magisterial standing and can be safely ignored. In fact his whole work in recent years has been spent in explaining away public utterances, usually papal ones, that are too embarrassing, or inconvenient, to be allowed to stand.

7. This seems also to be an attempt to undermine the commission given to Cardinal Sarah by Pope Francis himself, to explore the possibilities offered by the Reform of the Reform movement. [But it now appears the Vatican - and therefore, JMB himself - is effectively denying that the pope said any such thing to Cardinal Sarah. One can only think the good cardinal charitably construed some pro forma statements made to him by the pope as literal encouragements to continue with Benedict XVI's liturgical reform and study ways to implement a 'reform of the reform' [the post-Vatican II liturgy] to benefit both forms of the Roman rite.]

For the reactionaries, this will appear to be introducing the wolf of the old Mass in the sheep’s clothing of the modern Mass. Of course they are judging it by conciliar standards, when all sorts of wolves in sheep’s clothing were introduced into texts for later exploitation at the propitious time. To the pure, all things are pure. To the Machiavellian, all things are Machiavellian. The real wolves are not hard to find if you pay attention.

8.The fact that Pope Francis has given Cardinal Sarah the instruction to explore the possibilities in the critiques offered by the Reform of the Reform movement (the new Liturgical Movement we might say) lends significant weight to Cardinal Sarah’s advocacy of the ad orientem direction for Mass. [Given the Vatican communique, one has to doubt whether any such instruction from the pope could be considered 'fact'.]

For one thing, surely this advocacy must be seen as the fruit of these same papally-requested explorations — that is the logical conclusion in the context. Moreover, it is hard, therefore, is this context, not to see Cardinal Sarah’s advocacy as having tacit papal approval.

The only logical conclusion is that Cardinal Sarah has offered an exhortation to return to the traditional and normative position of facing East at the altar as the fruit of the study he has made at the pope’s request. [Thus did one understand Cardinal Sarah's statements, for which I sincerely and heartily said 'God bless Pope Francis!' One's faint stirrings of hope about JMB have quickly dissipated, alas.]
***
So perhaps we need to be reminded, therefore, that no special permission is needed to offer Mass ad orientem since it has always been the normative position in the rubrics of the Mass. To rely on the flawed arguments against this is to place yourself on a bus doomed eventually to crash.

PS If you are understandably reluctant to rely on the words of a humble simple amateur monk, then do read the definitive yet accessible modern treatment of this topic by Fr Uwe Michael Lang of the London Oratory, Turning Towards the Lord [Preface by Cardinal Ratzinger, one must hasten to add.]


More deception in the war on Card. Sarah
by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

July 12, 2016

Speaking at a liturgy conference in London, Cardinal Sarah, clearly not acting in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, made a personal appeal to priests to say Mass ad orientem, and the world is coming down on his head.

Sarah’s unofficial appeal prompted a quick official response from the local Archbishop of Westminster, Card. Nichols, as well as a clarification from Jesuit spokesman at the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Lombardi (which may have been the last official thing he did there [Greg Burke takes over on 1 August.] via a communique replete with problems.

For example, Fr. Lombardi wrote (I include the typos in the original English version released):

---

Pope Francis, for his part, on the occasion of his visit to the Dicastery for Divine Worship, expressly mentioned that the “ordinary” form of the celebration of the Mass is that expressed in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the “extraordinary” form, which was permitted by by Pope Benedict XVI for the purposes and in the ways explained in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificium, must not take the place of the “ordinary” one.

---

That was Lombardi.

Now look at what Fr. Thomas Rosica, hyper-visible when events at the Holy See require additional English language spin, added to the Press Office communique in a daily news summary blurb which he sends out to newsies, et al.

---

Fr Lombardi notes that Pope Francis made this view clear to Cardinal Sarah during a recent audience, stressing that the ‘Ordinary’ form of the celebration of Mass is the one laid down in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the ‘Extraordinary’ form, permitted in certain specific cases by Pope Benedict XVI, should not be seen as replacing the ‘Ordinary’ form.

---

There is a problem in the communique itself and a worse problem in Rosica’s spin of the communique.

Regarding the communique itself, in the Letter which Benedict XVI sent out with Summorum Pontificum, we read:

---

As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal.”

---

Note that “in principle”, or perhaps better, de iure. De facto, however, because of the fury of hell that bishops would rain down on priests who dared to say Mass in the way it was said for centuries, priests needed permission. They didn’t need it legally. They needed it practically.

On the other hand, while it is true that the communique points out that in Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict laid out criteria for the celebration of Holy Mass in the traditional form, what Rosica did with that little interpolation “in certain specific cases” was to make Summorum Pontificum itself seem more restrictive than it is. In fact, the “certain specific cases” mentioned by Rosica are, as it turns out from a reading of Summorum Pontificum, pretty much whenever and wherever any priest whosoever wants to say the older form of Mass.

I wonder if anyone in the Holy See Press Office has ever read Summorum Pontificum and Benedict’s Letter. I wonder if anyone there read the whole of Card. Sarah’s address in London.

Think about this. Rosica’s interpolation “in certain specific cases” applies also to the Novus Ordo.

Can. 932. 1 says that Mass is to be in a sacred place unless necessity requires that it be said somewhere else, and in that case it must be a suitable place. That means just about anywhere where Catholic sensibilities aren’t horrified. GIRM 288 says Mass can be in a “respectable place”. Can. 933 says that a bishop can permit that Mass be said in a non-Catholic church. The law also says when Mass can be said and who can say Mass. It also says that the language of Mass in the Roman Rite is LATIN. All of this is to say that there are certain conditions laid down for the celebration of Mass in either Form.

Also, if memory serves, this isn’t the first time that Fr. Rosica seems to have added extra material when reporting. During the Synod on the Family, he was called out for doing just that.

Finally, Fr. Lombardi’s press communique concluded: “All this was expressly agreed during a recent audience give by the pope to the said Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship.”

How did Rosica frame that in his daily blurb? "Fr Lombardi notes that Pope Francis made this view clear to Cardinal Sarahduring a recent audience,…" See what he did there?
[Given his written and spoken record over the past three years, I don't think anyone can be in doubt of just how consistently dishonest Fr. Rosica has been over so many things. St John Paul II must be chagrined at what his official spokesman for Toronto WYD has turned out to be!]

Friends, as this develops, keep your eyes open. What is going on here is important for more than just a liturgical motive… as if that weren’t important enough by itself! We are our Rites! This has to do with the status quaestionis of our Holy Church’s leadership and what course is being plotted. This underscores the tremendous division which yawns ever wider.

Earlier, Fr Z posted this:
There are a few notable exceptions, but there is a general rule that Jesuits don’t have much of a grasp or sense of liturgy. Perhaps you know the old chestnut: “As lost as a Jesuit in Holy Week”, to describe someone who doesn’t have a clue.

On twitter, that Fr. James Martin, SJ, tweeted:"Whoa. Vatican squashes rumors that said priests were about to be asked to celebrate Mass with backs to people." That’s just dumb.

Now I turn to one of those exceptional Jesuits who does know something about liturgy, Fr. James V. Schall, SJ. Today he posted about Card. Sarah’s invitation at Crisis:

---

The history of “Mass with the priest’s back facing the people” has been a long and amusing one.

Let it be said from the beginning that no priest ever thought that he was celebrating Mass with his back to the people. No priest of any age or place ever said to himself: “Now that I am about to consecrate the Host, I will turn my back to the people.” He and everyone were turning to the Lord.

That whole imagery of “back to the people” was dreamed up to promote a theological cause. It wanted the Mass to be understood not what it is, a sacrifice, but a friendly meal. The priest became a host or a “president,” as he is often called. He is a “presider,” awful term. Even worse is it when the priest is seen to be a “master of ceremonies” or an actor, greeting and joshing everyone.

---