"Happy (old-calendar) feast of the Little Flower!"
This kind greeting hits a tender spot in me. Having converted during college, I spent forty years in novus ordo pews, and internalised the calendar entirely--feasting and fasting around the year (little left of the latter, I know, but I was all in). Now having embraced the TLM, I admit to constant disorientation with the different feast days. One can reserve all moral judgements and still be constantly frustrated that the Church doesn't celebrate as one. I hustled to Mass on the first of October (despite traveling) only to realise I had the "wrong" day for Thérèse, although Catholics worldwide were fêting her online.
Perhaps this is small potatoes, but I am deeply sad that the disparate calendars create one more twist of the knife in this liturgical shambles.
Yes, I agree, and have experienced this many times in my life.
That's what you get for allowing a "trio of maniacs" to rewrite the liturgical calendar (to use the colorful description of Louis Bouyer, who was a participant in the Consilium).
As Gregory DiPippo has pointed out, St. Therese herself would have celebrated the feast of St. Remigius on October 1st, and he was HUGE for France because his baptism of Clovis inaugurated the Christianization of the Franks.
Thank you Dr. K. Great article. Yes Pope Francis, may he rest in peace, was the lowest of bars, and a danger for all of us, is to interpret benign, anything other than autocratic Bergolian oppression. I don't think it's too early to acknowledge that Pope Leo is far more clement in his demeanour yet a product of the Council's new springtime. It's too painful to index the already growing list of troubling instances under his watch, but acknowledge them we must, and not fall into the trap of blind optimism that many well-meaning folk did in the first few years of the Pope Francis era. We also need to be hyper-vigilant of being mollified by scraps thrown from the table of the Holy See. We can all thank Francis for at least providing clarity on the modernist project, enabling a growing resistance which remains wholly open to reconciliation yet willing to remain steadfastly loyal and fight tooth and nail for orthodoxy.
Stephen, You are so right in your comment… “it’s too painful to index the already growing list of troubling instances under his (Pope Leo’s) watch, but acknowledge them we must, and not fall into the trap of blind optimism that many well-meaning people did in the first few years of the Pope Francis era.”
Pope Leo certainly has something of the aura of a nice and decent person about him and that is very likely to throw many off their guard. Every person who holds a high public office, especially in the Catholic Church should be ‘nice and decent’ although, sadly, many are neither.
The nice and decent person can be more easily forgiven for all sorts of failures. Right now I’m finding it very difficult indeed to realise that the shocking defilement of St Peter’s Basilica by a rabble of 1000 plus LGBTIQ individuals is not going to be condemned by Pope Leo. The very least he could do would be to remind them that the first church of the Catholic Church requires some decorum, reverence and awe by those who claim to be Catholic! I won’t be holding my breathe.
It seems to me that if a pope clearly, categorically, and knowingly denied a de fide dogma of the Faith, publicly and undeniably, then he would ipso facto lose his office, and the cardinals would have to announce that the seat is empty.
so saying the death penalty is per se evil (as its in the chatechism, the formulation in the catechism is exactly like this: before the church taught x, now we teach not-x) isn´t this de fide? im no expert here. but dont the vast majority of priests and bishops think the jews can be saved by the old covenant? is this de fide? how is it possible that pope francis didnt deny at least one de fide dogma? lol.
The difference is, modern popes do not seem to speak very clearly, their message is garbled, it's often hard to discern if they even understand what they are asserting or denying; and they often say things in off-the-cuff contexts (like interviews) that no one considers magisterial. It's a mess, but I have not yet seen a case where we could know, with complete certainty, that a pope had self-destructed.
thanks for taking the time to respond. but with AL and pope francis it was strange bc the cardinals wrote the dubia, and a dubia is supposed to be for open questions, not as a heresy detector. so it was an abuse of the instrument from the start. but pope francis was like ive already answered this and he had, he wrote the bishops in buenos aires that their reading was correct, divorced and remarried could, without annulment, return to communion. so he doubled down, it was even in the Acts of his Magesterium, this letter and encyclical. so it just seemed like raw cowardice to me from the conservative side. what more did they want? does the church have rights to self defense? because if someone is robbing my house and i can only stop him if he clearly and legally declares his intent, then i have an uphil battle to climb. thus prudence commands vigilance and that we are allowed to defend ourselves based on probable judgment, rather than 100 certainty of what is going on. sorry a lot of questoins here!!
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, the pope is the supreme ruler and he has no superior on earth, so dealing with him is always going to be different and somewhat strange; he's not just like the robber coming into your house. The threshold for him to be declared a heretic and even more to be declared self-deposed is extremely high.
so in the case of a malevolent ambiguous pope the church has no rights to self defense? wouldnt this make the papacy a curse and not a blessing. grace perfects nature, so whats true for natural selves and societies acording to CST should be even more true for the only divinely instituted society. what am i missing?
Could you weigh in on the various Old Catholic denominations? I heard that they do not accept Vatican I, Vatican II, or the authority of the Pope over them, yet have valid orders and sacraments. Sounds very attractive at present.....
On the SSPX, I really want the Church to be clear when it comes to something as important as the Eucharist. I appreciate Pope Francis’ letters about the faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages. That gave clarity on those sacraments. But the other documents cited are not from the Pope. And by multiple popes NOT clearly stating that receiving the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel is licit, I’m left in a state of confusion. The status is canonically irregular. Okay. What does that specifically mean as it concerns reception of the Eucharist and whether I am inviting condemnation upon myself? If there is wiggle room due to the doctrine of necessity, what are the boundaries a person or family may use to determine what fits or does not fit that standard? I can be somewhat comfortable that attending SSPX services (under necessity) fulfills one’s Sunday Mass obligations, but what about the source and summit of our faith? I can fulfill my Sunday obligation without receiving the Eucharist. So is the Church saying to attend services are okay, but being silent about the Eucharist on purpose? Moreover, even if the Mass is valid and the Real Presence is manifest in the Eucharist, what effect does the doctrine of necessity, if any, have on whether it is illicit to receive the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel? I’m grateful not to have this dilemma as I have no reason whatsoever to ever consider attending an SSPX service as I am surrounded by about 6 options to attend a licit TLM in full communion with the Church within an hour of my home if I wish. I think the seemingly purposeful ambiguity the Church has about the SSPX is not helpful.
I agree that the ambiguity is not helpful, but perhaps it is less than you realize.
There never has to be a special permission granted to receive the Eucharist, as long as the other normal conditions are in place (by which I mean, freedom from mortal sin and the minimum fasting). That is, if you can fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel, you can certainly receive communion there.
Excellent points. I’m still a regular Novus Ordo attendee discerning how as the spiritual head of my household can I best lead my wife and son at this moment. I’m more drawn to the TLM because it’s always pointing me towards Christ for all the reasons you mention in ‘Turned Around.’ To be frank, I will not attend any SSPX services unless there is full communion. I find great comfort in submission to Holy Mother Church. You and I both know that at many SSPX chapels, the literature and even homilies are often infused with talk of “Lefebvre.” I could not sit in a church where the priest spends time during homilies or in non-liturgical aspects of ministry extolling the supposed virtues of Fr. James Martin for example. Likewise, how can I in good conscience choose, when there are many valid and licit liturgies around me, to seek out a chapel that has its liturgical discipline rooted in disobedience of someone who was excommunicated and then spent the last three years of his life publicly unrepentant? How I wish that when the excommunication occurred all of the society just followed what became the FSSP back into communion with the Church. The whole situation is upsetting that we have valid yet banal liturgies in the Novus Ordo, yet illicit or at the very least irregular communities with beautiful liturgies. I pray for all Christendom that we may, as Christ prayed, be one as He and the Father are one.
"Happy (old-calendar) feast of the Little Flower!"
This kind greeting hits a tender spot in me. Having converted during college, I spent forty years in novus ordo pews, and internalised the calendar entirely--feasting and fasting around the year (little left of the latter, I know, but I was all in). Now having embraced the TLM, I admit to constant disorientation with the different feast days. One can reserve all moral judgements and still be constantly frustrated that the Church doesn't celebrate as one. I hustled to Mass on the first of October (despite traveling) only to realise I had the "wrong" day for Thérèse, although Catholics worldwide were fêting her online.
Perhaps this is small potatoes, but I am deeply sad that the disparate calendars create one more twist of the knife in this liturgical shambles.
Yes, I agree, and have experienced this many times in my life.
That's what you get for allowing a "trio of maniacs" to rewrite the liturgical calendar (to use the colorful description of Louis Bouyer, who was a participant in the Consilium).
As Gregory DiPippo has pointed out, St. Therese herself would have celebrated the feast of St. Remigius on October 1st, and he was HUGE for France because his baptism of Clovis inaugurated the Christianization of the Franks.
Thank you Dr. K. Great article. Yes Pope Francis, may he rest in peace, was the lowest of bars, and a danger for all of us, is to interpret benign, anything other than autocratic Bergolian oppression. I don't think it's too early to acknowledge that Pope Leo is far more clement in his demeanour yet a product of the Council's new springtime. It's too painful to index the already growing list of troubling instances under his watch, but acknowledge them we must, and not fall into the trap of blind optimism that many well-meaning folk did in the first few years of the Pope Francis era. We also need to be hyper-vigilant of being mollified by scraps thrown from the table of the Holy See. We can all thank Francis for at least providing clarity on the modernist project, enabling a growing resistance which remains wholly open to reconciliation yet willing to remain steadfastly loyal and fight tooth and nail for orthodoxy.
Stephen, You are so right in your comment… “it’s too painful to index the already growing list of troubling instances under his (Pope Leo’s) watch, but acknowledge them we must, and not fall into the trap of blind optimism that many well-meaning people did in the first few years of the Pope Francis era.”
Pope Leo certainly has something of the aura of a nice and decent person about him and that is very likely to throw many off their guard. Every person who holds a high public office, especially in the Catholic Church should be ‘nice and decent’ although, sadly, many are neither.
The nice and decent person can be more easily forgiven for all sorts of failures. Right now I’m finding it very difficult indeed to realise that the shocking defilement of St Peter’s Basilica by a rabble of 1000 plus LGBTIQ individuals is not going to be condemned by Pope Leo. The very least he could do would be to remind them that the first church of the Catholic Church requires some decorum, reverence and awe by those who claim to be Catholic! I won’t be holding my breathe.
Sadly this seems very true.
The Church has a weak man at its helm, at a time that calls for a St. Pius V.
That page on the Charlotte Latin Mass Community's website regarding the SSPX is an excellent resource. I'm bookmarking it for future reference.
Yes, I agree!
is there anything the pope can do to lose his office?
It seems to me that if a pope clearly, categorically, and knowingly denied a de fide dogma of the Faith, publicly and undeniably, then he would ipso facto lose his office, and the cardinals would have to announce that the seat is empty.
so saying the death penalty is per se evil (as its in the chatechism, the formulation in the catechism is exactly like this: before the church taught x, now we teach not-x) isn´t this de fide? im no expert here. but dont the vast majority of priests and bishops think the jews can be saved by the old covenant? is this de fide? how is it possible that pope francis didnt deny at least one de fide dogma? lol.
The difference is, modern popes do not seem to speak very clearly, their message is garbled, it's often hard to discern if they even understand what they are asserting or denying; and they often say things in off-the-cuff contexts (like interviews) that no one considers magisterial. It's a mess, but I have not yet seen a case where we could know, with complete certainty, that a pope had self-destructed.
thanks for taking the time to respond. but with AL and pope francis it was strange bc the cardinals wrote the dubia, and a dubia is supposed to be for open questions, not as a heresy detector. so it was an abuse of the instrument from the start. but pope francis was like ive already answered this and he had, he wrote the bishops in buenos aires that their reading was correct, divorced and remarried could, without annulment, return to communion. so he doubled down, it was even in the Acts of his Magesterium, this letter and encyclical. so it just seemed like raw cowardice to me from the conservative side. what more did they want? does the church have rights to self defense? because if someone is robbing my house and i can only stop him if he clearly and legally declares his intent, then i have an uphil battle to climb. thus prudence commands vigilance and that we are allowed to defend ourselves based on probable judgment, rather than 100 certainty of what is going on. sorry a lot of questoins here!!
I understand what you are saying, but at the same time, the pope is the supreme ruler and he has no superior on earth, so dealing with him is always going to be different and somewhat strange; he's not just like the robber coming into your house. The threshold for him to be declared a heretic and even more to be declared self-deposed is extremely high.
so in the case of a malevolent ambiguous pope the church has no rights to self defense? wouldnt this make the papacy a curse and not a blessing. grace perfects nature, so whats true for natural selves and societies acording to CST should be even more true for the only divinely instituted society. what am i missing?
Could you weigh in on the various Old Catholic denominations? I heard that they do not accept Vatican I, Vatican II, or the authority of the Pope over them, yet have valid orders and sacraments. Sounds very attractive at present.....
On the SSPX, I really want the Church to be clear when it comes to something as important as the Eucharist. I appreciate Pope Francis’ letters about the faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages. That gave clarity on those sacraments. But the other documents cited are not from the Pope. And by multiple popes NOT clearly stating that receiving the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel is licit, I’m left in a state of confusion. The status is canonically irregular. Okay. What does that specifically mean as it concerns reception of the Eucharist and whether I am inviting condemnation upon myself? If there is wiggle room due to the doctrine of necessity, what are the boundaries a person or family may use to determine what fits or does not fit that standard? I can be somewhat comfortable that attending SSPX services (under necessity) fulfills one’s Sunday Mass obligations, but what about the source and summit of our faith? I can fulfill my Sunday obligation without receiving the Eucharist. So is the Church saying to attend services are okay, but being silent about the Eucharist on purpose? Moreover, even if the Mass is valid and the Real Presence is manifest in the Eucharist, what effect does the doctrine of necessity, if any, have on whether it is illicit to receive the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel? I’m grateful not to have this dilemma as I have no reason whatsoever to ever consider attending an SSPX service as I am surrounded by about 6 options to attend a licit TLM in full communion with the Church within an hour of my home if I wish. I think the seemingly purposeful ambiguity the Church has about the SSPX is not helpful.
I agree that the ambiguity is not helpful, but perhaps it is less than you realize.
There never has to be a special permission granted to receive the Eucharist, as long as the other normal conditions are in place (by which I mean, freedom from mortal sin and the minimum fasting). That is, if you can fulfill your Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel, you can certainly receive communion there.
Read this:
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/04/28/sspx-masses-and-fulfilling-the-sunday-obligation/
and this:
https://onepeterfive.com/sspx-mass-shelter/
I am not aware of any reputable canonist or bishop who has tried to restrict the reception of communion at an SSPX chapel.
Excellent points. I’m still a regular Novus Ordo attendee discerning how as the spiritual head of my household can I best lead my wife and son at this moment. I’m more drawn to the TLM because it’s always pointing me towards Christ for all the reasons you mention in ‘Turned Around.’ To be frank, I will not attend any SSPX services unless there is full communion. I find great comfort in submission to Holy Mother Church. You and I both know that at many SSPX chapels, the literature and even homilies are often infused with talk of “Lefebvre.” I could not sit in a church where the priest spends time during homilies or in non-liturgical aspects of ministry extolling the supposed virtues of Fr. James Martin for example. Likewise, how can I in good conscience choose, when there are many valid and licit liturgies around me, to seek out a chapel that has its liturgical discipline rooted in disobedience of someone who was excommunicated and then spent the last three years of his life publicly unrepentant? How I wish that when the excommunication occurred all of the society just followed what became the FSSP back into communion with the Church. The whole situation is upsetting that we have valid yet banal liturgies in the Novus Ordo, yet illicit or at the very least irregular communities with beautiful liturgies. I pray for all Christendom that we may, as Christ prayed, be one as He and the Father are one.