Daily Rome Shot 1671

Welcome registrant:

DavisCountyIowaCatholic

Black to move and mate in 4.

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, and now also my late mother’s place.  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.  

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Leave a comment

THE FIFTH CONJURATION – A Scene in Blank Verse after the Manner of Christopher Marlowe

THE FIFTH CONJURATION
A Scene in Blank Verse after the Manner of Christopher Marlowe

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
SENATOR RON, Chairman of the Hearing
A SENATOR, the principal examiner
ANOTHER SENATOR
DOCTOR FAUCI FAUSTUS, summoned as a witness
FAUSTUS’S LAWYER, a contentious advocate
A CLERK, SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, REPORTERS, and SPECTATORS

The chamber of the United States Senate. Cameras glare upon the witness table. Enter DOCTOR FAUSTUS and his LAWYER. While the LAWYER speaks with clerks, FAUSTUS remains alone.


FAUSTUS

Was this the end for which I searched the spheres,
And questioned spirits in the midnight air?
I once commanded Mephistophilis
To cross the seas and rifle every court,
Yet now I sit beneath electric suns,
While glassy eyes transmit my countenance
To every tavern, kitchen, shop, and school.
I have discoursed with emperors and fiends,
Raised Alexander from the hollow grave,
Yet senators, with paper, ink, and spite,
Have forged an engine subtler than all hell:
A question sharpened to accuse the tongue.
They ask of plagues, of masks, of gates made fast,
Of children veiled and travelers turned away,
Of edicts born at midnight and enforced
Before the sun could judge their consequence.
If I say yea, the word condemns my soul;
If nay, ten thousand letters answer me.
O Fifth Amendment, pentacle of law,
More strong than circles drawn with dragon’s blood,
Stand thou between my silence and their wrath.
One line shall be my castle and my creed,
My shield, my sword, my sacramental seal.

Enter SENATOR RON, A SENATOR, and ANOTHER SENATOR. They take their seats.


SENATOR RON

The Committee will come now to order.
We meet to learn what counsels moved the state
When pestilence descended on the land:
Why faces vanished under cloth and thread,
Why schools were closed and commerce put to sleep,
And travelers forbidden sea and sky.

A SENATOR

Doctor, did you advise the travel ban?

LAWYER

Objection! Vague, compound, and prejudiced!
It lacks foundation, date, authority,
The ports, the flights, the statutes, and the facts.
Moreover, “ban” is loaded rhetoric.
We call it prudent spatial separation.

SENATOR RON

Counsel, attorneys may not here object.

LAWYER

I must object to that interpretation.
The Constitution follows where he goes,
And I shall follow with objections too.

SENATOR RON

You shall be silent while the witness speaks.

LAWYER

Objection to the phrase “shall be silent.”
It chills my speech and burdens advocacy.
I further move the Chairman be recused.

SENATOR RON

You have no motion pending in this room.

LAWYER

I must object because you call it none.

A SENATOR

May I proceed, or must we question him?

SENATOR RON

Proceed.

A SENATOR

Doctor, did you advise the travel ban?

LAWYER

Objection! Asked and answered, though unanswered;
Assumes advice, causation, and a ban—

SENATOR RON

Sergeant-at-Arms, remove this advocate.

LAWYER

Objection! Chairman! This is tyranny!
I claim the First, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Ninth,
The Tenth, the Fourteenth, and all amendments
That prudent counsel may discover later!
Unhand me, sir! I strenuously object!

The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS seizes him.


SENATOR RON

Throw him beyond the chamber’s outer doors.
Should he object when once he reaches them,
Conduct him farther down the marble steps.

LAWYER

You cannot silence law! I shall appeal!
Objection to these hands! Objection! Chair—

He is carried out.


SENATOR RON

The record will reflect his swift removal.
Now, Senator, begin thy questions fresh.

A SENATOR

Doctor, did you advise the travel ban?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

Before that counsel, did you publicly
Declare such bans both useless and unwise?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

Yet later did you praise the selfsame act
As necessary to preserve our lives?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

What changed between the evening and the dawn?
Did evidence compel your sudden turn,
Or did some minister revise your truth?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

These letters bear your name and signature.
One says the common mask will little serve;
Another, written scarcely one month hence,
Commands two masks where one had stood before.
Did evidence produce this multiplication?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

Was cloth transformed by some experiment,
Or did obedience make the fabric strong?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

ANOTHER SENATOR

At first the plague was little understood.
Advice must change as knowledge is increased.
The sailor alters course when tempests rise;
The physician changes physic with the case.

A SENATOR

A doctor owns the limits of his art.
Our witness spoke as one whose every word
Had issued from the mouth of certainty.
Dissent became a pestilence itself,
And honest doubt was branded as disease.
Did you request that private companies
Suppress physicians who opposed your claims?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

Did you advise the lords of social speech
To strike their words and names from public sight?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

Did you call settled what was yet untried?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR

This paper bears your office and your hand.
It recommends that children two years old
Be masked within the nursery and school.
What trial proved this burden did them good?

FAUSTUS

I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Were children counted in your measured cost,
Or were they counters in a statesman’s game?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A murmur rises from the spectators.

SENATOR RON
The visitors will keep their judgment still.

A SENATOR
When churches closed their ancient doors, while shops
Received the crowds and kept their business free,
Did science draw distinctions in that rule?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Did prayer infect more swiftly than the mart?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Why sat the dying friendless in their rooms,
While men who framed the rule themselves convened?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

ANOTHER SENATOR
The witness did not govern every state.
You lay a nation’s grief upon one man.

A SENATOR
One man became the nation’s oracle.
His face appeared at morning, noon, and night;
His slightest gesture moved a thousand schools.
He cannot now retreat into the crowd
Whose every motion waited on his breath.
Did you approve the mandates laid on work,
By which a man might lose his livelihood
Unless he underwent the ordered cure?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Did you foresee the nurses cast away,
Though they had served among the sick for months?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
What power did the emergency confer
That ordinary law could never grant?
Could fear suspend the citizen’s own flesh
And make his body property of state?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
At what fixed hour did this great power end?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

The lights flicker. Thunder is heard.

ANOTHER SENATOR
The morning sky was clear.

A SENATOR
Perhaps the doctor’s former masters come
To claim the portion promised in his bond.

SENATOR RON
Confine yourself to matters of the state.

A SENATOR
Indeed, the difference narrows by the hour.
Doctor, you once declared that questioning
Your judgment questioned science in itself.
Did you believe that science dwelt in you?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Did pride infect the counsel that you gave?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Did power taste sweeter than the public health?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A horned shadow appears briefly upon the wall.

ANOTHER SENATOR
What shape was that?

SENATOR RON
A fault within the lamps.

A SENATOR
Doctor, did you knowingly conceal
The facts that would have weakened your decrees?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
Did you speak falsely to the nation’s face?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A SENATOR
And do you now repent what you have done?

FAUSTUS
I plead the Fifth, and shall not answer thee.

A long silence.

SENATOR RON
The witness hath invoked his privilege.
The hearing is adjourned.

He strikes the gavel. All depart except SENATOR RON. FAUSTUS pauses at the door, then exits.

SENATOR RON
The Fifth may shield the witness from reply,
Yet privilege is neither crown nor throne.
If lawful questions meet defiant scorn,
This chamber hath another writ at hand.
Let counsel search the record of this day
And weigh contempt of Congress in the scale.

Exit.

FINIS

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
1 Comment

A priest’s prayers for before and after hearing confessions

Some time ago I posted these but they are worth bringing out again into the light.

In old prayer books intended for the use of priests there are glorious little gems.  Here are two prayers in Latin for priests to pray before and after hearing confessions along with my own translations.  I used good ol’ “Thou” and retained something of the flowery style of yesteryear because, after all, there’s really nothing wrong with that at all.

I have used these prayers during my whole priesthood now, over 35 years.  They say it all. You could do a lot worse, Fathers, than to adopt them as your own. They provide a realistic view of the gravity of the office and work of the confessor.  They are a mirror in which we can scrutinize ourselves as confessors. They are at the same time, instructive, sobering and consoling.

Over time, they become old friends.

The Latin, frankly, is richer in content then the translations

ORATIO SACERDOTIS ANTEQUAM CONFESSIONES EXCIPIAT

Da mihi, Dómine, sédium tuárum assistrícem sapiéntiam, ut sciam iudicáre pópulum tuum in iustítia, et páuperes tuos in iudício. Fac me ita tractáre claves regni caelórum, ut nulli apériam, cui claudéndum sit, nulli claudam, cui aperiéndum. Sit inténtio mea pura, zelus meus sincérus, cáritas mea pátiens, labor meus fructuósus. Sit in me lénitas non remíssa, aspéritas non sevéra; páuperem ne despíciam, díviti ne adúler. Fac me ad alliciéndos peccatóres suávem, ad interrogándos prudéntem, ad instruéndos perítum. Tríbue, quaeso, ad retrahéndos a malo sollértiam, ad confirmándos in bono sedulitátem, ad promovéndos ad melióra indústriam: in respónsis maturitátem, in consíliis rectitúdinem, in obscúris lumen, in impléxis sagacitátem, in árduis victóriam: inutílibus collóquiis ne detínear, pravis ne contáminer; álios salvem, me ipsum non perdam. Amen.

PRIEST’S PRAYER BEFORE HEARING CONFESSIONS 

Grant to me, O Lord, that wisdom seated beside Thy throne, that I may know how to judge Thy people with justice, and Thy poor ones with discernment. Make me so to use the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that I may open the gates to no one upon whom they should be closed, nor close them upon any for whom they should be opened. May my intention be pure, my zeal sincere, my charity patient, my labor fruitful. Let there be in me a gentleness which is not negligent, a severity which is not harsh; let me not look down upon the poor, nor let me fawn upon rich. Make me pleasant for attracting sinners, prudent in questioning them, resourceful in directing them. Grant, I beseech Thee, ingenuity for drawing them back from sin, earnestness in confirming them in good, diligence in urging them to better things. Grant me mature judgment in responses, rectitude in advice, light in obscure matters, wisdom in complications, victory in adversities. Let me not be delayed in useless conversations, neither let me be stained by perversities. Let me save others, and let me not lose myself. Amen.

ORATIONES SACERDOTIS POSTQUAM CONFESSIONES EXCEPERIT

Dómine Iesu Christe, dulcis amátor et sanctificátor animárum, purífica, óbsecro, per infusiónem Sancti Spíritus cor meum ab omni affectióne et cogitatióne vitiósa, et quidquid a me in meo múnere sive per neglegéntiam, sive per ignorántiam peccátum est, tua infiníta pietáte et misericórdia supplére dignéris. Comméndo in tuis amabilíssimis vulnéribus omnes ánimas, quas ad paeniténtiam traxísti, et tuo pretiosíssimo Sánguine sanctificásti, ut eas a peccátis ómnibus custódias et in tuo timóre et amóre consérves, in virtútibus in dies magis promóveas, atque ad vitam perdúcas aetérnam: Qui cum Patre et Spíritu Sancto vivis et regnas in saecula saeculórum. Amen.

Dómine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei vivi, súscipe hoc obséquii mei ministérium in amóre illo superdigníssimo, quo beátam Maríam Magdalénam omnésque ad te confugiéntes peccatóres absolvísti, et quidquid in sacraménti huius administratione neglegénter minúsque digne perféci, tu per te supplére et satisfácere dignéris. Omnes et síngulos, qui mihi modo conféssi sunt, comméndo dulcíssimo Cordi tuo rogans, ut eósdem custódias et a recidíva praesérves atque post huius vitae misériam mecum ad gáudia perdúcas aetérna. Amen.

PRIEST’S PRAYERS AFTER HEARING CONFESSIONS

Lord Jesus Christ, sweet lover and sanctifier of souls, I pray Thee, through the infusion of the Holy Spirit, purify my heart from every corrupt feeling or thought and, through Thy infinite compassion and mercy, deign to make good any transgression whatsoever made by me in my service due to my negligence or my ignorance. I commend to Thy most lovable wounds all the souls whom Thou hast drawn to repentance, and whom Thou hast sanctified by Thy Precious Blood, so that Thou mayest preserve them from every sin, keep them in Thy love and in Thy fear, promote more virtues in them each day, and lead them to eternal life. Who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.

O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, accept this ministry of my obedience with that surpassing love with which Thou didst absolve Saint Mary Magdalene and all sinners flying to Thee for refuge, and deign Thyself to supply and satisfy whatsoever in the administration of this Sacrament I performed negligently and less than worthily. I commend to Thy most sweet Heart each and every person who has just now confessed to me, begging that Thou mayest guard them and keep them from backsliding and, after the misery of this life, that thou mayest lead them with me to joys everlasting. Amen.

I did some digging for more about these prayers.   Another title for the first prayer, for before hearing confessions, is Oratio a confessariis recitanda antequam ad sacramentales fidelium confessiones excipiendas assideant.

The earliest securely documented source is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences dated 27 March 1854. At the petition of Father Giacomo, or Jacobus, Pignone del Carretto, Superior General of the Theatine Clerics Regular, Pope Pius IX granted an indulgence of one hundred days, once daily, to confessors who recited it devoutly before hearing confessions. The decree prints the prayer in full but does not identify its composer.   The prayer subsequently entered the Raccolta and other priestly manuals. It appears in the 1952 Enchiridion Indulgentiarum as no. 753, under the same designation, with the indulgence then listed as five hundred days and with references to the decrees of 1854 and 1933.

Something that struck me back when I worked on the translation of the first prayer is the opening which it obviously a deliberate scriptural reference. The first words come from Wisdom 9:4:

Da mihi sedium tuarum assistricem sapientiam
Give me Wisdom, who sits beside thy throne.

The following petition,

ut sciam iudicare populum tuum in iustitia, et pauperes tuos in iudicio,

is adapted from Psalm 71:2 in the traditional Vulgate: iudicare populum tuum in iustitia, et pauperes tuos in iudicio. The confessor is thus placed in the position of Solomon, asking for divine wisdom to exercise judgment justly, especially toward the poor and vulnerable.

The next section, concerning the proper use of the claves regni caelorum, applies Christ’s grant of the keys and the power of binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 to the sacramental tribunal:

Fac me ita tractare claves regni caelorum, ut nulli aperiam, cui claudendum sit, nulli claudam, cui aperiendum.

This asks that the priest neither absolve someone who must presently be refused absolution nor deny absolution to one who is properly disposed.

The remainder is an exceptionally compact description of the confessor’s virtues: purity of intention, sincere zeal, patient charity, firmness without severity, gentleness without laxity, impartiality between rich and poor, prudence in questioning, competence in instruction, maturity in responses, and vigilance against both idle conversation and moral contamination.

Concerning the two prayers for after hearing confessions, the first prayer is derived from Father Joseph Schneider, S.J.’s Manuale sacerdotum published in Cologne in 1861. His preface says he attempted to collect and arrange suitable material ex optimis scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, “from the best ecclesiastical writers.” The concluding petitions offer a theology of sacramental perseverance. The penitent has received pardon, yet must still be guarded from sin, preserved in holy fear and love, advanced daily in virtue, and conducted to eternal life. Absolution is treated as the beginning of renewed Christian life rather than an isolated juridical event. The full doxology, Qui cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto vivis et regnas, gives the oration the form and cadence of a Roman collect.

The second prayer is older, substantially with the same wording from Alexander Scheffler’s Horologium manuale devoti Christiani, published at Ottobeuren in 1766. The two were joined as complementary prayers. The first emphasizes purification of the confessor and preservation of the penitents through Christ’s wounds and Blood. The second offers the completed ministry to Christ’s perfect love and commends the penitents to his Sacred Heart. The commendation to Christ’s dulcissimum Cor places the prayer within the affective and reparative spirituality associated with devotion to the Sacred Heart. Such language was common in the 17th and 18th devotional writings. The Heart of Christ is presented as the place in which penitents remain after leaving the confessional. The priest releases them from his immediate care and entrusts them to the continuing custody of Christ.

The Congregation for the Clergy printed them together in the 2011 vademecum The Priest, Minister of Divine Mercy, under the heading Oratio sacerdotis postquam confessiones exceperit.

Moreover, there are also two prayers for the priest for before and after he makes his own confession!

Posted in GO TO CONFESSION, Priests and Priesthood |
Leave a comment

ASK FATHER: What’s your preferred English translation of the Bible?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

What’s your preferred English translation of the Bible? Or do you like different versions for different purposes?

No one translation does it all.  Every time you translate something you lose something.   You have to make a choice between multiple possible meanings.  For example, in Hebrew there is an image for being patient as having a long nose.   What are you going to do with that?  Render it literally?

I generally use the Revised Standard Version, RSV, for my study and reading.   It is pretty much the standard for scholarship.  However, I also supplement the RSV with Greek and Hebrew.  Of course I will also look at the Vulgate… but not the New Vulgate.

I will take a look at the Douay-Reims and, for kicks, the Knox.

The important is to read Scripture.  And you can gain an indulgence for doing so.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
2 Comments

Keep in mind the phrase: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

If they think this is going to go away, they are delusional.

Keep in mind the phrase: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Also, yesterday in some commentary on the strange opinions of a bishop, I mentioned the issue of “unity”, which has become a prevailing theme (aka buzz word).

From Infovaticana.  How it starts:

The prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Arthur Roche, has assured that Pope Leo XIV will not modify the restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass established by Traditionis custodes nor restore the regime provided for by Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum.

The statements were made in an interview granted to the British weekly The Tablet, [aka The Bitter Pill] in which the English prelate categorically affirmed: «Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis custodes and is not going to return to Summorum Pontificum.»

This is the first public statement by Roche regarding the Pontiff’s position on one of the liturgical issues that has generated the most debate within the Church in recent years.

Unity as an argument
During the interview, the prefect defended that the question of the traditional liturgy must be understood from the perspective of ecclesial unity. He recalled that the Eucharist is «the sacrament of unity» and maintained that, if the celebration of the Mass becomes a cause of division, «something is seriously wrong». [Something is seriously wrong with his ecclesiology.  Are Romans not in unity with Ukrainians and Maronites?  Apparently we are not in unity with those who use the NeoCat thing or Anglican use.]

Roche also rejected the claims of persecution made by some faithful linked to the traditional liturgy. According to him, when the Pope grants authorizations in accordance with current regulations and those groups continue to claim they are being persecuted, «they cannot answer what the real problem is». [What?!?]

Likewise, he lamented the tone of some criticisms directed against Church authorities and even wondered: «Can one honestly say that one is Catholic when one writes things so full of hatred about people and about the Church?».

Defense of the liturgical reform
The prefect clarified that he does not consider the liturgy prior to the Second Vatican Council to be erroneous, but maintained that the reform promoted after the Council responded to the need to prepare the Church for a renewed missionary task[Does we need again to trot out the statistics of what has gone on since the Council?  Do we need again to point out that the great missionary age of the Church was not carried out with the Novus Ordo?]

[…]

How long, Lord?

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pò sì jiù, Save The Liturgy - Save The World, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, What are they REALLY saying?, You must be joking! | Tagged
13 Comments

Does it feel to you as if something is building to an explosive point?   

One wonder’s how much the progressivists (aka libs) despise the people who desire traditional sacred worship.

Prediction: “synod” will be turned into a verb.

At LifeSite we find this.   This is truly crazy stuff, from the Bishop of Pilsen in the Czech Republic, a Francis bishop.  My emphases and comments.

The bishop of the Diocese of Pilsen in the Czech Republic stated in a recent article that the Synodal Church needs an adequate liturgy that can “only” be the Novus Ordo Missae.

Tomáš Holub, a heterodox bishop who has endorsed Amoris Laetitia and announced that he would give Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried, shared his vision of synodality on the blog of the liturgist and professor Andrea Grillo. [Mr. Cricket! The worst of the worst.]

According to the Polish outlet Polonia Christiana, Holub argued that modern evangelization needs “current theology.” [Not that old theology, which concerns itself with outmoded topics like eschatology.] Synodality, which is “rooted” in Vatican II changes, must be a tool of evangelization. And this modern Church needs “an adequate liturgy” that “can only be (the) Novus Ordo Missae.[This is truly wacky stuff.]

Holub claimed that “old tools” of evangelization “do not meet the needs of today’s people,” and in order to fill this gap, he convened a synod.

He suggested that the synod fundamentally changed the role of laypeople in the Church[Just how scrambled is this guy’s notions?  It’s as if he didn’t know of the existence of Lumen gentium.  No.  I take that back.  He and others want to rewrite Lumen gentium.  But if you can do that, you can rewrite other conciliar documents.]

The people of God “became the protagonist, not just the recipient of the services; a people composed of clergy and laymen, men and women, united without distinction in common baptism,” [Without distinction?!?] Holub said. According to the prelate, synodality “is not just a communication technique but a way of living by faith.”

It is not about convening a synod but about becoming a synod to imitate Jesus and become His disciples,” he added.  [So the Apostles are on par with the Lord and as they were “walking together” they were synodalizing.  But there’s more.  This is leaning hard into the “priesthood of all believers”.  Right?]

He went on to articulate a heterodox conception of the liturgy, claiming that the “synodal mentality” shows that liturgical activities do not concern the individual and are not an end in themselves but are the source and the peak of unity, as if “unity” was the purpose of the Mass. [One would not be blamed for wondering if there isn’t a touch of sycophantic toadying to a certain person who keeps talking about “unity”.] The Mass is ordered primarily toward God as the unbloody sacrifice and offering of Christ to God the Father.

“The Eucharistic celebration must be the culmination of local church life, a celebration expressing all the dynamism and unity of the assembled people,” [Right!  With everyone except the priest doing the priestly things.  There should be lots of hug red beach balls being bounced around and maybe some body surfing for the offertory procession.] Holub said. According to the bishop,[NB]  it is the Novus Ordo that allows the integration of synodality in the liturgy, whereas the synodal experience of Catholicism would be “very difficult” during the Traditional Latin Mass.   [What the heck is a “synodal experience”?  I think it means “becoming Protestant”.]

He went on to stress the importance of Vatican II to the “synodal” liturgy and seemed to endorse an inversion of the hierarchical structure of the Church by claiming Vatican II’s vision was of a Church founded on the laity, not priests. [I remind the readership that the TLM was the Mass of the Council.  There was no Novus Ordo.  And there, again, is that priesthood of all believers claptrap.]

The strand connecting synodality and liturgical action is precisely the vision of the Church promoted by the Second Vatican Council, the Church based on the congregation, not on the clergy, the Church of ministries, the community Church, which testifies to its unity and celebrates it,” Holub wrote. [The Council, in a certain respect, grew out of the TLM, not out of the Novus Ordo. One would think that if the Council and synodalizing are so closely bound together than the liturgy of synodalizing would be the … TLM.  No?]

Catholics who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, on the other hand, “convince themselves of the correctness of the ecclesiological vision proposed by these rites,” continued Holub, as if the Church must repudiate the ecclesiology it has held for centuries.

The old Mass, according to Holub, “causes cracks,” leads to suspicions of the “reform” and results in “distrust of the Church.” A “benevolent and at the same time firm attitude” should be expressed toward such Catholics through the “implementation of the process of accompaniment, formation and synodal support.”  [ROFL!  You who want the TLM, etc., are going to be “accompanied”, “formed”, “synodaly supported”.  This sounds like communist reeducation, doesn’t it?  Perhaps you have “sluggish schizophrenia” as the Soviets called it.  Maybe they will form a special camp for people who want the TLM.]

It should begin with “the undisputed common theological platform, the Second Vatican Council, as an expression of the true Magisterium,” Holub asserted. [This elevation of the Vatican II is getting unhinged, getting more and more extreme.] His description of Vatican II as an “undisputed common theological platform” is at odds with the council’s marked controversy, elicited by passages that orthodox Catholics criticize for giving the impression of error.

Holub was appointed bishop of Pilsen in February 2016 by Pope Francis and ordained two months later. He previously served as the Secretary General of the Czech Bishop Conference.

Does it feel to you as if something is building to an explosive point?

Motus in finem velocior.

Posted in Picture Me In My Grief, The Coming Storm, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying?, You must be joking! |
20 Comments

“We will evaluate the implementation, then implement the evaluation, then evaluate the implementation of the evaluation.”

At the increasingly valuable Infovaticana there is a severely insightful offering about:

The endless synod of synodal synodality assembly

A couple excerpts. It begins (my emphases and comments):

A synod is (was) by definition an event: it was convened, celebrated, and closed. That is how it was for twenty centuries. The Synod on Synodality concluded in October 2024. Its Final Document was delivered. The matter, one might think, is settled.

But it is not. The closed Synod was followed by an “implementation phase” (2025-2028). Implementation is now followed by an “evaluation of the implementation”: diocesan assemblies in the first half of 2027, assemblies of the Episcopal Conferences in the second half, continental assemblies in 2028, and an “ecclesial assembly” at the Vatican in October 2028. And in case anyone still hoped that would be the end of it, the Notes warn: “the path does not conclude, but opens to a new phase.” Among the criteria for selecting assembly members is, in black and white, that they “be available to sustain the process beyond 2028.”

In other words: today we are recruiting the personnel for a process whose object, mandate, and end no one knows, because it does not exist. The Synod has discovered perpetual motion. We will evaluate the implementation, then implement the evaluation, then evaluate the implementation of the evaluation. This is not a caricature: it is, literally, the official calendar.

[…]

The “walking together about walkingtogetherity” is amorphous.  It is mainly a self-licking icecream cone at this point.  The point of it is “process”.  But because it doesn’t have any real point, it can have any or every point, depending on where the organizers point it.  It is a process of manipulation akin to how Marxism seeks to seize control. You’ve seen the photos of a sea of round tables with small groups, with relators, which yak about whatever until the pre-determined report is unveiled. Small group meetings in a Marxist context emphasize collective organization and action. These meetings are designed to facilitate coordination among communist working groups, ensuring that their efforts align with a unified plan. This approach is crucial for maximizing the effectiveness of discussions and actions taken by the group. a small number of organizers work together to prepare for meetings, ensuring that all members are informed and aligned on objectives. They then emphasis a kind of democratic processes where all voices are heard, fostering a sense of ownership among participants. That is, unless you have a different idea. Then you are marginalized within your group and your influence is reduced to zero. Meetings are highly facilitated addressing future initiatives. This facilitation is a key to guiding discussions, silencing dissent, and ensuring desired outcomes.

More from the article:

[…]

We are faced with a complete institutional architecture—diocesan, national, and continental teams, registered in a Roman database via an email address, synodus@synod.va—built entirely outside the Church’s law.

And this is no oversight. It is the method. What has no juridical nature has no defined competencies, no enforceable responsibility, and no channel for appeal. A canonical diocesan synod obliges the bishop to precise procedures; a “synodal team” obliges nothing and answers to no one, and precisely for that reason it can do everything: convene, filter, draft, synthesize, and send to Rome “the voice of the People of God.” Informality is not a flaw in the system: it is its competitive advantage. What cannot be governed by decree is governed by process, because a decree would have to be grounded in law and signed.

Canon law exists, it is worth recalling, to protect. It protects the faithful against arbitrariness, the parish priest against the diocesan apparatus, the bishop against pressures, and the entire Church against the whim of passing majorities. Replacing law with “facilitation” is not a pastoral liberation: it leaves everyone exposed to whoever controls the process.

[…]

More there.

Posted in The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged
25 Comments

An important topic revisited: Moral Injury

I had the occasion to repair some links in older posts about the topic of “moral injury”.  It is an important topic.  I’m glad the reader let me know.

There will be some repetition, but I wanted to get them into one place.

I ran into a few others which are important.

If there are links that don’t work in important posts, let me know.  Otherwise, a quick fix could be to make a substitution in the url address by changing the domain to

wdtprs.com

Posted in Linking Back, The Drill | Tagged
1 Comment

Daily Rome Shot 1670 – a note to a Mass stream viewer in Canada and a limerick in Latin

A couple notes.

  • First, one of you who follows the daily Mass stream from SaskatchewanNB: your mailbox is full. You are missed.
  • I have some additional photos of things my mother made.  I had the pleasure of sending one back to her home state of Wyoming to a reader who bought a piece.  HERE
  • Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links.  US HEREWHY?  This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, and now also my late mother’s place.  At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful. 

Bonus: From my back patio in Rome where my jasmine (not the Jesuit) is growing faster than my novel. Thanks for the update from The Great Roman™.

The other “Jasmine” would not be welcome at my patio.

I’ve been working on a novel… murder mystery set in Rome in 1769.   I haven’t made progress recently.  Maybe I need to change my modus operandi?

Speaking of books…. didn’t any mention “Memory Hole”. Even if 10% true… alarming.

How should black proceed?

NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.

Try this!

Sacerdos ad scaccos ludebat,
Dum ad Laudes orabat;
Cum regem cepisset,
Ac “Mattum!” dixisset,
Diabolus tristis fugiebat.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
9 Comments

A JESUIT SAYS: “If you are able to go to confession once a month and choose not to, I would not want to be responsible for your soul.”

From my friend Fr. McTeigue, one of the good ones.

Excerpt:

What 99.9999 percent of Catholics need to do is go to confession regularly. Unless you are living in China, being hunted down in Nigeria, or facing some comparable obstacle, you probably have the opportunity to go to confession more than once a year.

Some people think that once a year is satisfactory, or perhaps once during Lent and once during Advent. No. If you are able to go to confession once a month and choose not to, I would not want to be responsible for your soul. I do not see how a Catholic who has the opportunity to confess monthly, yet deliberately chooses not to do so, can claim to be serious about the Faith.

The absolute bare minimum of spiritual hygiene is sacramental confession once a month, preceded, of course, by an honest examination of conscience. I would like to see everyone step it up and go twice a month. Before going more frequently than that, consult a spiritual director or your pastor.

The barest possible minimum, then, is once a month. A genuinely regular practice would be twice a month.

 

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in GO TO CONFESSION, Mail from priests |
9 Comments