ST PAUL EXHORTS US: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold on to the traditions which you have learned." 2 Thessalonians 2:14
Monday, January 27, 2014
The Eponymous Flower: Bishop Kurt Krenn -- Requiescat in pace
The Eponymous Flower: Bishop Kurt Krenn -- "Concern for the Church Deter...: Edit: Today, and its vigil, is a day on which Austria has lost two great patriots and defenders of the Church. Perhaps it is providentia...
Friday, January 17, 2014
In medio stat virtus. The Catholic Church at the time of John Paul II allowed Mass with altar girls, communion in the hand, the guitars and drums, table, etc.., Benedict XVI also allows the Mass with deacon and sub-deacon, communion kneeling, organ, Gregorian chant, the altar coram Deo, Latin ...
Thus expressed himself cardinal. Kurt Koch in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano , in commenting on the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
It is necessary that the two forms, ordinary and extraordinaria, coexist peacefully, so that the liturgical reform does not become a liturgical revolution, so that the new branch is not taken off from the root from which it draws its lifeblood, so that the continuity of the rites, shine in the continuity of the faith, so that it is established and the hermeneutic of continuity not overridden by the logic of rupture and discontinuity (Benedict XVI, 22 December 2005)
If in the Church there was no place for lovers of tradition , the faithful would be swept up by the lovers of novelty of the "itch", denounced by St Paul (2 Tim 4: 3), which leads to "following of fables" (ibid.) and lose the unchanging Truth of Faith.
"In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred for us and great, and can not be suddenly entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. There is good for everyone to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place " (Benedict XVI, Letter of presentation of the Motu Proprio SP, July 7, 2007).
That being said, then comes to us . The missionary Church of Pope Francis ( Gaudium Evangelii , chap. 1), in his tension towards the poor and towards a radical conversion that involves everyone and everything, including the papacy (cf. Gaudium Evangelii , § 32) at the same time the Church manifests to the world the glory of God through the splendor of the liturgy (cf. EG § 24).
To those who hoped to enlist Pope Francis among the enemies of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum came a cold shower. The Bishops of Puglia, in their ad limina visit, in the spring last complained about the divisions created by the liberalization of the use of the Latin rite antiquior. The Pope said, urging them "to supervise the extremism of some traditionalist groups, but also to build on the tradition and make it live in the Church with innovation '[2] , and he added: " You see? They say that my master of papal ceremonies [Guido Marini] is traditionalist, and many, after my election, suggested I remove him from office and replace him. I said no, because I can treasure his traditional preparation and at the same time he can benefit in the same way, from my emancipated practice "(ibid.).
The Pope of the poor and simplicity of the Gospel can not be the Pope of sloppiness and liturgical banality. As St. Francis of Assisi, poverty and austerity for themselves and for the brothers, but not for God, to whom should be offered the most beautiful and precious things (cf. St. Francis , Letter to all clerics ).
One of the aims of the little liturgical "reform of the reform" begun by Pope Benedict XVI was to "foster reconciliation within the Church " ( Universae Ecclesiae , 8 c). His heart was toward the traditionalist world, especially in the West, which continues to grow more and more, and often leads to schismatic attitudes.
Now it is said: the liberalization of Vetus Ordo was to foster reconciliation , but instead because of Vetus Ordo Franciscans of the Immaculate are being divided. It is a demonstration of the disastrous failure of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum .
Our answer is no, it is rather the providential failure of a simplistic and fundamentally wrong concept of unity. Another is the unity of the Church, and the manner in which Christian unity occurs within the Church itself. Another reconciliation is respectful of diversity, and the other is the approval of the masses. You can not compare the schismatic drift (actual or potential) of Lefebvre with the irreversible process of differentiation of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, intended to generate two branches from the same original root.
The division is damage to the schismatic Church, because it is the loss of a branch that comes off from the vine, and is thus intended to dry. The division reform, however, is a gain for the Church, because it is the generation of a new sucker, destined to grow and bear fruit, as all the reforms of the religious orders. In this sense, the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum receives the credit, not blame, have catalyzed this process of reform in the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the sense of a deepening of their charisma, albeit in two different directions. And we believe that they are not the only ones.
Their case is still singular on the basis of a common charism, a group headed by the Founders welcomes the liberalization of Vetus Ordo as a yeast that leavens the mass toward the liturgical tradition, another group accepts it as a foreign body at most as a beautiful ornament to look at every now and then, but which, for them, there was no need. So that nothing in the Franciscans of the Immaculate is as before: a group sees in the original charism all the virtuality of the liturgical tradition, which the motu proprio has allowed us to explain. A second group denies that there are virtual and these states, however, a real opposition. They also give them, therefore, a new interpretation of the original charism.
The fact remains: "f 'prior to 2007, the Franciscans of the Immaculate had not celebrated according to the Vetus Ordo , "but added an assessment of principle" because the Vetus Ordo is incompatible with the charism of the Franciscans of the Immaculate " that is to say much more.Now, this incompatibility, although objectively unprovable, is emerging as a possible new interpretation of the foundational charism. Now, if you have the right to exist contrary to the new Vetus Ordo , even more will have the right to exist in favor of the new, for he has on his side and the Founders, and one of the most important and influential documents of the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
To be sure, if there was a schismatic effect, this historically followed the liturgical reform of Paul VI, which is directly called into question - especially in the way it has been implemented - by the dramatic and fierce challenge by the "galaxy Lefebvrian" in constant expansion, which still has about 600 priests, 215 seminarians, numerous convents and monasteries, and 2 million members worldwide. The reform of the reform of Benedict XVI certainly will not result in another " jolt schismatic ", in fact, nor reduce the size of the one in place, but maybe it will cause the" meiosis "of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and this is not a bad thing, especially if you look at their potential future fertility.
Pope Francis has recently pointed to the major superiors of religious orders, that "charisma is not a bottle of distilled water "(Meeting with the major superiors of November 29, 2013, SIR January 3, 2014), is a reality that is not stagnant but dynamic, is not dead but alive. And the dynamism and vibrancy of religious orders is also demonstrated in their ability to regenerate through the re-enactment of their charisma. Thing for the Franciscans of the Immaculate was thanks to the impulse of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
It is true that the reform of a religious family does not necessarily require the division of its members, it is true that everything could be carried inside. It is true, and that it would have been nice had happened. But things, unforeseeable circumstances, have gone any other way. " The reality is higher idea "(EG 233) says the Holy Father . And now it is enough to take note of a fact, perhaps worst of the ideal unity, but undeniable: there are two different ways of understanding the original charism, for which reason, the division of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate , in one way or another, it is inevitable. We must look for the best way, especially to save many vocations and faith of so many lay faithful who follow this complicated story with apprehension.
Who will help the Franciscans of the Immaculate in this labor regenerator?
Who will help them to share the precious heritage Kolbean, so that each group takes its way, like brothers, like Abraham and Lot, like Paul and Barnabas, and not be like Cain and Abel? Chi, for ideological reasons, is arming a to suppress the other hand, the finish, please! (Behind every "Arab spring" is a "warlord").
Common sense will prevail, the good of the Church will prevail "healthy Christian realism," which refers to Pope Francis. To our beloved Pope dare ask this appointment a cardinal of the holy Roman Church, which is non-partisan , that accompany the two groups, existing in fact, of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in this irreversible process of regenerating division.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Papa Francesco's First Consistory
I shall not analyze Papa Francesco's first consistory. I am unfamiliar with most of the men named Cardinals. I am naturally dismayed by the naming of Archbishop Gerhard Mueller but knew that it was inevitable after his being named to the sacred congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Archbishop Mueller is an 'old liberal' in the footsteps of Cardinal Lehman. In my delusion, I should have liked to see such men as Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Oliveri as candidates but I digress....
The most glaring omission in this consistory is the absence of the Archbishop of Venice Francesco Moraglia. The patriarchal see of Venice being very important in the Church having given us a large number of Popes over the centuries among those in the 20th century: St Pius X (1913), Blessed John XXIII (1958) and John Paul I in 1978. Therefore the archbishops of Venice are seen as papabile.... I place a lot of hope and confidence in Archbishop Moraglia who is a student of Cardinal Siri as a counter-balance against the overwhelming liberal-modernist faction in the Church. I shall not read into this but his absence is noticeable. So even though he already has a 'red hat' and is allowed to wear red as patriarch of Venice he still is devoid of voting power as a cardinal.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Grasping for Straws in the Post Conciliar era
I do not think I have ever seriously been tempted or seriously entertained sedevacantism much less conclavism. I remember as a teenager reading in the local daily Newspaper an article around 1980 by an elderly priest who sincerely believed that the real Paul VI had been imprisoned and that an "imposter" anti-pope had been installed in his place in Rome. He even had photographs to "prove" that the occupant of the see of Peter was NOT Paul VI.
He went on to use the "prophecy of Lasalette" to further support this theory. At that time, I had never heard of the sedevacantist theory and the very idea struck fear in my heart. I remember being horrified by the possibility. I was born in 1966 and had only known the novus ordo and yet I knew almost instinctively that something had gone terribly wrong since the council. That much was obvious to me. I think the malaise in the post conciliar church has left us with grasping for straws to find answers to the mystery of chaos in the church. All Catholics of sincere faith and conviction have for decades been trying to make some sense out of the malaise that has afflicted the Church. Many of us were born into this situation not having known anything else. I think many of us go through different phases in this process of trying to make sense of it all. I no longer believe as I once did that a return to a 'golden era' in the Church (say 1955) is possible nor desireable. Nor do I naively believe anymore that the traditional Mass is a panacea to all that afflicts the Church. I am however convinced that a return to traditional order within the Church is the answer. What I mean by this is a return to an authentic Sensus Catholicus in how the Church has always understood and viewed herself in her liturgy, piety and her very mission. We must cleave to 'eternal Rome' rather than to 'modernist Rome' to use Mgr Lefebvre's words in his 1974 declaration.
The problem with sedevacantism and conclavism is not that they couldn't be plausible theoretically but that they attempt to clarify the malaise in the Church in a simple, black and white fashion. Such theories leave more questions than answers. Conclavists have decided in their various factions to 'elect' a 'true pope'. The most famous being the "Palmarian Church of the Carmelites of the Holy Face" which itself was the result of false apparitions to a false stigmatist and seer Clemente Dominguez y Gomez who made himself "Pope Gregory XVII". His current successor is "Pope Gregory XVIII". There have been and continue to be a number of anti-popes in the Conciliar era.
anti-pope "Gregory XXII" of the Palmarian Church
anti-pope "Gregory XXIII" current leader of the Palmarian Church
At the same time, I do not think it wise to ignore, underestimate or completely disregard the prophecies of La Salette, La Fraudais , Anne Catherine Emmerich or Fatima regarding the future of the Church. It is simple to dismiss the sedevacantists and conclavists as nut jobs. Unfortunately, too often it is the case that Catholics are given to extremes about the subject. Some of them become conclavists or sedevacantists on the one hand or they become extreme ultramontanists on the other. We like to believe that prophecies about the crisis in the Church are for another time. Too often we prefer to take the stance of Pope John XXIII after reading the third secret of Fatima that such prophecies do not pertain to our own times. I am often amazed to what lengths some people will go (including and especially churchmen) to convince themselves and others of this. There has been for the most part since Vatican II a wholesale denial of crisis in the Church for the most part. To be sure in the 1970s and even 80s there were Cardinals, bishops and priests who had been formed in the old school and who were able to discern the signs of the times and help their flocks weather the malaise better and who knew what was at work within the Church to destroy her (think Bishop Graber of Regensburg). This however has changed in recent decades as the 68ers (those formed in a revolutionary spirit) have come of age and many occupy places of power and influence in the Church. These men see Vatican II as a sort of beginning of a "year zero" in the Church as though nothing existed before. They view the Church's past through the 'lens of Vatican II' rather than the other way around. There are those in the Church (especially among the liberals and neo-Catholic ultramontanists) who like to poke fun at any mention of the influence of freemasons within the Church. As though such notions were akin to madness. Neo-Catholics willingly admit the widespread influence of modernism within the post Conciliar church but are also keen to believe that we are in a 'new Spring time'. Often times utterances from Rome seem at odds with what the church has always believed and taught. It can be greatly confusing and disconcerting when this happens. I think Sister Lucy of Fatima described it best as 'diabolical disorientation'.
I like to believe that anyone reading this blog is trying to 'work out their salvation in fear and trembling' to the best of their ability and to live, sustain and nurture their Catholic faith in a traditional manner. I like to believe that most of us who would describe ourselves as traditional Catholics have been seeking for decades to make the best out of a very difficult and virtually impossible situation. There exists among many traditional Catholics the sentiment that everything since Vatican II is evil and detrimental to the faith. Sanity and order will be restored in the Church through a restoration of an authentic sensus catholicus and not by a recreation of an ideal time in Church history. The great majority of Catholics practice their faith within a context of discontinuity. The truth of the matter is that most of them have simply been following the lead of heterodox Churchmen for decades. Most have been raised with little or no catechesis, protestantized or even neo pagan liturgies, heterodox or even heretical preaching. The average Catholic parish would be a foreign place for a Catholic who lived and died before Vatican II. Perhaps some of us in the aftermath of the council were fortunate enough to find 'islands' of sanity in a sea of modernism. I for one am grateful for such 'ghettos of Catholicity". I have come to believe that such places of refuge will continue to serve the needs of traditional minded Catholics as things deteriorate steadily in the coming years. It goes without saying that we must continue to pray for a restoration in the Church of an authentic sensus Catholicus above all by means of Our Lady's rosary. Above all we ought as Catholics to take Blessed Jacinta's words to heart and to make them our own: "Poor holy father we must pray much for him."
He went on to use the "prophecy of Lasalette" to further support this theory. At that time, I had never heard of the sedevacantist theory and the very idea struck fear in my heart. I remember being horrified by the possibility. I was born in 1966 and had only known the novus ordo and yet I knew almost instinctively that something had gone terribly wrong since the council. That much was obvious to me. I think the malaise in the post conciliar church has left us with grasping for straws to find answers to the mystery of chaos in the church. All Catholics of sincere faith and conviction have for decades been trying to make some sense out of the malaise that has afflicted the Church. Many of us were born into this situation not having known anything else. I think many of us go through different phases in this process of trying to make sense of it all. I no longer believe as I once did that a return to a 'golden era' in the Church (say 1955) is possible nor desireable. Nor do I naively believe anymore that the traditional Mass is a panacea to all that afflicts the Church. I am however convinced that a return to traditional order within the Church is the answer. What I mean by this is a return to an authentic Sensus Catholicus in how the Church has always understood and viewed herself in her liturgy, piety and her very mission. We must cleave to 'eternal Rome' rather than to 'modernist Rome' to use Mgr Lefebvre's words in his 1974 declaration.
The problem with sedevacantism and conclavism is not that they couldn't be plausible theoretically but that they attempt to clarify the malaise in the Church in a simple, black and white fashion. Such theories leave more questions than answers. Conclavists have decided in their various factions to 'elect' a 'true pope'. The most famous being the "Palmarian Church of the Carmelites of the Holy Face" which itself was the result of false apparitions to a false stigmatist and seer Clemente Dominguez y Gomez who made himself "Pope Gregory XVII". His current successor is "Pope Gregory XVIII". There have been and continue to be a number of anti-popes in the Conciliar era.
At the same time, I do not think it wise to ignore, underestimate or completely disregard the prophecies of La Salette, La Fraudais , Anne Catherine Emmerich or Fatima regarding the future of the Church. It is simple to dismiss the sedevacantists and conclavists as nut jobs. Unfortunately, too often it is the case that Catholics are given to extremes about the subject. Some of them become conclavists or sedevacantists on the one hand or they become extreme ultramontanists on the other. We like to believe that prophecies about the crisis in the Church are for another time. Too often we prefer to take the stance of Pope John XXIII after reading the third secret of Fatima that such prophecies do not pertain to our own times. I am often amazed to what lengths some people will go (including and especially churchmen) to convince themselves and others of this. There has been for the most part since Vatican II a wholesale denial of crisis in the Church for the most part. To be sure in the 1970s and even 80s there were Cardinals, bishops and priests who had been formed in the old school and who were able to discern the signs of the times and help their flocks weather the malaise better and who knew what was at work within the Church to destroy her (think Bishop Graber of Regensburg). This however has changed in recent decades as the 68ers (those formed in a revolutionary spirit) have come of age and many occupy places of power and influence in the Church. These men see Vatican II as a sort of beginning of a "year zero" in the Church as though nothing existed before. They view the Church's past through the 'lens of Vatican II' rather than the other way around. There are those in the Church (especially among the liberals and neo-Catholic ultramontanists) who like to poke fun at any mention of the influence of freemasons within the Church. As though such notions were akin to madness. Neo-Catholics willingly admit the widespread influence of modernism within the post Conciliar church but are also keen to believe that we are in a 'new Spring time'. Often times utterances from Rome seem at odds with what the church has always believed and taught. It can be greatly confusing and disconcerting when this happens. I think Sister Lucy of Fatima described it best as 'diabolical disorientation'.
I like to believe that anyone reading this blog is trying to 'work out their salvation in fear and trembling' to the best of their ability and to live, sustain and nurture their Catholic faith in a traditional manner. I like to believe that most of us who would describe ourselves as traditional Catholics have been seeking for decades to make the best out of a very difficult and virtually impossible situation. There exists among many traditional Catholics the sentiment that everything since Vatican II is evil and detrimental to the faith. Sanity and order will be restored in the Church through a restoration of an authentic sensus catholicus and not by a recreation of an ideal time in Church history. The great majority of Catholics practice their faith within a context of discontinuity. The truth of the matter is that most of them have simply been following the lead of heterodox Churchmen for decades. Most have been raised with little or no catechesis, protestantized or even neo pagan liturgies, heterodox or even heretical preaching. The average Catholic parish would be a foreign place for a Catholic who lived and died before Vatican II. Perhaps some of us in the aftermath of the council were fortunate enough to find 'islands' of sanity in a sea of modernism. I for one am grateful for such 'ghettos of Catholicity". I have come to believe that such places of refuge will continue to serve the needs of traditional minded Catholics as things deteriorate steadily in the coming years. It goes without saying that we must continue to pray for a restoration in the Church of an authentic sensus Catholicus above all by means of Our Lady's rosary. Above all we ought as Catholics to take Blessed Jacinta's words to heart and to make them our own: "Poor holy father we must pray much for him."
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Catholic in Brooklyn: Feast of the Circumcision
