(N.B. If you refuse to give the Holy Eucharist to those who persist in public manifest sin then you’re already “disobeying” the Holy Father.)
On March 19, 2016, the release of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia (AL)1threw the Catholic world into confusion. One of the main questions which the document raised concerned giving Holy Communion to those who had been civilly divorced and had attempted remarriage. According to the Church’s clear moral teaching, such persons would be living in a state of sin. To the extent that they are living in that state publicly, they would normally be considered as public sinners and therefore refused Holy Communion. AL seems to open up the question, however, and make it possible, under certain circumstances, for these persons to present themselves for communion and receive Our Lord’s body.
The doubts surrounding what the document actually means drove a group of theologians to submit a study of it privately to the College of Cardinals. This study identifies statements in AL, which, taken according to their natural sense, would fall under censure because they contradict previous Catholic teaching.2 The purpose of the private submission was to allow for the clarification and correction of the document. In addition to this study, four Cardinals submitted privately to the Pope a list of dubia, or formal “doubts,” about the post-synodal document.3
Neither of these documents ever met with an official response. On the contrary, the Pope seemed to issue a kind of interpretation of his own document in a letter to the Buenos Aires bishops. The Argentinian bishops had issued pastoral guidelines to their dioceses based on the newly-released AL. Included in these guidelines was the clear statement that AL now allows for communion to be given to the divorced and “remarried.” In his letter to these bishops, Pope Francis approves their guidelines and states unequivocally that “there is no other interpretation” of his document.4 This letter would later be added to the official acts of the Holy See. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis)5
The letter of Pope Francis, other remarks that he made in reference to AL, and his silence regarding both the theological study and the dubia, finally elicited another response from clergy and laity: the Correctio filialis, sent privately to him in August 2017 and released publicly (since it received no reply) about a month later.6 The “filial correction” does not mince its words. It states directly that the Pope has given “scandal concerning faith and morals” to the Church by the publication of AL and other acts. Guarding all due respect to the Pope, the authors claim to show “how several passages of Amoris laetitia, in conjunction with acts, words, and omissions of Your Holiness, serve to propagate seven heretical propositions.”
Despite the public release of the Correctio and many other critiques of AL, bishops in various dioceses began implementing changes to their pastoral directives to match the “spirit” of AL. This led to priests being commanded by their bishops to give communion to those divorced and “remarried.”7
Cases such as these show that AL comes right down into the practical sphere and presents a difficult dilemma to priests who desire to be faithful to the Church’s teaching. On the one hand, a legitimate superior issues a command. On the other hand, this command would involve an action that seems to be contrary to the traditional practice and doctrine of the Church concerning Holy Communion. What is the priest to do? If he follows the command of his superior, he seems to contradict the doctrine of the Church. If he refuses to follow the command, then he seems to disobey the legitimate authority.
In examining this dilemma, we see that there are only two courses of action that are possible: the priest either does or does not follow the directive of his superior. The important thing to realize is that either course of action requires an explanation. No one can seem to contradict Church teaching without giving some justification. Likewise, no one can seem to disobey his superior without giving a reason for it.
Looking at the history of such dilemmas in the Church reveals that, broadly speaking, one of two reasons is given for following the directive of the superior, and one of two reasons is given for refusing to follow it. This gives a total of four “positions” on an issue such as AL and communion to the divorced and “remarried.”
If a priest decides to follow the directive of his superior, then he could:
If, on the other hand, a priest decides not to follow the directive of his superior, then he could:
With respect to AL, the Correctio filialis takes the fourth position: respectfully to inform the Pope that he has no authority to change Church teaching, and that therefore, clergy and faithful must obey God rather than men. To quote the Correctio: “Most Holy Father, the Petrine ministry has not been entrusted to you that you might impose strange doctrines on the faithful, but so that you may, as a faithful steward, guard the deposit against the day of the Lord’s return.”
The examination of AL and the response to it from the Catholic world is instructive, because it is a “microcosm” of the current crisis in the Church. It is undeniable that the crisis of today is much broader than this single issue. What we see issuing from Rome today finds its full explanation in what came before Pope Francis. Even Pope Francis himself would agree with this: he repeatedly appeals to Vatican II and to his immediate predecessors as justification for his actions.
The document Traditionis custodes (TC)8 is an example of how Pope Francis sees himself as “in continuity” with what came before. TC has the additional merit of bringing out into the open a conflict that has already been present for many years – the essential conflict, in fact, that has defined the positions in the Church for the last fifty years.
TC and its accompanying letter from the Pope can therefore give us a very good perspective on the current situation in the Church and the various responses to it over the past years. Let’s begin by looking at a few quotations from TC and the adjoined letter.
In Article 1 of TC, the Pope lays down the rule as regards the liturgy: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” This article effectively denies the distinction which Benedict XVI had tried to make, distinguishing two “rites” within the Roman Rite. Pope Francis is here simply following what seems to have been the intention of Paul VI when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae: “We decree that these laws and prescriptions be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and amendment.” (Missale Romanum, 1969)9
Article 3 is surprising in that it makes the continued celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass depend on accepting a doctrinal position about the Novus Ordo Missae: “The bishop of the diocese… is to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II.”
In the accompanying letter, Pope Francis expresses his disappointment that some who attach themselves to the Traditional Latin Mass also seem to reject Vatican II. Taken together with Article 3 of TC, his comments here seem to make another doctrinal position the precondition for continuing to celebrate or attend the old rite: “I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself… To doubt the Council is to doubt the intentions of those very Fathers who exercised their collegial power in a solemn manner cum Petro et sub Petro in an ecumenical council, and, in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”
We thus have two doctrinal assertions which are, for the Pope, a condition for the celebration of the old rite of Mass. Anyone who wishes to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass (and therefore anyone who wishes to attend such a Mass) must acknowledge:
Pope Francis is here expressing “out loud” what has been the de facto situation in the Church since Vatican II and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo. One has only to look at the early history of the Society of St. Pius X and the exchanges between Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Rome during the early 1970s to realize that these two statements have always been the source of disagreement. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the position of the SSPX is immaterial as regards this point. What is clear is that the price of holding to the Traditional Latin Mass is and always has been the complete acknowledgement of the liturgical reform of Paul VI and the teachings of Vatican Council II.
Once we recognize this, we can fruitfully apply the distinctions made above, in the case of Amoris laetitia, to begin to make sense of the various reactions to the current situation in the Church.
Just as with AL, we are faced with a direct command from a legitimate superior: in order to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, you are commanded to accept the doctrinal statements mentioned above.
Now, as long as there is no apparent contradiction between these doctrinal statements and what the Church has always taught, no one can take any issue with this. It is obvious that direct and legitimate orders of a superior must be obeyed. But it does not take much investigation to realize that, at least on the face of it, there seem to be some real differences between Vatican II and previous Church teaching, and between the Novus Ordo and the liturgical tradition of the Church. The
pontificate of Pope Francis and, indeed, the pontificates of nearly all the recent Popes, have made these differences much more apparent. For example, in the name of the ecumenism expressly taught by Vatican II, we have witnessed Popes acknowledging the legitimacy and “truth” of other religions such as Islam, Judaism, and even paganism. In the name of the liturgical reform, we have witnessed appalling demonstrations even during Papal Masses. A simple side-by-side comparison of the Novus Ordo Missae and the old rite likewise seems to give the lie to Pope Francis’ confident assertion in the letter accompanying TC: “Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements.” If all the elements of the Roman Rite are present, what happened to the traditional offertory? And if a priest chooses to say eucharistic prayer 2 (one of his multiple options while celebrating the Mass), then where would the Roman Canon be?
We have, then, a situation that is very similar to the drama surrounding AL: a command from a legitimate superior which, at the very least, seems not to wholly square with what came before. A priest who wishes to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass can either: (a) accept the two doctrinal statements and hope to receive approval from his bishop to be able to say the old rite, or (b) refuse the doctrinal statements and continue to celebrate Mass according to the old rite anyway. If the priest chooses the first option, then it is incumbent upon him to give some kind of justification for his action, explaining why it does not contradict any of the Church’s previous teachings. Likewise, if a priest refuses, according to the second option, then he must offer an explanation for why what seems like disobedience is not actually against the virtue of obedience.
The faithful are faced with a similar dilemma: will they attend only the Masses and sacraments offered by priests who accept the doctrinal positions? Or will they consider themselves free also to receive the sacraments from those priests who have refused them? In the aftermath of TC, as bishops shut down many Latin Masses across their dioceses, we are seeing this dilemma become very concrete for many faithful.
If we continue the parallel with AL, we see that the responses to this dilemma can also be grouped broadly into four positions.
If priests or faithful accept the conditions of TC, then they could explain:
If priests or faithful refuse to accept the two doctrinal statements, then they could explain:
These four positions do not simply represent a response to Traditionis custodes, but really define the landscape in the Church today with respect to the crisis in the Church. Many, for example, are at the very least uncomfortable with the irregular canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Yet, this very irregularity was a direct consequence of the Society’s stance on Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. Others think that the SSPX does not go far enough, and that we must hold that Pope Francis is not the true Pope. Still others are just “entering” the debate because they find themselves attached to the Traditional Latin Mass – they are offended that Pope Francis would take such a strong position in the name of so-called “unity.” But if the Novus Ordo Missae is valid and legitimate, what justification can they offer for continuing to celebrate or attend the Traditional Latin Mass? It is the will of the Supreme Pontiff to make this old rite disappear: the provisions in TC are “to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II.” Even if this is a “lesser good,” as long as it is indeed good, then there is no ground to refuse the will of the legitimate superior.
As Catholics who wish to be faithful, and in the face of the disturbing things which we are witnessing today, it is incumbent upon us to examine these four positions closely. We cannot simply “fall into” one of these positions. We must enter it with our eyes open, and give our reasons for holding to it. It is only in this way that we will be able to navigate the confusion of the current situation in the Church and hold fast to the faith, without which “it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. 11:6)
References
1https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazioneap_
20160319_amoris-laetitia.html
2The study would later be made public: https://onepeterfive.com/theological-censures-amoris-laetitia-revealed/
3The Cardinals later made their dubia public: https://www.ncregister.com/blog/full-text-and-explanatory-notes-ofcardinals-questions-on-amoris-laetitia
6The official website of the Correctio is here: https://www.correctiofilialis.org/
The actual document be found here:
https://www.correctiofilialis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Correctio-filialis_English_1.pdf
7See, for example, the case of the Archdiocese of Paderborn: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/38777/german-bishop-announces-communion-for-protestant-spouses-in-individual-cases
Source: Father Alexander Wiseman and LofeSiye news thanks to Maike Huckson.
Part II
By FR. KEVIN M. CUSICK
Upon his death we shared the witness that Pope Benedict lived out the words he uttered. Archbishop Georg Ganswein’s book Nothing But the Truth recounting his life with the great Pope is now out in bookstores. Here I share some vignettes of that volume from an advance unofficial English translation.
In October 1978 the future Benedict XVI shared the following words at a Munich requiem for John Paul I, sentiments which, the world would soon witness, he himself lived.
“The only greatness in the Church is to be saints. And her saints are the pillars of light that show us the way. Henceforth he too will be a part of these lights. And from what was granted to us for only thirty-three days emanates a light that can no longer be taken away from us.”
To George Weigel, biographer of JPII, he confided this concerning the conclave resulting in the election of JPI:
“We were convinced that the election had taken place in harmony with the divine will, not simply with the human will….And if, a month after Albino Luciani were elected with the divine will, he had died, God intended to communicate something to us.”
Later from Ratzinger we gained this insight:
“Luciani’s election was not a mistake. Those thirty-three days of pontificate had a function in the history of the Church. That sudden death also opened the door to an unexpected choice. That of a non-Italian Pope. In the previous Conclave this was also discussed. But it was not a very real hypothesis, also because there was the beautiful figure of Albino Luciani. Later it was thought that something absolutely new was needed.”
Though all too brief, the reign of JPI served to set the stage for the first non-Italian Pope in many years.
Though both were involved through preparation or participation in the deliberations of Vatican II they did not meet in that context. The future JPII had encountered the future BXVI, as have so many others, through his writing and, what’s more, had valued his wisdom so greatly that he, as Ratzinger recollected, drew from the latter’s work while preaching a retreat for a previous Pope.
“Of course, I had heard of his work as a philosopher and pastor, and I had long wanted to know him. For his part, he had read my Introduction to Christianity, which he had also quoted at the spiritual exercises he preached for Paul VI and the Curia in Lent 1976. So it is as if inwardly we were waiting to meet.”
The newly elected JPII almost immediately called on Ratzinger to assist him in the administration of the Church at Rome but the archbishop of Munich-Freising begged off, claiming a need for more time as a yet fairly new father to his flock in Germany. JPII demurred, choosing Cardinal Baum of Washington for the role of prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Education while making clear his intention to renew his request at the next opportunity.
Later Ratzinger would agree to come to Rome and work for JPII if he could continue to write and publish theology under his own name. JPII concurred and the two were to become close collaborators for many years.
Read the rest: https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/new-book-by-ganswein-on-bxvi/
January 19, 2023
By FR. KEVIN M. CUSICK
Benedict XVI, man of great intellect and learning that he was, lived the radical truth that faith, the direct graced contact with God, must be the starting point for all theological inquiry. Dating back to Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury (c. †1033-1109), the phrase “faith seeking understanding” is first mentioned by the latter in his Proslogion. It was this conviction which set up the great conflict with modernist and heretical forces within the Church.
Just as the physical came from the spiritual in Creation, and God existed before all He has made, so we must proceed in all inquiry beginning with God. Perceived and grasped through graced belief, an abiding trust in all His words and actions, is the starting point for all rational questioning and exploration of any matters relating to the Divine.
I have been parsing an advance copy in rough English translation of the new book by Archbishop Georg Ganswein, Nothing But the Truth. In the first chapter of the book Ganswein brings up this matter of theological method in connection with the elevation of the great theologian Ratzinger by Paul VI to the cardinalate, along with three others. He quotes the words of the Pope at the event:
“In his speech for the occasion, Paul VI explained that the main endowment of the newly ordained cardinals was ‘the absolute fidelity that has been lived by them, in this postconciliar period rich in healthy ferments but also in disruptive elements, in a continuous availability in a diuturnal service, in a total dedication to Christ, to the Church, to the Pope, without flexing, without wavering,’ specifying for Ratzinger that his ‘high theological teaching in prestigious university chairs in Germany and in numerous valuable publications made us see how theological research — in the high road of “fides quaerens intellectum” — cannot and must never be separated from the profound, free, creative adherence to the Magisterium that authentically interprets and proclaims the Word of God’.”
As a sign of confidence in his gifts, Paul VI in 1975 had already invited Ratzinger to preach the spiritual exercises in the Vatican. However, with his typical humility, Ratzinger declined. Ganswein quotes him, “I did not feel confident enough in either my Italian or my French to prepare and dare such an adventure, and so I had said no.”
Ratzinger always found the faith and truth together and never wavered from that conviction of trust in the Lord. His episcopal motto chosen, after his March 25, 1977 appointment at 49 as archbishop of Munich and Freising, makes this evident. Again, from Ganswein: “When it came to choosing the motto for the episcopal coat of arms, there was a significant development, with the choice of verse 8 of the third letter of St. John: ‘Collaborators of the truth’ (Cooperatores veritatis). In his autobiography, he motivated it as a desire to ‘represent the continuity between my previous task and the new assignment: even with all the differences, it was and always is about the same thing, to follow the truth, to place oneself at its service. And since in today’s world the topic ‘truth’ has almost disappeared, because it seems too big for man, and yet everything collapses, if there is no truth, this episcopal motto seemed to me the most in line with our time, the most modern, in the good sense of the word’.”
Read the rest: https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/gansweins-new-book-on-benedict-xvi/
The Archdiocese for the Military Services today sent out a notice in regard to a new revised order of penance:
Please remember that the new rite for the sacrament of penance may be used beginning on Ash Wednesday (22 February) and is obligatory from Divine Mercy Sunday (16 April) onward.
Four editions are available for purchase:
Catholic Book Publishing Corp
Liturgy Training Publications
Magnificat
Midwest Theological Forum
Several media reports have published an incorrect version of the revised prayer of absolution. The approved version does not include the words “among us”, but reads:
God, the Father of mercies,
through the Death and Resurrection of His Son
has reconciled the world to Himself and poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God grant you pardon and peace.
AND I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, + AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
(N.B. What is there that doesn’t change now, except the tradition? Once again, it is the traditional order of penance that remains unchanged. This while everything else in the Church seems to undergo nearly constant change. Ongoing, permanent revolution.)
‘As children of the Church we must pray and ask God for his eternal rest in heaven…’
A bishop has authorized and published a prayer for private devotion to Pope Benedict XVI, who died Dec. 31, 2022, at the age of 95 in Rome.
Bishop Carlos Rossi Keller of the Diocese of Frederico Westphalen in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul published the prayer in Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Italian.
“As children of the Church we must pray and ask God for his eternal rest in heaven,” the prelate said in sharing the prayer in Portuguese on his Facebook page.
“But as testimonies of his generous dedication to God and knowing that his last words were ‘Lord, I love you,’ we can also privately ask for his intercession,” Bishop Rossi explained.
In his post, the prelate stressed that “in accordance with the decrees of Pope Urban VIII, we declare that in no way is it intended to preclude the judgment of the ecclesiastical authority and that this prayer has no purpose for public worship.”
The bishop likewise noted that the graces attributed to the intercession of Pope Benedict XVI must be communicated to the Vicariate of Rome, with a letter written to the following address:
His Eminence Cardinal Vicar for the Diocese of Rome
Piazza di S. Giovanni in Laterano
6, 00184 Rome RM, Italy
The prayer for private devotion:
Eternal and Almighty God, who inspired in the heart of your servant Pope Benedict XVI the sincere desire to encounter you and announce you, becoming a humble “co-operator with the truth” and offering himself as a servant, for Christ and for the Church, make me also know how to love the Church of Christ and to be able to follow in my life the eternal truths that she proclaims. Deign, Lord, to glorify your servant, Pope Benedict XVI, and grant, through his intercession, the favor I now ask of you (mention your petition). Amen.
Pray an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be.
Saturday, 14 January 2023
While you think you may enjoy a peaceful Epiphantide glowing in the light of Christmas the Bishop of Rome has other ideas. If my sources are correct, this is imminent, and be prepared for a Lent of suffering and sorrow. Gloria TV is reporting "rumours" from the German blog, Summorum Pontificum (summorum-pontificum.de) that Pope Francis is preparing to unleash a frontal attack on the traditional Latin Mass through the use of an Apostolic Constitution.
Whether or not he has waited for Benedict XVI to be out of the picture is moot. Nothing stopped him for nearly a decade. No, this is his outrage that most of the bishops, priests, and laity around the world have ignored Traditionis Custodes and the abusive follow-up from Roche in the Congregation responsible. At this stage, it is rumour.
Read the details: https://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2023/01/rumours-from-rome-apostolic.html
January 12, 2023
By FR. KEVIN M. CUSICK
At the end of Pope Benedict’s earthly sojourn with his death on the last day of 2022, we are moved to look back with gratitude upon his life and legacy. It is indeed a rich one, blessed with a fruitfulness indicating the Lord’s good pleasure in the labors of his humble servant.
At the cusp of a new year it was as if, with his last breath, our beloved Pope Emeritus delivered his final homily about the brevity of our lives in comparison with the great treasure of the eternal Kingdom which awaits us. His words were always carefully and lovingly chosen, with a desire to effectively communicate the Lord and His Gospel. In the end we witness the truth that it was in fact his life that was, of all his works, the most eloquent.
The sadness we experience at his passing is mixed with the joy of having known him and benefited from his gifts. He was brought by the Lord’s Providence from his native Germany to the heart of the Church in Rome where he faithfully served his good friend Pope John Paul II for many years. A guardian for the right teaching of the faith, he was trained well for his greatest role of humble servanthood in the vineyard which he accepted upon his election as Supreme Pontiff.
He first came to my attention many years ago when, as a young Army officer on active duty in Texas, his book-length interview, first known as The Ratzinger Report, made something of a ripple in the popular press. I obtained a copy through interlibrary loan from Southern Methodist University and read it with great curiosity.
I had been at that time continuing my discernment of the priesthood while serving in the military to “pay back” my four-year college scholarship. I was experiencing some skepticism as do many,there always being plenty of bad news about people in the Church, sinners all that we are.
Read the rest: https://thewandererpress.com/catholic/news/our-catholic-faith/the-legacy-of-bxvi/
In November, I was visiting Bratislava, and had dinner with my friends Vladimir Palko (pictured above), a mathematician and retired statesman, and Jaroslav Daniška, editor of the conservative magazine Standard. Vlado was one of my sources for Live Not By Lies. We were talking about the ailing Pope Benedict XVI. Vlado mentioned that in 2015, he received a letter from Benedict XVI, as Pope Emeritus. Oh? Vlado, a member of the underground Catholic Church who went on to serve as Interior Minister in one of the country's post-Communist governments, had written a book called The Lions Are Coming: Why Europe And America Are Heading for a New Tyranny, about the rising anti-Christian nature of Western life and politics. The book had been translated into German (the hyperlink under the title is to that edition), and a copy of it found its way to Benedict from an Austrian bishop.
Vlado was grave as he spoke of the letter. It was very short, he said, and appreciative of the book. And at the end, the Pope Emeritus spoke of the Antichrist. Vlado did not want to say precisely what Benedict had said. He told us that he would not release the letter until after Benedict died.
Read the rest: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/benedict-xvi-it-is-the-time-of-antichrist/
