Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. (Mt 5-26).Which can be taken with the idea that once you HAVE paid back the last penny, you will be released from the punishment…i.e. that it will end. In spite of the latter verses that one might point to, the predominant view in the Church’s history is that many will be damned, and that “many” likely means “most” seems to be the common opinion. In the view of people who hold this, the second quote above can be “explained” by a reading that does not credit that it really means “everyone (or nearly everyone) will eventually pay off the whole debt”. Just for one example of such an explanation: a true penitential suffering that “works” to pay off the debt due to sin would have to be suffered with remorse and contrition, but the people in Hell have no remorse and contrition. Therefore, they cannot even begin to pay off the debt, and so their punishment (rightly) goes on and on without cease. There are, in Catholic literature, a wide range of stories of saints who were given visions of Hell, in which they (seemingly) observed that Hell was stuffed to the gills, with ever more pouring in, in a huge torrent. These are called “private revelation” which are not approved by the Church and are not required to be credited as true revelations by God. I have never heard of a private revelation in which a saint saw an opposed view of Hell, one virtually unpopulated. It seems that among the many teachers of old that announced the view that many or most would end up in Hell, apparently there were some teachers who either said, or at least gave the appearance of teaching also that they relished the fact that most would be damned, and that salvation would be reserved for the few, the elect, the proud… Well, maybe not the last adjective, "proud". I had a question, from an apostate Catholic who seemed to have had such teacher in his youth: Would you be disappointed if nearly all people end up saved? My response was simple: not disappointed at all, but pleasantly surprised better describes it. I would welcome it, but I don’t expect it. Yet I see room in the Gospel passages for a pretty large range as possible. For instance, just as the citation from Mt. 5 can be “explained away” from the conclusion that all or most will be saved, the citation from Mt. 7 can be explained away from the conclusion that most will be damned. For instance, one might point out that To be on the road to perdition is not the same as ending up at perdition. You can be a great sinner and still go to Heaven: it only takes turning around and heading in the other direction AT THE END to escape Hell – if done truly. The “Good Thief” on Jesus’s right hand at the Crucifixion shows us that. How much time you spend headed towards Hell does not determine, all by itself, whether you end up there. And so even if 95% of all people spend 95% of their whole lives in grave sin and headed to Hell, it would be possible for 90% of them to repent of their sinful lives and be saved. Also, “many” can be taken in absolute terms, rather than a percentage: If 1 million are damned, that is “many”. But if the total number of humans who have existed so far is 20 billion, that is a very small percentage. But my intuition tells me that this is a forlorn hope, mere wishful thinking, for 2 reasons. First: because people get set in their ways. By living a life of habitual, knowing rejection of God, the sinner makes it harder and harder to even conceive of making the opposite choice, much less be open to the idea, much less actually do it. As the decades pass, people get more, not less, set in their choices. It would take an extraordinary grace by God to punch through that shell of habitual rejection of Him, and we should not EXPECT that to be the norm. The second is this: the apparent meaning and purpose of Jesus’ several comments like “many there are who go in thereat” is to ramp up our apprehension of the danger. But this would be nearly pointless if the danger is itself minimal because God arranges for nearly all to be saved at the end after all. He would be guilty of exaggeration, at the least, by those several warnings: scaremongering, which is an accusation I have heard more than once from atheists referring to teachers who impress their students with the "many are damned" position. I think Jesus meant us to take his warnings at face value because they are true in that prima facie sense. A third reason to add would be that in inspecting my own motives and actions, I can see that it would be relatively easy to take the soft, easy way "of the world" and stop resisting temptations to sin. I have to assume that MANY are subject to similar temptations, and at least from exterior observation (so far as they can tell us, which is inconclusive) it is also true that MANY don't make all that much noticeable effort to resist. That is, "many are on the road to perdition" does seem to be empirically probable. I don't have to think that I can JUDGE any individual neighbor to think that the overall evidence indicates a probability of certain conclusions, in the aggregate. But I try to not be over-trusting of such intuitions. I would rather rely on solid, definitive grounds if I can get them, or if not just admit that my view is an opinion and open to correction. So, I offer this as a venue to take up the issue and go at it with hammer and tongs. Let’s get some debate going. ]]>
The canonical doctrine of reception originated in the statement of Gratian after canon 3 in Distinction IV of his Decretum (circa 1140). He cited Isidore of Seville and Augustine on the establishment of laws, and then wrote: Laws are instituted when they are promulgated and they are confirmed when they are approved by the practices of those who use them. Just as the contrary practices of the users have abrogated some laws today, so the (conforming) practices of the users confirm laws.I understand the strong inclination to embrace “reception” theory for law, in this case. I really do. But we saw it used 10,000 times by liberals and revolutionaries against perfectly good law, and it was always a bad theory in their mouths. I hesitate to reverse and say it’s a good theory when others use it against a bad law. However, I think there is something a little like “reception theory” that is – perhaps – a valid position about church law, and I want to lay it out. (And in the alternative, there are other ways of understanding the constraints of law, as options to take against TC being binding, that might work instead of reception theory.) ]]> in 4 articles, the 4 elements that tell us what “law” really is: 1. An ordinance of reason; 2. By the authority who has care of the community; 3. For the common good; 4. And promulgated. In laying these out, he shows the causes of law, under the 4 KINDS of cause: the matter, the form, the agent, and the final cause (the end or purpose). Here, the “form” is the ordinance of reason – the ratio that comprises an intelligible kind of action combined with a rational basis which undergirds the command; the “matter” is its promulgation in a public announcement; the agent is the one in authority; and the final cause, the end or purpose, is the common good. He is speaking at the highest level of generality about law here; as such, this applies to eternal law, divine law, human law, and ecclesiastical law. Later he clarifies that a bad law (he says, an “unjust” law) is no law – i.e. that it is not morally binding.
If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Proverbs 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver—and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws. On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above—either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory—or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him—or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40-41: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two." Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to obey God rather than man."So he makes it clear that law fails to be binding when it fails to BE law, by failing in one or more of the 4 causes of law. It is easy to misunderstand what Thomas really means when he gets into laws that fail because of not being for the common good. It is necessary to be careful here, because he does not mean that if a law is not ACTUALLY going to help toward the common good, it is no law. Law is “for” the common good in this sense: the common good is the purpose the legislator has in giving the law. This is a difficult point, and I want to be clear, here, if I can. St. Thomas explains that the whole reason there needs to be positive law (including laws made by humans) AT ALL is that when you have many agents with free will, and (a) they are intended to achieve a united purpose, and (b) they do not all see equally and clearly all pieces of HOW to achieve that united purpose, then if each agent acted on his own judgment to try to achieve the common good as best he could see by himself, the common good COULD NEVER actually come into being. Each agent’s perceptions of what might be a good action would end up conflicting with some other agent and they would defeat each other. Achieving the common good would be impossible. Then instead of each agent directing HIMSELF to act for the common good, each agent needs to be directed toward the common good by a unified mind, a person who organizes the whole and unifies the actions of many so they harmonize rather than conflict. This is the one in authority – this is the WHOLE PURPOSE of there being a human authority: to make it so that efforts by many can build together instead of interfere and destroy each other. Now, it is of course likely that no human authority actually sees perfectly how to achieve the common good in toto. But even in the case of imperfect understanding, by being a SINGLE mind directing the actions of many, he will enable at least a partial success in achieving the good; not even THAT much can be achieved without there being someone in authority. In this idea of law, all that is needed for a true, valid law is that the ruler have a basic understanding of the common good to be achieved, have a grasp of the present facts and conditions which constitute the ground from which communal action may achieve the good, and apply his practical reason to determining a course of action for achieving it in a feasible way, then direct others based on that. Critically, it is the ruler’s practical reason that is the judge of the practical method to achieve the good, not that of the subjects – that is the entire reason there is one in authority to begin with. So, it is an invalid model for the subjects to say “I don’t think your new rule is going to be a very good method to get to the good we (all) want, so it ‘isn’t law’ because (I think) it won’t in actual fact ‘serve the common good’.“ It isn’t the subject’s prudential, practical reason, which decides whether the rule will achieve the good, it is the ruler’s. So a disagreement by subjects as to whether the chosen rule will in fact work to achieve the common good desired is NOT the measure of whether the law is valid law. Because final cause is a cause via intention, it is the RULER’s intention that determines whether the prescribed rule is “for the common good.” If, as a as a corrupt dictator he intends to serve his own pockets, or if as a degenerate tyrant he intends only to fill his own bed with desirable maidens, these rules have no force of law because his intent has nothing to do with the common good, rather the opposite. This is what Thomas means by a bad “law” being no law. Arguably, though, St. Thomas more or less hints at something that is similar to “reception theory” when he talks about a law being changed by custom:
All law proceeds from the reason and will of the lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of God; the human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution. But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law, in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared; for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly, custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.So once a law is made and exists for a time, a new practice in society that is incompatible, if repeated enough to become custom of sorts, and is not suppressed by the authorities, would indicate that the legislator has CHANGED his will on the matter, so that the new practice now is compatible with his will, and his LACK of action against it effectively promulgates that new intention. Thus custom can change law:
As stated above (I-II:96:6), human laws fail in some cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law; namely, in a case where the law fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows that the law is no longer useful: just as it might be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary.Thus a common phrase in this context is “an unenforced law is no law.” But the REASON is that by the ruler failing to take steps to correct the failure of the authorities under him to enforce the law, that ruler thus makes his will known implicitly, that he no longer intends that people follow that law. It is on account of the ruler’s own action, later, manifesting a changed will regarding the rule set forth, that makes it to be properly not a law, and thus ceases to have binding force. The ruler himself changes the law. Let me note here that it is exceedingly difficult, after a law is rightly written and in force, to later rightly ascertain WHEN it occurs that we no longer have a binding law because it “is not enforced”, sufficiently to remain “law in fact”. Two simple examples: (i) on observing people doing 70 mph in a 65 mph zone all day long, without being stopped for speeding, one might be inclined to say “speed limit is not enforced.” But in reality, if the police see someone doing 80, he is stopped and ticketed: SOME limit is enforced, just not at the boundary line listed, because the police are willing to grant a certain “benefit of the doubt.” A speed limit is enforced. (ii) The IRS says that tips (i.e. for waitresses and bartenders) are “income” and must be included for tax purposes. However, people might imagine that “the IRS doesn’t enforce that rule”, because the IRS rarely takes explicit action to punish violations. But the “rarely” is, actually, only a small percentage of the time, it isn’t the same as “never”, nor even “only once in a great while.” It happens every year, in those cases where (a) the IRS at random audits a person, and (b) can locate data that is secure enough to establish the fact of tips not reported. The “small percentage” is not a result of any official disregard of the problem. This shows just two types of difficulties in ascertaining “enforcement.” And, in the very nature of the concept of a law being changed by repeated practice, it is effectively impossible for there to be a bright-line demarcation of when the law as written ceases to be binding. Even an instance of a highly publicized refusal on the part of prosecutors to take a case could be due to other factors than lack of desire to prosecute – it can be from lack of clear evidence, or for procedural obstructions. So, it is quite hard to make a solid, justified case for a law ceasing to be binding, until it is far and away clear that the authorities have no intention of enforcing it. And, in effect, the law as written must initially have the presumption in its favor, the claim of it being changed by practice must have the burden of proof. However, it is different for a law that is in conflict with some practice out of the starting gate, for, the whole reason such restrictive laws are made is to STOP some practice: (At least in normal situations), it would be crazy if the pre-existing practice were, for that very reason, protected from being changed by law.
If, however, the same reason remains, for which the law was useful hitherto, [i.e. the purpose for which the law was made to begin with], then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes the custom.It is also very dangerous to suggest – across the board – that a law needs to be “received” in order for it to become law at all. One reason is that this would seem to subject divine law (such as the ceremonial law given to Moses by God) as being “not law” until the Israelites deigned to agree to it. God’s decrees do not require our consent in order to become binding. To say it more generally: it is not impossible for a legislator’s stated will to morally bind his subjects against their desire. To assert otherwise is to fail to understand law in general. Yet, St. Thomas allows that there CAN BE qualifiers or limitations on this. In speaking of human law, he breaks it down into different types of cases:
but the law that overcomes the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to the custom of the country" [I-II:95:3], which has been stated to be one of the conditions of law. For it is not easy to set aside the custom of a whole people…
The people among whom a custom is introduced may be of two conditions. For if they are free, and able to make their own laws, the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favor of a particular observance, than does the authority of the sovereign who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people. Wherefore although each individual cannot make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have not the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a higher authority…The first comment harkens back to a dictum by St. Isidore of Seville:
A law will be moral, just, possible, in accord with nature, in keeping with the custom of the homeland, suitable to the place and time, necessary, useful, clear so that it not mask something unsuitable, not for private benefit, but conceived for the common utility of the citizens.St. Thomas is distinguishing between two different types of civil orders: one in which “the people” is the root legislator and the officer is limited to putting their will into effect with further details; the second is where the ruler holds the sovereign power to make the laws, and not merely as the agent of “the people.” In the former case, custom has a greater force of law than the will of the official who carries out the will of the people. In the latter case, it does not. Clearly, with divine law, the ruler is sovereign and not bound to observe the will of the people. With direct democracy like in Athens, the people were the sovereign, and the acts of individual officials (such as generals) were as agents for the people. It is a bit muddled to sort out mixed societies like republics. And also difficult for ecclesiastical law, which is decidedly not either a democracy or a republic. It would be, at a minimum, very difficult to approve “reception” theory with regard to ALL decisions made by Church authorities. For example, in the very early Church, the Apostles had to decide whether new converts must conform to Jewish law requirements. The final decision that they were not required to conform to Jewish law could not have been held – by the people – to be “not received” because they didn’t think it good, or because they thought it incompatible with prior customs. “The people” were not competent to pass judgment on the apostolic decision in the matter, and were not in a position to “receive” or “not receive” this new law. It was binding, period. The difficulty also lies in this: church law is “law” in something of an imperfect or extended sense. This stems from the nature of the Church and its purpose.
b. Rules have a different purpose in the Church. They serve to keep good order and protect personal rights, but their ultimate aim is the spiritual good of the members, mutual love among them, and, indeed, their eternal salvation.Unlike civil law whose object is primarily an action in conformity with the rule, an action which contributes to the common good regardless of the intention by the subject obeying the law, (whether he does so willingly or grudgingly), Church law has as its object primarily charity which cannot be so much commanded as elicited in connection with the outward action. So, arguably, a different standard may apply to canon law so that obedience stands to canon law somewhat differently than in the case of civil law. However, it is probably unhelpful to try to use “reception” theory to explain why sometimes church law can be not obeyed with an upright conscience. A Better Approach I believe the standard Thomistic account of law is a better model to use for this. The reception theory assertion that “contrary custom has abrogated certain laws” pretty much falls apart as useless, under St. Thomas’s account, because contrary NEW practices not eliciting new enforcement to suppress the new practice manifests a different intention of the legislator – that’s WHY it abrogates a prior law, and it has no application to a new law at all. The exception is when it is “the people” who are the sovereign lawgiver, and this certainly does not apply in church law. For St. Thomas, a law fails to be binding to the extent it fails to be law, i.e. to the extent it runs afoul of the 4 stated causes of law. Let’s take the easiest first: promulgation. For these purposes, a law is “promulgated” when the lawgiver has made known to the subjects what his will is, and that he intends to bind others to the rule. In this case of TC, there may be a few aspects about which Francis’s will is unclear, (and in those respects I would say there is no binding obligation), but by and large his will is clear. However, other aspects of the Thomistic model do come to play here. In order for a ruler to rule, he has to apprehend “the good”, apply his practical reason to a set of facts, (i.e. the conditions that confront the community) and then craft a “solution” that constitutes a pathway of action that reasonably tends toward the good apprehended. What that means, then, is the ruler can fail either (A) in the part of apprehending “the good”, or (B) grasping the actual facts at hand, or (C) in applying practical reason toward those facts regarding a course of action. And, when I went back over TC (and the accompanying letter), I realized something: Francis has MAJOR FAILS for points A and B. The first major fail is in his article 1 in TC: that the Novus Ordo “is” the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Latin Rite. Even ignoring, for the moment, his descending into a bit of word-salad foolishness in compounding “expression of the lex orandi” with “of the Latin Rite”,* it is still off. As a matter of SHEER FACT, the Traditional Latin Mass exists, and it too is one of the masses that “express” the lex orandi of the Latin Rite. So also is the Dominican mass. And the Ordinariate mass. And so on with the other masses he seems to have forgotten in his haste. (Also, even if these other masses stop being used for a time – e.g. for one solid year – it would remain true that they “exist” in that history contains them, and thus they will forever be real, valid, expressions of the prayer of the Latin Rite. Just as the Pythagorean Theorem is, always, a valid proof whether anyone teaches it anymore or not. His first article simply fails. In order for the TLM not to express the prayer of the Latin Rite, it would be absolutely necessary for the “lex orandi” to have essentially changed from TLM to Novus Ordo. Since this is both DIRECTLY contrary to what Paul, JPII, and Benedict said, Francis cannot now “make” it true by merely saying it. Also, if it were true that the Novus Ordo comprised a different lex credendi, it would (by that fact) seem to comprise heresy. (See note*.) ) This is of critical importance, because (similar to a good legislator), Francis tried to EXPLAIN to us the “reason” behind his ordinances in TC. But his reason just doesn’t work. And, in fact, when he goes into greater depth in his letter, his faulty reason for TC is even more clear: Francis has come to the point of view that is, effectively, entirely contrary to that expressed by Benedict, who quite clearly intended that the two masses co-exist because there is nothing wrong with having two masses in the Roman Rite (since that rite has had MORE than two masses for many centuries). And, indeed, the fact that there were more than two (immemorial) masses under the Roman Rite when Pius V issued Quo Primum, masses which he did NOTHING to suppress, proves beyond doubt that the Church can have two masses which “express the lex orandi” of the Latin Rite.** The accompanying letter also shows something else: The Church has been in little doubt that Francis simply does not like traditionalists on account of their attachment to the old mass; he sees that attachment as both defective in itself, and (now) sees it as damaging the Church. His distaste is, clearly, a bias, a mere personal preference. What is entirely unclear, though, is that the informational basis upon which he claims this damage, even COULD BE well founded. His source (as he asserts) is the survey of the bishops, but one obvious problem is that the bishops have been a notoriously anti-TLM bunch for 40 years, and for the last 8 years they have known quite clearly that their immediate superior doesn’t like it when they say stuff that is supportive of the old mass: he has this bias, and he doesn’t promote people who violate his bias. The likelihood that he (a) received reliable information in the survey, and (b) that he READ that information in a reasonable fashion, is, shall we say, not promising. As a result, Francis’s practical reason is engaged on (i) probably erroneous particulars of the so-called “damage”; and (ii) with respect to a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the whole “problem” of having two masses – i.e. a mis-apprehension of “the good” to begin with. Now, St. Thomas does allow that a subject may, for example, disobey the LETTER of the law in a case where following the law would (for some reason unknown to the ruler) actually defeat the SPIRIT i.e. purpose of the law – at least under time constraints where you can’t go to the ruler and say “hey, we have these conditions that are unlike the conditions you made the rule for….” and ask for an exception. He does not say it explicitly, but it seems to be implied by his model, that if the WHOLE BASIS of the ‘law’ is not supported by reason, then the subjects could not-follow the law “until they could show the ruler how his ‘rule’ fails to be an ordinance of reason.” Which, if the ruler is controlled by bias, is (probably) never, so they might have to wait until a new ruler comes along? (I am not confident this is right, and would welcome correction.) Perhaps I am mistaken here but my suggestion is that those situations where “reception theory” has a valid place in practice is in those situations where the apparent law as issued FAILS one of the 4 items on the list of causes of law, and the usual culprits are 1 and 3, (not 4). And the real basis upon which a law is “not received” is that the subjects – or at least a critical portion of them – see quite clearly that it fails 1 or 3. In this case, we have a pretty strong candidate for TC failing 1 – it is not an ordinance of reason, because the reason stated is a blatant failure. It also appears to fail 3 – it is not ordered to the common good, but NOT because the ruler happens to be mistaken about whether the rule (if followed) would achieve the object he intends; rather, it is that the object he has in mind is not the common good at all (or part of it), but only appears to him as a good because of his bias. If he were more able to appreciate diversity in the Spirit, he might see the good of the TLM. *It is my sense that the phrasing Francis used, “the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite” is, just slightly, gobbledygook. The “lex orandi” is the “law of prayer”. It comes from the phrase “lex orandi lex credendi”, which is typically translated as “the law of prayer is the law of faith”, or, more loosely, as how we pray reflects and influences what we believe, (though the influence really goes both ways, it is not a one-way street). “Lex” in “lex orandi” does not mean, strictly, the written rule books telling us how to carry out the liturgy, it means the prayer itself, the very substance of the mass (and of the divine office), representing a “rule” of the mind and heart: the ACT of praying a certain way exercising a regulating influence on how we think and adhere to the Faith. Since the Church has always accepted that the peoples of the different rites (that are united with Rome) all have the same faith, we cannot understand by “lex orandi lex credendi” a notion that the prayers of different rites imply different faiths. Thus it would be erroneous to consider a “lex orandi of the Roman Rite” that referred to a faith ESSENTIALLY different from the “lex orandi of the Byzantine Rite”. Hence the “lex orandi” is not “OF” one rite, it is (for all rites), the “lex orandi” of the Church. In context, the substantive object to which “the lex orandi” points is the FAITH OF THE CHURCH, and it cannot be taken as pointing to one specific rite in distinction from other rites. The prayer of the Roman Rite is the rule of faith of the Church. The prayer of the Byzantine Rite is the rule of faith of the Church. Etc. To give it a charitable meaning, Francis must have meant something less heinous than that the Novus Ordo mass, as a "rule of belief", points to a different faith than the Byzantine rite mass. Probably he meant to refer to the specific charism of the Latin Rite in its particularity, for each rite has its own special flavor. Because this is so, none of the masses of the different rites can claim to display ALL ASPECTS of the faith in an equal way: they are not the same. It is not necessary to think of one rite as “better” than another, simply, in order to allow for the possibility that one rite is better than another with respect to one specific aspect of apprehending the faith. There are different charisms: diversity in the Church.*** Within each rite, there can be different “uses” which, while being similar in most respects, diverge from each other enough to be recognized as distinct in some stable, specific sense. Within the Latin Rite, besides the dominant Roman Use, there have been these uses: Dominican, Sarum, Carmelite, Benedictine, and Anglican/Ordinariate. Like with Rites, different uses can excel in one or another aspect, compared to other uses. While there is nothing fundamentally impossible that one use is, simply, BETTER than the other uses, they all “express” the charism of the Latin Rite in some manner or measure. The Roman Use of the Latin Rite has co-existed with other uses for many centuries. It is, simply speaking, false to say that the Roman Use is the only mass that expresses the Latin Rite charism. Since a new ordinance cannot change history, it is impossible to eradicate the FACT that there have been other masses than the Roman Use that expresses the charism of the Roman Rite. It may be possible to suppress those uses, leaving only one use current, but this would be irrelevant to whether other uses express the charism of the Latin Rite. **Some traditionalists have been arguing since 1970 that the Novus Ordo does not carry a full expression of the faith of the Church, and that this is, as such, its major defect. The more extreme version of that claim is that the Novus Ordo is an illegitimate mass because it is so defective an expression of the prayer of the Church that it is, foundationally, a failure. The less extreme version is merely that it is a significantly defective expression of the faith of the Church. But there is an interesting facet of Francis’s assertion: if it were true that the Novus Ordo is THE unique expression of a certain charism as the prayer of the Church, it would by that very fact be A DIFFERENT RITE than the mass that preceded 1970. Since the mass of Pius V and John XXIII is, without any possible doubt, a mass of the Latin Rite, the Novus Ordo would constitute a new Rite, i.e. the “Novus Rite”; Francis would be asserting that the Novus Rite is the Rite of the Roman Church. This would present Francis with 2 major problems: (1) It is argued that it is not valid for a pope to simply generate a rite by innovation. All of the rites claim, effectively, apostolic authority, via Tradition. And in this respect, the apostolic authority is NOT the authority handed on to the bishops, not even to the pope: the whole point is that the Tradition springs from the 12 men appointed and consecrated by Christ, alone. A new rite of mass initiated by Paul VI, new because it does not derive expressly from the Apostles by Tradition, would be outside the pope’s authority. (I do not have enough historical knowledge to evaluate the premise of this argument.) (2) As was discovered by the Church in the centuries ensuing after the Apostles, the Patriarch of the Roman Church does not have the authority to suppress different rites merely because they are different from the Roman Rite. The authority of the pope to regulate the prayer of the Church is, essentially, a conserving authority: he could only act to suppress a rite on account of some divergence in its practice from its roots, from Tradition. A claim to suppress the TLM merely because it is not the SAME as the new “unique” expression of the (new) charism of the rite chosen by Rome would be a violation of the rights of rites. (Had to say that!) And an act to suppress the TRADITIONAL rite simply because it remains connected by Tradition to the apostles is utterly contrary to the Church in every way, and outside the pope’s authority. So, either (a) the Novus Ordo is actually a newer, revised version of the Latin Rite mass, (so that it retains the needed connection via Tradition to the apostolic authority), or (b) everything Francis is trying to do in TC is outside his authority, since the only “problem” he is citing is, merely, the diversity between the TLM and the Novus Rite. And if (a), then it is unintelligible that it be THE unique expression of prayer of the Latin Rite, given other uses. Either way, article 1 of TC seems to fall apart as a ground for suppressing a mass. ***According to story, Charlemagne attempted to abolish the Ambrosian Rite (of Milan).
He sent to Milan and caused to be destroyed or sent beyond the mountain, quasi in exilium (as if into exile), all the Ambrosian books which could be found. Eugenius the Bishop, (transmontane bishop, as Landulf calls him), begged him to reconsider his decision. After the manner of the time, an ordeal, which reminds one of the celebrated trials by fire and by battle in the case of Alfonso VI and the Mozarabic Rite, was determined on. Two books, Ambrosian and Roman, were laid closed upon the altar of St. Peter's Church in Rome and left for three days, and the one which was found open was to win. They were both found open, and it was resolved that as God had shown that one was as acceptable as the other, the Ambrosian Rite should continue.]]>
Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984[2] and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988[3] — was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.Healing the “schism” with Archbishop Lefebvre would have meant taking steps with Lebebvre and SSPX, it would not entail a CHURCH-WIDE change. The SSPX is only a drop in the bucket of tradition-minded Catholics. JPII and Benedict provided broader methods than just dealing with schismatic-leaning elements of the SSPX, because they recognized a broader problem. (In addition: it would have been possible to heal the “schismatic” leaning of the SPPX with 2 strokes of the pope’s pen: (1) regularize their canonical position with a direct order confirming the permanence of their order; (2) give them explicit permission to continue with the old mass. Neither one of these is difficult to do.
With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal. With the passage of thirteen years, I instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to circulate a questionnaire to the Bishops regarding the implementation of the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene. Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended “to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew”,[12] has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.The fact of the matter is that the number of bishops who made it HARD for priests to have regular TLM masses in their parishes well exceeded the number of bishops who made it easy on pastors. The number of bishops who responded to JPII’s call for “generous” application of the indult was trivial; the vast majority either pretended JPII's Ecclesia Dei did not exist, or actively despised it. The problem here is the bishops: they did NOT accept JPII’s and Benedict’s view of those “just aspirations” in diverse liturgical sensibilities, and they continued their oppressive ways. I believe they picked up this attitude, first, mostly on account of the Vatican’s unjust negative attitude toward love of the old mass in the 1970s, and then fomented this negative attitude as a thing of its own without any foundation or due limits, just a self-contained (but required) attitude. (Effectively: the men who were attracted to the priesthood and strongly encouraged in their vocation, (and advanced in their careers) in the 1970s and 1980s, were men who could imbibe (without choking) the mantra that “if the Vatican issued the new mass, then by golly THAT’s what the Holy Spirit wanted for the Church, so EVERYONE should like it. Failure to like it is uncatholic." And they eventually began to ooze that mantra themselves.) This naturally means that the bishops are not unbiased observers. Whatever information Francis got from bishops should have been taken with a mountain-sized grain of salt. For, according to Francis, the story they told was of “division”: I have been around a fairly broad bunch of TLM-goers. And I listen to a pretty vocal number of them in blogging. Those who could be accused, even on broadly “close enough” terms, as “exploiting” the opportunities offered by Francis’s predecessors to “widen the gaps, reinforce divergences…” are quite few: less than 10% easily. That’s over my whole experience, including decades ago. Moreover, the percentage has been decreasing. The young people who are going to the TLM now DO NOT have the hang-ups their parents and grandparents had about the Novus Ordo and the way it was implemented: they weren’t there at the time. They aren’t putting themselves back into the 1970s. They were raised in the NO, and (mostly) accept it as a given. With that backdrop, they don’t think of the TLM as a divisive hook upon which they can fight against the rest of the Church. To be frank, most of the people who STILL make an issue of the NO as being “invalid” are the ones who have been doing so for decades, and the (modest degree of) generosity of JPII and Benedict did nothing to increase their disgust of it. Nor increase their divisiveness. But the people who tried the TLM for the first time and discovered there something they needed, while they haven’t (usually) come away thinking that NO is invalid, generally do come to a fresh and increased appreciation for the Mass as such, which is, PRECISELY, what Benedict was hoping for. It is my opinion that Francis completely mis-states the situation. It may be that he has more the right of it than I do, but I don’t know how he would have gotten his hands on objectively better data than I have: the survey of the bishops didn’t provide objective data. They don’t have any source for objectively sound data. And it is undoubtedly true that for every angry letter a bishop gets from a hard-line traddie who “reinforces divergences”, there are a dozen other traddies who don’t feel that way. (And, mind you, the Vatican did not release the survey responses themselves, so their characterization may or may not be fully correct.) Francis goes on to say:
At the same time, I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.It is good to hear the Pope say this. But like the last 4 popes, he is not taking ONE SINGLE HARD AND FAST STEP AGAINST THE LITURGICAL ABUSES. Why not? He found the time, energy, and resources to pitch a major effort against the traddies. But the number of people who attend the TLM is about 1% or so of those who go to NO, and there are regular abuses at at least 20% of NO masses (that’s not even counting the ones that are, merely, importantly lacking in reverence, which would be more like 60 to 90%). So, by any realistic measure, the NO abuse problem is AT LEAST 20 times as large. Actually, it’s much worse than that, since the percentage of “divisive” TLM attendees is far below 100% of those who attend, below even 10%, so the abuse problem is actually affecting more like 200 times as many people, and so is really 200 times as great a problem. And yet Francis can’t be bothered to address the abuse problem with anything definitive? The NO problem is also recorded in cold, hard numbers: according to PEW research in 2019, the number of TLM attendees who think like the pope does on abortion is 99%, where as those at NO who do are only 49%. It’s even worse about gay marriage. And, worse yet regarding weekly attendance at mass: only 22% of those who attend the NO go to mass every week, as opposed to 99% for the TLM. The NO, for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism, is clearly fostering dangerous division in the Church. The division is that of apostacy and heresy, rather than schism, but all three of these sins are in the very same category of gravest sins against the Church herself. But the underlying problem is a failure to recognize and accept the real roots of the issue, the real reason there even is a TLM movement. You would think that the real roots of something this large, and across this many people, would be a hard and difficult problem to lay out, but it really isn’t. In 1966 to 1970, Pope Paul VI commissioned a committee led by Annibale Bugnini to “reform” the Mass, as was the explicit direction of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) of Vatican II. But the majority of the committee members had no business being on it, and Bugnini himself was almost certainly a heretic, but at a minimum had already been under censure for his (wrong) outspoken views and had no business being proposed for leading the project (or being within 1000 miles of it). He did what anyone would have expected had they known him, he railroaded the project to produce a mass that he wanted, regardless of what the Council Fathers said. And when you compare the changes made to the principles indicated in SC, it is inescapable that he did not follow SC. I mean, not even sort of. There is no comparison. It was so bad that when the draft was submitted to Pope Paul, he was so horrified that he took pen and struck out a few of the most outrageous of the changes. But being a liberal-minded procedural guy, he was unwilling to do the right thing, which would have been to scrap the whole thing, fire nearly all of the committee, and start from scratch. It is almost like he seemed to think that this was some democratic process, and “well, if this is what the people want…” I have never understood (a) why he thought the resulting product was a “good enough” instantiation of “reform” as called for by SC, nor (b) why he imagined that changes that severe would sit easily with “the people.” Well, it WASN’T what the people wanted, not particularly. In general, “the people” had to be pushed and shoved into accepting it, and that ONLY worked by being strong-armed by “it’s the will of the Pope, who is the supreme head of the Church on Earth.” So, the “will of the Pope” was used when the Pope could barely hold his nose long enough to sign it, and did so "for the people". Talk about (sickening) irony. Paging O Henry... But I am getting ahead of myself: once the final text was determined, in 1969, the Vatican issued Missale Romanum putting the new mass, Novus Ordo, into force for Advent 1969. With a little leeway until 1971, I think. Given the amount that changed, this was without doubt an absolutely stupid and unreasonable way to do it: every single Catholic had been born and raised in the old mass, and knew that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents had been raised under the very same mass. Custom matters. Customs that long, and that important (every Sunday, every Feast day, etc) grow tethers into 10,000 other practices that are not, strictly speaking, in the missal, but are connected to it: the music, for example. And the genuflecting, and … You cannot just re-do huge sections of the mass all at once, without a long lead-time of education, preparation, discussion, and (to some degree or at least in some elements) gradual implementation, so as to enfold within the adjustment all the OTHER things that were connected to the things you changed. But none of that happened. And it didn’t happen, most likely, intentionally: the liturgo-terrorists who had the bit between their teeth had no desire for an orderly, careful, slow and thought-out process of implementation that moved everyone along step-by-step all together. Nothing doing. They WANTED chaos. And that’s what they got. They used the chaos in order to implement a million OTHER changes that were not actually in any of the books, and were none of them approved. They wanted, especially, so much change that nobody could keep track of it any more, or tell what had permission and what did not, and then they fostered an explicit attitude of expected, even required EXPERIMENTATION outside of the rubrics: priests who did not try new things were accused of fighting against the “Spirit of Vatican II”, although that was a complete lie and was explicitly denied in the Missale Romanum. The chaos helped the lie along. Naturally, out of this we got abuse. We got so many abuses that it is nearly impossible to even come up with a classification system for them. “Clown” masses isn’t even the worst of it. We got so much abuse that abuse became the new normal. However much the Council Fathers wanted the mass to be reformed, there is no way in the world they wanted THAT as the end result. What they put into SC proves they didn’t. And as for the Catholics in the pews, not only didn’t they want all the nonsense, many of them were repulsed by it and offended by the notion that this was all “necessary” because the Council called for “the reform”. What we must raise here, and be perfectly clear about, is the equivocation being CONSTANTLY HAMMERED ONTO OUR SKULLS for the last 50 years: while it is true that the Council directed the pope to see to a reform of the mass, that does not mean the Council directed the pope to produce THIS SPECIFIC MASS and then all the ancillary changes that we actually got – like mass said versus populum, for example. The “reform” we got is nothing like the reform they demanded. So, when Pope Francis says TLM Catholics are “rejecting the reform”, he is unfortunately using an equivocation. If the Vatican had produced the reform asked for, TLM Catholics (at least most of them, though not all) would not now be running from the NO. And the implementation OF “the reform” (i.e. the new missal) doubled down on the injustice of imposing a completely inappropriate and unnecessary set of changes (the ones in excess of and contrary to what the Council directed): it extended the range of injustices and the severity of them almost unimaginably, via poor implementation and abuses. If the popes of the last 50 years had spent as much effort on proper implementation and control of the changes, and careful oversight of those responsible, as they have on those who are just trying to say the old mass, we would not have had TLM growing by leaps and bounds over the last 13 years. If they had taken effective steps to correct the abuses, and to REPAIR some of the worst aspects of the actual missal of the NO that didn’t need to have been changed that way, then 99.9% of the “traditionalist problem" would have died out by now. It is the Vatican’s constant, unchanging attitude, for the last 50 years, that THIS SPECIFIC NO mas is the mass “of the Council”, because by golly it’s the mass produced by the committee put in charge of it, (and the terrorists after them), and anybody who speaks against THIS result speaks against “reform,” and “against the Council.” That fraudulent assertion is the underlying, root problem – refusal to admit the substantive problem in the first place. Reacting against unnecessary changes, and against an ocean of abuses so prevalent as to constitute a degeneracy of “norms”, is not rejecting “reform” or “the Council.” If Paul had admitted his mistakes before he let the draft go forward; If he had put forth a mass worthy of the name “reform” that VII asked for; If he had required a reasonable implementation period and process; If he had restrained the early abuses actively, and censured the people doing them; If he had listened to the faithful laity who expressed legitimate concerns and problems; If he had allowed a bishops the freedom to say “no thanks” even when he COULD NOT restrain the abuses; If he had not doubled down on “this is the process the Vatican approved”; If JPII had taken the opportunity of being his own man, a different chief executive, of not being directly implicated in the failures of Paul, and admitted the errors; If he had taken effective steps to rein in the abuses; If he had freely and early granted permissions that he ended up granting anyway; If he had MADE SURE that Ecclesia Dei actually was generously followed, and had made the bishops obey; If he had not allowed his underlyings to yank the chain of Archbishop Lefebvre with no good reason; If he had admitted publicly what he (probably) came to believe privately – that the old mass had not been abrogated; If he had recognized the catechetical failures of the NO and made essential changes to the NO to correct them; And so on: If the popes and the Vatican had handled the reform properly, or even less than incredibly foolishly and disastrously, they would not have created this horrific mess. If, at ANY TIME in the last 50 years, the Vatican had admitted it made a huge blunder and was going to take steps to correct it, they would have gotten instant support from the TLM community to help and to work with them. But…crickets. The problem of the Vatican response to traddies is a particular sort of clericalism, and Francis, for all he preaches against clericalism, is practicing it by not acting on the REAL problem. The problem was the product of an odd, clerical egotism that insisted, as a metaphysical absolute, that whatever concrete events happened after the Council constituted “the reform” intended by by the Council,, as if post hoc implies propter hoc. As if: because the Council itself was protected from formal doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit, all of the actions taken “in the name of the Council” after it was over must have been prudent and well-designed to make the Church better. “The Vatican can make no mistakes.” Clericalism. (Actually, it’s a kind of ultramontanism, but that is one species of clericalism.) In an odd sort of way, the NO has achieved the primary purpose the Council Fathers had in mind in calling for reform: more fulsome and complete “participation in the mass”. What is odd is that it did so in an entirely unintentional and backhanded way. The prime motivation driving the Fathers was a certain sort of perfunctory and merely physical presence at mass by many, which was made easier to do by the fact that the VISIBLE “activity” of the TLM is almost entirely by the priest and altar boys, with the people doing nothing and saying nothing: it is easy, in that context, just to show up and daydream your way through mass. The Fathers wanted more “active participation”. However, they clearly DEFINED the participation intended as that of an active energy of attention and desire and will: for each person there to attend to what the priest is doing, and to unite himself, by intention, to the sacrifice of the mass, to assent, interiorly and privately, to what the priest, in persona Christi, does actively and ministerially. That’s what the Council wanted most of all. They SAID that. And that’s what now happens at TLM masses, because people who make the effort to seek it out, after having grown up in the NO, would not bother making that effort without doing it for a reason. And in that reason, they devote themselves to actively learning the TLM and understanding their role at mass, and diving into it energetically. So, the NO is causing this, BY CONTRAST. Not precisely the pathway intended by Paul VI, but hey, they should take what they can get, shouldn’t they? What Francis and the bishops should have noticed is that even if the NO weren’t (as usually practiced) as bad as it is, the MERE CONTRAST ALONE between the two masses is actually an aid in understanding the mass better. There are clear benefits to having people easily attend either mass, and once in a while be exposed to the old mass, just for the contrast between what is the norm now and what was the norm for 1500 years. Diversity, you know. And this shows the ultimate mistake Francis is making: he thinks that most of the energy and motivation behind the (increasing) numbers of people using the TLM is from a “rejection of reform” and an “us vs. them” attitude. But this is just not true. The increase in numbers is almost wholly from younger people who weren’t around when the change happened, and who are not into that whole “you took away our mass” stuff. They are not rejecting reform. They are making real the very purpose the Council Fathers had in calling for reform. Francis should be PROMOTING the TLM, not suppressing it. I indicated at the beginning that this motu proprio had something new. What I meant is this: since the advent of the modern era, we have never seen a pope issue something official that is this harsh and downright nasty. These provisions were aimed at trads in a mean and cruel way. (a) It was effective immediately, even though issued on a Friday and could not possibly be implemented immediately without gross and unjust disruption. There was no emergency, it could have been made effective next month, or on January 1. (b) The name Traditionis Custodes, a slap in the face of tradition. (c) the explicit divergence of treatment for those who are not yet ordained, as to whether they will get to say the old mass – including many young men who have already predicated several years of study (under the regime of Summorum Pontificum) thinking they will have unfettered access to the old mass. (d) The dictum that the old mass shall not be said in parish churches. In places where parish churches have been used (and, especially, in places where the bishop has given a TLM group the whole rights to a parish), much time, money, and effort has been put into making the place suitable to the old mass in an eminent way, precisely because of the traditionalists desire for the reverence and the aesthetics of high worship; to rip them away from these spaces and relegate them (probably) to sub-human locations like gyms and conference centers is, effectively, aesthetic torture, i.e. a location itself at odds with the mass being said and the reason for it. And unjust, in the bargain. And (e) ultimately, the larger presumption of the whole Bergoglian dispute with Benedict that the Church cannot tolerate the ongoing existence of the old mass and those who love the old mass even if the Church cannot achieve any effective success in correcting the abuses in the new mass, i.e. the LIVED EXPERIENCE of those suffering from the rampant abuses is irrelevant to whether they should get relief via access to a holy and reverent mass. It is, unfortunately, adding insult to injury, that these actions should be taken by a pope who, for all other downtrodden groups, is all mercy and “accompaniment”, who actively opposes measures to rein in error and troublesome divergence from the Church’s official theology or practice. He seems to be saying that the ONLY people not worthy of his mercy are those who have been harmed by friendly fire from the artillery of the Church herself. And (apparently) only because a small percentage of them are “rigid” and “resist the Church” after having been harmed by friendly fire for 50 years. There is, out of the starting gate, a refreshing amount of evidence that Francis is not going to get quite the active assent to this instruction from the bishops that (maybe) he thought he was going to get. The sheer silliness of saying it is effective “immediately” virtually FORCED many bishops to issue quick public comments saying, in effect: “not yet, it isn’t; keep on doing what you have been doing until I sort this out.” And many of the ones who didn’t say that publicly will be found to have meant that by silence: they are not taking any measures against priests who continued to say the TLM at parish churches according to the schedules in the bulletins. And I have this suspicion that once you force bishops to publicly say whoa, Nellie to implementing TC, you won’t easily get them to go into full-bore application of it in all of its cruel splendor. I suspect that for every bishop like Bishop Minnerath (of Dijon, France, who got a clear idea of what was in TC months early, and kicked out all of the FSSP priests in his diocese 2 months before Francis issued TC), you will get 3 bishops who will implement TC in their typically desultory but mostly compliant (supine) format of approximately half effectiveness, 2 bishops who dig in their heels with an obstinate resistance to precipitate (unnecessary) changes, and 1 more bishop who actively and aggressively repudiates the spirit of TC and tries to undermine its desired effect while either (pick your poison) (i) exhibiting a show of following TC’s directives in outward form, while doing it with what I call “constructive malcompliance” in actual practice, or (ii) telling the pope in effect to go pound sand (maybe, but not necessarily, quietly and only by actions, rather than by outspoken announcement). Francis even may have generated a few brand new Hotspur nodes of resistance IN BISHOPS by this, which is an almost incredible achievement, given that they usually have their spines surgically removed in progression toward a bishop’s miter. In other words, the pope may have shot himself in the foot by his excessive harshness. He might have achieved far more compliance by more restrained efforts. I also think that many bishops will so notice the harshness and untoward spirit of meanness toward trads, that they will reflect on the very plausible scenario that if Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum can be reversed so soon after it was issued (and while Benedict is still alive – and on the 70th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood, no less), then Francis’s TC effort can be and might be reversed by his successor – and Francis is no spring chicken. He is 84, just 1 year younger than Benedict when he resigned, and the same age as JPII when he died. And Francis just went through a week in the hospital. We could well have a new pope in just a year or two, and if a bishop wanted to not implement TC fully, he could simply wait out the pope’s demise with slow-motion “implementation”. There are an infinity of methods to use for that, as all bureaucrats know (and believe me, nobody gets to be a bishop without at least some experience with bureaucracy). I hope that the NET effect of all this is that Francis causes even more bishops to notice the positive good that most TLM congregations in the Church are doing, and reflect more deeply on the possibility of using the TLM to kickstart better Novus Ordo masses in their dioceses. (And, in the longer term, foment a successful movement to reform the Novus Ordo itself.) If I were to speak to bishops directly, I would advise them to do everything in their power to draw TC’s teeth and to “implement” it with the least possible harm to traditional-leaning groups and individuals, and the least possible diminution of TLM masses in general; and, indeed, to increase devotion to the TLM where they can, because that is actually to the Church’s benefit. Interestingly, TC’s obligated actions are on the bishop – it doesn’t even have specific direct orders to parish priests, much less to the laity. Hence, the laity can continue to go to mass (and other ceremonies) under the 1962 missal that are held, without disobedience to Francis. The only people who even could disobey TC are the bishops. Since Francis clearly said the bishop is the custodian of the liturgy in their diocese, the laity are free to attend TLM wherever the bishop does not forbid it. ]]>
Suddenly and irresistibly, like an attack by tanks, that whole view of the universe which Weston...had so lately preached to him took all but complete possession of his mind. He seemed to see that he had been living all his life in a world of illusions....The beauty of Perelandra, the innocence of the Lady, the sufferings of saints and the kindly affections of men, were all only an appearance and outward show. What he had called the worlds were but the skins of the worlds: a quarter of a mile beneath the surface, and from thence through thousands of miles of dark and silence and infernal fire, to the very heart of each, Reality lived--the meaningless, the un-made, the omnipotent idiocy to which all spirits were irrelevant and before which all efforts were vain. (Perelandra, p. 180)That's what the Devil wants you to think. Frankly, shallow sentimentalism about a daily puppy picture would be truer. But better still the realization that the puppy, the friend, the green leaves, the sufferings of saints, and the kindly affections of men are the garment in which Reality clothes itself--that vast, meaningful, and ultimately powerful Reality that, at the last, will (for those who belong to the Lord, and hence are in touch with Reality) redeem all our losses. It will win because it must, because omnipotence and goodness are ultimately linked in some mysterious way that the Thomists claim to understand (and maybe they're right) and that I don't claim to understand. God's power and His goodness flow from his very being in two mighty streams. His creative acts flow from both, and one day He will make a new heaven and a new earth. It may seem to us now that only goodness is eternally being lost and that only evil and meaninglessness will remain, but when we see from the side of eternity, we will see that that was only what the Enemy wanted us to think. Christians believe that I'm right about this. Thinking Christians know that I'm right. The problem is one of holding on, isn't it? Another thing that can sap our will to hold on is our own sense of ridiculousness. Who am I, pontificating about Meaning and Suffering when others are really suffering? We can be tempted to be harsh with ourselves in a way that is not good, ridiculing our own attempts to cling to the unchanging hand of God on the grounds that, after all, we are so privileged, so pampered, that we shouldn't need such reflections in the first place. The Devil wants you to think that, too. Better to be humble, to take your share of the Cross, however ludicrously small it might seem in comparison with others', with due seriousness but not with self-aggrandizement, to accept with gratitude the present grace, and to go on. If there is one thing that 2020 and now 2021 have shown me, it is that the Devil is astoundingly quick to take advantage of anything and everything that he can turn to his own uses. Since these days I have an increasingly large electronic correspondence, I get a small chance to see that there are an awful lot of people out there going along quietly bearing an increasing sense of darkness and doom but not wanting to say much about it. It may be something concrete like the loss of a job or physical pain or illness, or it may be a sense of psychological or spiritual oppression, or both, but it's there, and I think it's there more and more now. The vine in the Saberhagen story was just a symbol. It would mean nothing to say that life triumphs over death if we didn't have reason to believe that, really, life does triumph over death. Who cares if forests grow back over the ruins of human civilizations? Who cares if a gourd destroys a spaceship and messes up some wicked plans? No doubt the Berserkers will find another way to move forward. The glory of Christianity is that it tells us that the good message is true. We feel, when we see spring come after winter, that life springs up ever and anew and that death is not the final answer. Is that just a feeling? That's what we want to know. After all, when the deadly snows fall again and, in these northern latitudes, the long dark days come back, we feel the opposite--that darkness is the ultimate fate of man. Is that true? Both can seem like insights. This is why we need the propositional content and the empirical evidence to give stability to our feelings and to help us to distinguish the true from the false. Thank God, he has not left us to puzzle out that riddle alone. Crossposted]]>
* * * * *
I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immovable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed to the cross for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church. ]]> Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself; not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only suffered in semblance, being themselves mere semblance. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits. For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to Peter and his company, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also are so minded. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of effecting this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, in fact, he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they are of the same mind regarding us. For what profit is it to me, if a man commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was truly a bearer of flesh? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought it good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. [. . .] The love of the brethren at Troas salutes you; whence also I write to you by Burrhus, whom you sent with me, together with the Ephesians, your brethren, and who has in all things refreshed me. And I would that all may imitate him, as being a pattern of a minister of God. Grace will reward him in all things. I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you. Grace, mercy, peace, and patience, be with you for evermore!
Janet Stasulli at 419Fund.com wanted me to write an update specifically for those who have followed my case on her website and graciously prayed for Kathie, my family and me as well as contributed toward my legal expenses. My family and I would like to thank especially Janet Stasulli, whom I did not even know previously, for being such a blessing and coming alongside of us – – especially Kathie – – during these past 2 1/2 years. And thank YOU, for your prayers, letters, cards, and financial support. Thank Michael Erkel for your weekly and now daily letters I can always count on, and those of you who have written monthly. Thank you lifesitenews.com, Lamplighter Publications, and Lighthouse Trails Publishing for the publicity you have provided, which has resulted in many encouraging letters. Kathie, William, and Josiah have been so faithful and held together the home front filing taxes, enduring and beating an IRS audit, paying bills, keeping Response Unlimited going and dealing with tragedies (such as my mom‘s death), and emergencies without me by their side. Kathie especially, who has been amazingly enduring for one who hates to be alone. It seems that next week in less than 7 days (March 26, to be exact), I’ll be walking out the front door where I self-surrendered at 2:00 PM on December 5, 2018. Kathie, William and Josiah will be picking me up and driving me to Lebanon Community Correctional Center in Lebanon, Virginia where I must check in by 2:00 PM. It will be up to those there whether I will stay, or whether I will go to home detention. Please pray!! My sentence ends completely on June 24, 2021, and then I will still be on “probation” for 1 year.]]> I know little if anything about what is going on with the civil suit, other than Lisa Miller‘s surrender to authorities, and Isabella Miller’s release of all defendants, has put the plaintiff’s lawyers suddenly on the defensive. They suspended all depositions at least temporarily. But I have been receiving no updates at all. Judge Arcara has yet to rule on my motion “to vacate due to insufficient counsel” (2255), even though it has been eight months since the last responses have been filed. This has been surprising in a way, since the statute is so clear that no laws were broken as I truly believed Isabella was a victim of abuse during mandatory visitations. I am still praying for complete vindication. I have so much to be grateful and thankful for. God has kept us in life and has not allowed our feet to slip. For He has tried us, He has refined us as silver is refined. He did bring me into the prison; and did lay an oppressive burden upon our loins . . . we went through fire and through water; yet He is bringing us now into a place of abundance . . . certainly, God has heard; He has given heed to the voice of our prayer. Blessed be God who has not turned away our prayer, nor His loving kindness from us (adapted from Psalm 66:9-12, 19-20)! Please don’t forget to be praying at 2 o’clock on Friday, March 26! In HIS Service, Philip Meanwhile, please continue to pray for Lisa, who continues to be in uncertainty and not-very-good prison conditions. She was abruptly moved from one prison to another, in the course of which her letters, addresses, the phone number of her lawyer, and the return letters she had written to supporters were all confiscated and hence lost (to her). In one of her updates she mentions a concern about the possibility of "diesel therapy" (a new term to me), which is a form of abusive treatment of federal prisoners in which they are moved about unnecessarily from place to place in shackles. Here is an account of a recent video chat between Lisa and a friend. I'm going to bet that Lisa is having no contact with Isabella so as to maintain secrecy about Isabella's location, even though nothing can be done to Isabella legally. Let us continue to pray for these prisoners of conscience. This blog seems to post somewhat regular updates as well.]]>