Tridentine Community News - How a layman can serve as subdeacon in the EF; Tridentine Masses This Coming Week

"I will go in unto the Altar of God
To God, Who giveth joy to my youth"
Tridentine Community News by Alex Begin (November 11, 2018):

November 11, 2018 – Resumed Fifth Sunday After Epiphany

How a Layman Can Serve as Subdeacon in the EF

One of the most frequent questions this writer has heard over the past year has been whether it is permissible for a layman to serve as Subdeacon for a Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Some Latin Mass communities have been using laymen in this capacity; the question is whether this is actually permitted. The answer is yes, under specific circumstances.

It is worth mentioning that the laws governing this matter are not all that easy to find. One really has to be a scholar of Tridentine Mass rubrics to find the answer. The entity governing such matters, the Pontifical Commission Ecclésia Dei in Rome, does a poor job of publicizing its rulings. Ideally they would post their various decisions on a web site, but alas that has not yet happened.

The 2009 edition of Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described states that originally, the only men who could serve as Subdeacon were those who had been ordained to any of the minor orders and those who had received tonsure, the ceremonial cutting of hair at the commitment to religious life.


Pope Paul VI’s 1972 Apostolic Letter Ministéria Quædam abolished the minor orders (porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte) and eliminated the major order of subdeacon, leaving only deacon and priest. (Note the labeling of steps to the priesthood at Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary Chapel: minor orders on the front sanctuary steps, major orders on the back High Altar steps. [photo by Fr. Bryan Jerabek]) The document replaced them with “ministries”, of which Acolyte is one. The PCED’s ruling clarifies the matter and establishes that the Ordinary Form “installation” (as opposed to ordination) to the ministry of Acolyte is the pertinent modern day equivalent to the former minor orders. Note that the minor orders continue to be provided to members of the religious communities which follow the Extraordinary Form ordination track, including the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King.

In 1993, the PCED issued Protocol 24/92, a ruling stating the following: “In celebrating the Solemn High Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal it is necessary to follow the rubrics of that missal. In the past the employment of a person who had received the ministry of acolyte acting as subdeacon was tolerated. In that case the acolyte acting as subdeacon did not wear the maniple. Thus usage may continue to be tolerated.”

In response to the PCED’s ruling, a few dioceses began to install laymen as Acolytes. The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska and the U.S. [Anglican] Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter stand out: both install large numbers of men as Acolytes, the latter specifically to assist at Solemn High Masses.

The challenge nowadays is that many if not most bishops do not understand the PCED’s rulings and have little if any interest in taking what they see as unusual steps to assist Latin Mass communities. Archbishop Allen Vigneron in Detroit and Bishop Earl Boyea in Lansing, Michigan, for example, have not installed any laypeople to the Ministry of Acolyte, despite having been made aware of the PCED’s stance on the matter.

Over the years, a few laymen who serve at metro Detroit and Windsor Tridentine Mass sites have expressed an interest in being installed as Acolytes, in large part because of the difficulty of securing priests and deacons on Sundays. The frequency of Solemn High Masses has in large part been limited by the availability of suitably ordained clergy.


Today we have some good news to report: Over the last few months, one of those laymen, James Murphy, one of our roving altar servers based at Windsor’s St. Benedict Tridentine Community, successfully petitioned Diocese of London, Ontario Bishop Ronald Fabbro to be installed as an Acolyte. His Excellency granted permission for this to take place and delegated the ceremony to his Auxiliary Bishop, Joseph Dabrowski. On Thursday, November 8, 2018 Bishop Dabrowski installed James to the Ministry of Acolyte at the chancery chapel in London.

As a result, James becomes the first layman in metro Detroit and Windsor to be authorized to serve as Subdeacon. As a layman, he will not wear maniple or biretta. Our congratulations to him, especially for patiently and persistently going through the steps Rome has decreed are necessary to undertake this ministry.

Tridentine Masses This Coming Week

• Tue. 11/13 7:00 PM: Low Mass at Holy Name of Mary, Windsor (St. Didacus, Confessor)
• Sat. 11/17 8:30 AM: Low Mass at Miles Christi (St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop & Confessor)

[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@detroitlatinmass.org. Previous columns are available at http://www.detroitlatinmass.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Albertus (Detroit), Academy of the Sacred Heart (Bloomfield Hills), and St. Alphonsus and Holy Name of Mary Churches (Windsor) bulletin inserts for November 11, 2018. Hat tip to Alex Begin, author of the column.]

Ed Peters: "On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made"

Edward Peters, "On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made" (In Light of the Law, October 5, 2017):

I have taken no position on the Correctio Filialis. I know and respect some of its signatories as I do some of its critics but, as the document itself seems to fall within the boundaries of Canon 212, I say, ‘Have at it folks and may the better arguments prevail’. That said, some recent arguments against the Correctio are, in my view, subtly deficient and, time permitting, I will reply to them.

But even before that, I wish to reply to an attitude I perceive emerging against the Correctio, one that attempts to dissuade Correctio supporters from their position by alleging a disastrous—but supposedly logical—consequence of their being right, something along these lines: If Amoris laetita and/or Pope Francis and/or his Vatican allies are really as bad as the authors of the Correctio seem to believe, then all petitions, Dubia, and corrections will do no good. Prayer and fasting would be more advisable.

Hmmm.

Setting aside that several of these scenarios are not asserted in the Correctio and that the evidence concerning some others is not yet in, underlying this doomsday-like retort of the Correctio is, I think, a certain despair about the importance of argument itself in this matter. At the very least, such a bleak conclusion disregards the duty of certain Catholics precisely to engage in such debates.

Canon 212 § 3 has been invoked by those supporting the Correctio to point out that the Church herself recognizes the right of certain persons “to manifest to sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful”, namely, those persons who possess “knowledge, competence, and prestige” in regard to the matter under discussion. Indeed. But Canon 212 § 3 says something more.

Canon 212 § 3 states in regard to persons with special knowledge, competence, and prestige in regard to ecclesiastical matters, that they “have the right and even at times the duty” to express their views on matters impacting the well-being of the Church (my emphasis). The duty. Not just the right.

Thus to the extent that some qualified signatories and/or supporters of the Correctio have realized a duty (expressed in law) to address these matters, they are not simply acting under the protection of law (as are those exercising a right), they are acting in accord with its directives (as do those under an obligation). Now, to be sure, Canon 212 is not self-interpreting and several prudential considerations must be considered when applying it. But in its very terms is the expression of a duty incumbent upon certain Catholics who are qualified by their education, experience, and Church positions to make serious arguments on matters impacting the Church. And I see no exception in the law for those whose positions might imply the existence of other problems for the Church or for those who arguments seem unlikely to be acted upon.

Cdl. Caffarra said “only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity in the Church.” Much of that confusion turns, obviously, on the meaning of technical terms and on the content of intellectual assertions. Those blessed with advanced training in such technical terms and intellectual assertions may be, and at times should be, at the forefront of these debates.

And, yes, all participants in these debates should be engaged in extra prayer and fasting.

Pope Francis further democratizes liturgy

Jason Horowitz, "Pope Francis Shifts Power From Rome With 'Hugely Important' Liturgical Reform" (New York Times, September 9, 2017):

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis, who has used his absolute authority in the Vatican to decentralize power from Rome, made a widespread change Saturday to the ways, and words, in which Roman Catholics worship by amending Vatican law to give national bishop conferences greater authority in translating liturgical language. Read more >>

See also New Catholic, "Breaking: Motu Proprio 'Magnum Principium' granting authority on liturgical translations to Bishops' Conferences" (Rorate Caeli, September 9, 2017), which has an English translation of the Motu Proprio, analysis of "Canon 838 in the Light of Conciliar and Post Conciliar Sources," and, further, "A key to reading the moto proprio 'Magnum principium'" by X Arthur Roche, Archbishop Secretary, Congregation for Divine Worship & the Discipline of the Sacraments.

The bottom line on Amoris

This was published last Sunday, but if you haven't seen it yet, I think it's probably the clearest illustration I've seen of problems posed by efforts to square the circle by those the author calls "Amoris Supporters":

Eduard Peters, "Conscience can't be the final arbiter on who gets Communion" (Crux, January 8 2017).

A fundamental, as he points out, is this:

Typical pastors reading 'Amoris' are likely to stumble into accepting its central flaw, namely, assuming that an individual Catholic’s assessment of his or her own conscience is the sole criterion that governs a minister’s decision to give holy Communion to a member of the faithful.

Read more >>

Canonis Ed Peters on "the Buenos Aires directive"

Ed Peters, "On the Buenos Aires directive" (In the Light of the Law, September 13, 2016). As always, superlatively clear, eminently edifying, and right on the money.

"Learning to Love Leviticus"

An older post worth reading, by John Barach (Theopolis Institute, December 9, 2014). As Guy Noir says:

Point 2 especially should strike a chord with us. Canon law, the Latin Mass, indulgences, St. Rose of Lima.... Yes, as freshly-scrubbed and World Youth Day-ready as we all want to make the faith appear, we all also know that at its base it is both amazingly true-to-life and relevant and at the same time foreign, otherworldly, and weird. No matter how many interviews we set up between atheists and popes...

Yes, worth reading.

I had a professor once, whom I eminently respect, H.E. Runner, who used to suggest that most Christians get the Bible wrong by trying to read the New Testament as though that alone were their Bible. Exaggerating to make his point, he would say: "The New Testament is nothing more than an appendix to the Old Testament to show us that its promises come to be fulfilled."

Edward Peters: "What Francis Forgets About Marriage" - Tolle, lege!

Our good friend and colleague, canonist Edward Peters, has just published an article, "What Francis Forgets About Marriage" (June 22, 2016), in which he writes: 

How can one square the beautiful ideal of marriage set out by Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia with his bleak assessment of marriage in real life, which slipped out during a clergy conference last week? Only by avoiding one crucial point about marriage, namely, that it is fundamentally a contract.

Most contracts deal, of course, with narrowly defined activities, such as “fix my car” or “rent me this apartment.” In contrast, the marriage contract, upon the reciprocal expression of consent to its terms by a qualified man and woman, results in a complex and perduring state between those two persons (what modern canon law calls a “consortium of the whole of life”) and, if both spouses are baptized, in a sacrament that reflects the union of Christ with his Church. But whatever else marriage might be socially or spiritually, it is first a contract between two people.

Marriage has been described and defined in contract terms for thousands of years. The Church affirms that human beings are by nature suited to contract marriage, and she teaches that Christian couples can call upon the graces of the sacrament of Matrimony in living out the marriages they contract. Against such an ancient and affirming tradition, Francis’s assertion that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null” shocked both common sense and Catholic sensibility. It implied that the great majority of the world’s one billion Catholics (to say nothing of other Christians) failed to achieve the state of life that is most naturally suited to adults and failed to receive the sacrament that Christ established to assist them.

If one ignores, however, the contract-character of marriage and approaches it as a beautiful ideal, the pope’s assertion of rampant matrimonial nullity begins to make sense. How many marriages, Christian or otherwise, will ever achieve the goals described in Amoris? Surely not “the great majority.” Francis’s use of the canonical term “null” to describe millions of supposed pseudo-marriages implied a technical legal expertise that he does not possess—but his basic point was clear: The great majority of Christian marriages aren’t really marriages.

That this assertion was not a verbal slip, and that it likely grew out of an avoidance of the contract foundation of marriage, seems verified by another papal comment not yet expunged from the Vatican’s version of his remarks, namely, that many merely “cohabiting couples are in real marriages and have the graces of marriage.” And why not? If marriage is not a contract and requires no external inaugurating act (e.g., the wedding that marks the beginning of most marriages) why cannot marriage-ish qualities emerge between two cohabiting, so disposed, people over time? Are cohabiting people not capable of love and self-sacrifice? Do married couples have a monopoly on grace?

But however damaging it was to the urgent cause of clarity concerning marriage, the pope’s dark depiction of the state of Christian marriage seems to have resonated with not a few apparently sensible and seemingly informed people who, in face of falling wedding and climbing divorce figures, understandably worry about the future of marriage, both natural and sacramental.

Thinking that the pope has (or had before he changed the record of his remarks) given voice to their concerns—instead of, as I would argue, having aggravated the marriage crisis by confusing common marital problems with massive marital nullity—some folks (I limit my observations to the American Catholic scene) are chiming in with comments along the lines of “Hold on! Francis might be on to something. Many young people don’t understand that marriage is supposed to be for life” or “I have worked in marriage prep programs for several years and I’d say most people do not understand the permanence of marriage.” To these kinds of well-intentioned views let me offer two responses.

First, recall that the pope’s harsh evaluation of most Christian marriages was offered without restriction as to nationality or ethnicity, circumstances of the wedding, age of spouses, duration of relationship, and so on. His was as close to a “universal assertion” about Christian marriage as could be offered. Nevertheless universal assertions are not provable by appeal to particular examples and so one cannot verify Francis’s claim of a global marriage nullity crisis based on what one might have observed among a tiny portion of the world’s married or engaged couples in one part of one country. Not in a Church consisting of a billion-plus people living around the world, one can’t.

With unconscious self-centeredness, some who have observed troublesome attitudes toward marriage around them (i.e., among mostly middle-class, generally white, largely mal-catechized, media-saturated Americans) have extrapolated from those observations to conclude that the great majority of Christians in, say, France, Costa Rica, the Baltic States, and Nigeria, to name just four demographically distinguishable Christianized locales out of thousands, must be approaching marriage in the same way. That, to put it mildly, is one giant leap.

Second, and more importantly, assuming for the sake of argument, against a boatload of counter examples, that one has accurately observed (or correctly guessed) that fewer people marrying or married today “understand the permanence of marriage,” may I ask, so what, exactly?

The canonical norms on marriage (norms encapsulating two millennia of deep reflection on human nature and the doctrines of Christ) do not, repeat, not hold that “ignorance” about permanence in marriage, or a diminished appreciation of permanence therein, or some imperfection in one’s grasp of the concept of permanence itself, renders one’s marriage null. This must be clearly understood: In regard to permanence in marriage, there is no simple ignorance-equals-nullity line in canon law. To be sure, a link exists between ignorance about permanence of marriage and the nullity of marriage, but that link is not immediate; to result in nullity, this ignorance must “determine the will” (Canon 1099, etc.). This middle term in the nullity argument, omitted by Francis and overlooked by those who at first blush are taken with his comments, is absolutely vital for the cogency of the argument. It is not enough to show that one was “ignorant” about permanence in order to prove nullity. One must also show that said ignorance vitiated the will with which a marriage was attempted in order for that marriage to be declared null.

Only a careful assessment of the will at the time of the wedding might disclose a causal link between one’s ignorance about permanence in marriage and the nullity of one’s marrying under such ignorance. And if “consent” cases are generally more difficult to try than are “capacity” or “form” cases (and they are more difficult), “ignorance cases” are among the most difficult of consent cases. It is much easier to suggest “ignorance” than it is to prove canonically significant ignorance. Good canonists know this, even if too many influencers of Catholic opinion do not.

What can be said is this: It is pastorally reckless to suggest that ignorance about permanence in marriage is pandemic among the world’s Christians, and it is canonically impossible to argue that mere ignorance on this point renders any, let alone the great majority of, sacramental marriages invalid; it is logically wrong-headed to parlay one’s personal observations of certain marriage problems into verification of a global marriage crisis centered on those problems; and it is spiritually dangerous to take to heart such theories, especially if it leads to despair about marriage in general or sudden worries about the validity of one’s own marriage.

In short, human nature is not so easily frustrated and the Church’s sacraments are not so frequently null.

Edward Peters has doctoral degrees in canon and civil law. He served for more than ten years in American tribunals at first and second instance and now teaches canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit.

Although this should go without saying ...

As Canonist Ed Peters points out, "The law before 'Amoris' is the law after" (In the Light of the Law, April 10, 2016):

Holy Communion is to be withheld from divorced-and-remarried Catholics in virtue of Canon 915 which, as has been explained countless times, does not require Catholic ministers to read the souls of would-be communicants, but rather, directs ministers to withhold holy Communion from those who, as an external and observable matter, “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes civil remarriage after divorce as “public and permanent adultery” (something obviously gravely sinful), so, if Francis had wanted to authorize the administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics (and he did not want to repudiate CCC 2384, 1650, etc.) he would have had to have wrought a change in the law contained in Canon 915.

Read more >>

Francis orders change to Foot Washing Rite on Holy Thursday to include females

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf addresses the matter of this brave new world innovation here today, with these observations:

First, in the Ordinary Form the footwashing rite or “Mandatum” is optional. It need not be done at all. Neither can any bishop or priest be constrained to do it. Fathers, you can simply drop it. If you are being pressured to add women or girls to those chosen, don’t do the rite.

Second, this does not apply to the Extraordinary Form. Fathers. Think about it. ¡Hagan lío!

Third, just as in the cases of Communion in the hand and the use of altar girls, both of which were legalized after years of blatant disobedience to the law, this move by Pope Francis could be interpreted to mean that liturgical norms mean very little and, worse, that liturgy means very little. Thus, we move deeper into a brave new antinomian world. (emphasis added) I suspect, however, that it one were to choose to make it up as you go (disobey) in the traditional direction rather than in the innovative direction, the world would be brought down on one’s head.

Fourth, see number two, above.

"A non-magisterial magisterial statement?"

On December 10, 2015, the Pontifical Commission for Relations with the Jews released a document consisting of Reflections on Theological Questions entitled "The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable" (see our post, "New Vatican Document on Judaism Provokes Controversy," Musings, December 18, 2015).

Canonist Edward Peters, in "A non-magisterial magisterial statement?" (In the Light of the Law, December 15, 2015), has a very good discussion of the question of magisterial status of such documents -- a discussion provoking a response from Jimmy Akin in "Why the Holy See Issues Non-Magisterial Statements" (National Catholic Register, December 15, 2015), to which Peters briefly responds in an addendum to his original post linked above.

The debate turns on the question whether the magisterial character of prelates can be readily "turned off and on" (as Akin seems to maintain) or whether this character cannot be so easily laid aside (as Peters suggests). The position taken by Peters implies that theological statements by prelates, regardless of the "specific intentionality" whereby they wish their locutionary acts to be characterized (as 'magisterial' or 'non-magisterial'), can have am objectively magisterial character independent of any subjective intention. While this should not lead us to suppose that such statements have a greater conscience-binding character than they in fact have, yet underscores, in turn, that prelates need to exercise greater care in making assertions on faith and morals, says Peters.

Read both articles. It's an important and timely discussion. Both authors seem concerned about the direction things have been heading in recent years with off-the-cuff declarations and "non-binding" Vatican statements; but they offer quite different accounts of how these developments should be viewed.

Update: 

• Nabeel Qureshi, "Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?" (RZIM, December 22, 2015). Here, from a Muslim convert to Christianity, is the more nuanced sort of answer I wish I would see more often from Catholics. 
• Francis J. Beckwith, "Why Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God" (The Catholic Thing, January 7, 2016).  I dunno.  Beckwith says all the right things in terms of magisterial teaching; yet we may need more emphasis on the lines he ends with, which touches on what one of my readers recently said to me in an email: "Do Muslims worship Jesus?"  That is the only important question in the final analysis.

Canonist Peters on "high-level ecclesiastic dalliances with doctrinal ambiguity"

Edward Peters, "A license to sin" (In the light of the law, November 24, 2015 - my emphasis):

There is, I fear, no end in sight of the nonsensical nonsense being unleashed in the wake of various high-level ecclesiastic dalliances with doctrinal ambiguity and disciplinary confusion in regard to holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Call it Life in this Valley of Tears. Anyway, Pope Francis is going to do about this whatever he is going to about it and the Church will respond to whatever he does in due course. For now, I simply write to urge caution about some proposals to facilitate irregular reception of the Sacrament in these cases even if such proposals are couched in apparently sophisticated scholarly terms. 

For example, an Australian theologian has proposed a rescript to be issued by a bishop in accord with norms supposedly to be devised by Pope Francis, granting permission for divorced-and-remarried Catholics to take holy Communion. The proposal includes impressive vocabulary such as “juridical” and “administrative” and “canons”; it sports footnotes to “assessors” and “salus animarum” and warns about “anomalies”; it underscores Church teaching on the permanence of marriage and assures readers that it offers no doctrinal or canonical changes to this teaching. 

Balderdash. Pure, unadulterated, balderdash. This proposed rescript is really a license to sin. 

More specifically, this rescript would (purport to) grant permission to ignore one sin (adultery) and to commit another (sacrilegious reception of holy Communion). It even manages to suggest a third sin (attempting sacramental Confession without firm purpose of amendment)! Couched in mellifluous pastoral, sacramental, and canonical language, to be issued on arch/diocesan letterhead, such a letter, expressly invoking Our Lord’s teaching on marriage and to be signed by a Successor of the Apostles in the name of Christ, who—I kid you not—congratulates the couple on their perseverance in allowing the Church to grant them this favor(!), would constitute, I suggest, a blasphemy (CCC 2148). 

Peters is on a roll in this post. Do yourself a favor and read it. Not only will you be edified. You wouldn't want to miss the long-sought apparition of an eminent canon lawyer as the irrepressible Doc Holliday announcing his arrival at the final showdown with Johnny Ringo with the words, "I'm your Huckleberry." 

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: infallibility in action by St. John Paul II

Dr. Edward Peters, in "I agree with Dr. Feser 99.953%" (In the Light of the Law, November 24, 2015), writes:

Yes, I know that then-Cdl. Ratzinger said he did not regard Ordinatio as infallible and there is language from John Paul II suggesting the same thing. What can I say? Ordinatio is infallible, Ratzinger was not; John Paul’s infallible teaching authority was engaged when he issued Ordinatio, not when he briefly commented on it.

Find out why Peters says this, in commenting on Edward Feser's recent post on papal infallibility, by reading more >>

Why the brouhaha over streamlined annulments?

Here are two contrasting views:

• Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "Faster Annulments: Building a Raft Out of the Wreckage" (Patheos, September 8, 2015):

  Some people complain that there are too many annulments, and no doubt there are some abuses. Some annulments are given out lightly and I expect with the new rules even more annulments will be doled out too quickly and automatically. However, that need not be the case [huh? did I miss something?], and the more efficient rules will mean that the obvious cases for annulment can be dealt with more quickly and this will help all those involved in the pastoral care of those in broken marriages.
  
  Is it necessarily a terrible thing that there will be more annulments?
  
  I will never forget what one pastor said when discussing this matter: “Of course there are more annulments than ever before. That’s because there are more invalid marriages than ever before.”
  
  I’m sure nobody would dispute the fact that marriage and weddings in our mixed up society are a total mess. [Emphasis added by Guy Noir]

  (Our correspondent, Guy Noir, remarks: "[I]f marriage is so difficult a concept to grab hold of, so rarely now actually realized, maybe the communion ban on divorced people should not be an issue at all -- ban most everybody! Buying into the new meme, it could convincingly be suggested but that Church invite to communion only bonafide singles and those they believe were actually and validly married in the first place. Because they seem to think this latter group is a pretty small one, such a practice would be far sounder and much safer, since under a Franciscan diagnosis society has produced within the Church a morally-addled mess. Running with the hospital analogy, the majority need saving before feeding, confession before Mass. And, I guess, somewhere in there, marriage. Yes, I agree, let's make things as complicated as we possibly can!")
  
  
• Roberto de Mattei, "A Would Inflicted on Christian Marriage" (Rorate Caeli, September 11, 2015):

  ... The indissolubility of marriage is a Divine and unmodifiable law of Jesus Christ. The Church cannot “annul” a marriage in the sense of dissolving it. She can, through a declaration of nullity, verify its inexistence, due to the lack of those requisites which assure its validity. Which means that in the canonical process, the Church’s priority is not the interests of the spouses to obtain the declaration of nullity, but the validity of the marriage bond itself [my ephasis].
  
  ... In Pope Francis’ Motu Proprio this view has been overturned. The interest of the spouses has primacy over that of marriage. It is the document itself that affirms this, by summarizing the fundamental criteria of the reform in these points: the abolition of the double-sentence in conformity, substituted by only one sentence in favor of the enforceability of the annulment; the attribution of monocratic power to the bishop, qualified as sole judge; the introduction of an expedite process [brevior], de facto uncontrollable, with the substantial downsizing of the role of the Roman Rota.
  
  ... Favor matrimonii is substituted for favor nullitatis, which comes to be the primary element of the law, while indissolubility is reduced to an impracticable “ideal”. The theoretical affirmation of indissolubility of marriage, is accompanied in practice with the right to a declaration of nullity for every failed marital bond. It will be enough, in conscience, to deem one’s own marriage invalid, in order to have it recognized as null by the Church. It is the same principle with which some theologians consider a marriage “dead”, where according to both, or one of the spouses, “love has died”. [emphasis from Rorate Caeli]

For anyone interested in delving deeper, I recommend, from Canonist Ed Peters' blog, In the Light of the Law:

• "A first look at Mitis Iudex" (September 8, 2015)
• "A second look at Mitis, especially at the new fast-track annulment process" (September 8, 2015)
• "The pope’s niece might be on to something" (September 9, 2015)
• "A linguistic concern occasioned by an important debate over synodal proposals," September 12, 2015.

Catholics: What part of this is not true or right?

Michael Voris, "Excommunicate Them All!" (The Vortex, July 1, 2015). He's talking about people like Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Harsh? Maybe. Or perhaps you would prefer a rainbow-colored Care Bear to cuddle with on your way to your ISIS execution or the Last Judgment?

Canonist Peters on SCOTUS decision ... and more!

Edward Peters, "Two thoughts re the Supreme Court decision on 'same-sex marriage'" (In the Light of the Law, June 26, 2015):

So, the US Supreme Court, relying on what Justice Scalia has called “the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie”, has ruled that two persons of the same sex can marry. The only relationship on earth limited to two people of the opposite sex has been gutted of its core identity by our highest judicial body. Words fail. Of course, the Court has not yet reached the end of its marriage line, for yet to come are “marriages” between siblings, parents and children, groups of people, and so on, but come they will, for the corner was turned today, much like the corner was turned on abortion back in 1973—in another ruling never righted. The Court might, of course, from time to time, get some other cases correct, but it clearly cannot be relied upon as a repository of judicial, or even logical, good sense in tumultuous times. The loss is a grievous one for the American body politic. Anyway, I make here two points especially for Catholics.

First, we need to recall that the State has long recognized as married some persons who are not married, namely, when the State allows divorced persons simply to remarry. We have lived with persons in pseudo-marriage for many decades; so now the pool of such people is larger. The pastoral challenges in consequence of this latest decision are greater as will be the sacrifices needed to meet them. But so far—and this is a key point—State power has not been applied to try to force Churches or their faithful to treat as married those who, by doctrine or discipline, are not married. This brings me to my next point.

Second, Catholic doctrine and discipline can never, ever, recognize as married two persons of the same sex, and any Catholic who regards “same-sex marriage” as marriage is, beyond question, “opposed to the doctrine of the Church” (Canon 750 § 2). I am sorry so many Catholics apparently think otherwise and I recognize that many who think that Church teaching on marriage can and should change, do so in good faith. But they are still wrong and their error leads them, among other things, to underestimate how non-negotiable is the Church’s opposition to the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage. The Church (and for that matter our nation) will have great need of Catholics who understand and accept the teaching of Christ and his Church on marriage if the damage done by the Supreme Court today is ever to be repaired. Appreciating the infallible character of this teaching on marriage is the first step.

As for whether we succeed in righting this wrong, that’s not our concern. The question we will be asked at Judgment will be, Did we try?

And then, there's this: "WordPress and the art of 'In Your Face'":

Today ... when I went to post my blog on the Supreme Court case [using WordPress], there was suddenly blazoned across the editing screen a marquis style Gay Pride Rainbow flag. Atop my usual shades of grey, the multiple colors veritably screamed ‘Gay Marriage! Gay Marriage! Gay Marriage!’. Unless WordPress got hacked or something, it looks like they (with all the lately-found bravery of one who jumps on a bandwagon after someone else has won a fight) wants folks to celebrate this Supreme Court decision. Mind, WordPress has never, in my three or so years of using it, marked its tool pages with any political logos or symbols of any kind. But today there is an in-your-face gloat over the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell.

Makes me wonder how WordPress (assuming it was them who ran the Rainbow marquis) might have celebrated the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision back in the day. Perhaps a marquis featuring chains and shackles? Or how about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson? Maybe back-to-back rows of chairs? Weren’t these both Supreme Court cases thought to have settled once and for all major questions of their day?

Yes, a lot of people are happy about Obergefell. I get it. But assuming everyone wants to celebrate it?

PS: I wonder whether WordPress’ paying customers were greeted with a political banner today. Or was it just us charity cases?

Should priests stop certifying religious weddings for the state?

Canon lawyer Edward Peters, "Bad ideas know no borders" (In the Light of the Law, May 5, 2015), addresses a timely question I've heard raised in more than one quarter of late.  It's a piece worth reading in full, but the nub of it is this:

What some fear—and I understand their fear, however wrong it is—is that, in the wake of a civil redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, religious ministers will suddenly be required to certify same-sex couples as married (says who?) and therefore (as if there were a logical imperative here, which there is not) we should preemptively cease certifying religiously married couples as married. How on earth does one arrive at that conclusion? Certifying as married, couples that are married, is a good! The fact that others might certify as married, couples that are not married is a bad, but their bad action does not make our good action into a bad.

And if the State did suddenly require Catholic ministers to officiate at the weddings of simply divorced persons, or of same-sex couples, we would refuse. Flatly.... And if the State, in retaliation for such a Faith-demanded refusal, revoked their recognition of our religious weddings, that decision is on their heads, not ours.

Canonist Edward Peters on antinomianism in high places

My esteemed colleague Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap., "Addressing antinomianism requires recognizing it" (In the Light of the Law, January 6, 2015), here addresses an issue that has concerned him for some time. He writes:

Let’s use a little point to illustrate a large point.

Little point: Francis has appointed five more papal electors than Church law authorizes.

Large point: Antinomianism (ignorance of, disregard for, and sometimes contempt toward, law) is so pervasive in the Church (and in the State, for that matter) that almost no one notices it anymore.

Let’s back up:

Church law limits the number of cardinals eligible at any given time to vote for a Roman Pontiff to 120. See Universi Dominici gregis (1996) n. 33. Now, UDG (issued by John Paul II, following the example of Paul VI) is an “apostolic constitution”, the highest form of legislative document used in the Church, and its cap on electors is set out by a negative subjunctive (Maximus autem Cardinalium electorum numerous centum viginti ne excedat) which construction, as the Canon Law Society of America notes in the introduction to its 1999 English language translation of the Code, is regularly used by the Church to express straightforward commands and prohibitions. There is nothing unclear* about the law in this area or ambiguous about Francis’ action in regard to it, so, yet again, the Vatican Press Office finds itself explaining away the discrepancy between law and action, this time, basically saying that the number of electors appointed by Francis is not ‘very much’ in excess of what is allowed—which it’s not, of course, though, if I were advising the VPO, I’d suggest they simply point the finger to John Paul II’s frequent practice of exceeding his own elector limits (if memory serves, at one time JP2 had authorized some 130 eligible electors!); it plays better, I think, to suggest that anomalous papal conduct is actually in line with past anomalous papal conduct than it does to try to say that papal conduct isn’t exactly what it is.

Anyway, my concern is for law, and here it is: most of the world and many in the Church do not realize that, although the Petrine office is of divine constitution, the papal election process is almost entirely a human construct, that popes write nearly all of the rules of that process, and that popes can change almost any of those rules (including, beyond any doubt, the elector limit of 120) virtually at will. Instead, most of the world and many in the Church only see law here—pontifical, promulgated, translated-into-the-vernacular-so-anyone-can-look-it-up law—yet again being used not as a vehicle to express binding norms of conduct, but rather, as a way to express what are at best papal predictors about what future papal behavior might be, these, to be observed or not as suits the man who wrote, or who could easily change, the law. No wonder so many now wonder so much about what other canon laws we might chuck when we feel like it.

That’s antinomianism, folks: laws mis-written in the first place, misunderstood and/or misapplied by administrators, and eventually ignored alike by leadership and those subject to it. But antinomianism (which, I grant, is as likely today to spring from ignorance about law as to come from contempt for it) does special damage in the Church. Why? Because the Church lacks most of the legal enforcement options available to States and so is even more affected by the example of respect for law being given, or not, by those in leadership positions.

Let me be clear: it does not make a fig’s worth of difference whether 120 or 125 cardinals vote in the next papal conclave, but it does make a fig’s worth of difference, I suggest, if yet another ecclesiastical rule, set out in a major legislative document using terminology indistinguishable from that which conveys many other considerably more important rules, is ignored because this leader or that doesn’t feel like abiding by it. We have processes to reform law in the Church; looking the other way isn’t one of them—at the very least, it’s a very dangerous way to change laws.

Antinomianism has been a long time spreading, and we are going to be a long, long time repairing the damage it has done to the Church (and the State). Where to start, then, except with the first step: recognizing that antinomianism is the default setting today. + + + [emphasis mine - PP]

* Supposing, for a moment, that John Paul’s use of the subjunctive in this passage was merely hortatory (there are grammatical arguments for, and against, that interpretation), we would still have a problem: namely, popes deliberately using legislative documents to express wishes about how they might act in an important matter of ecclesiastical governance. Bad approach, that.

Robert Siscoe marshalls Bellarmine and John of St. Thomas against sedevacantism of Fr. Cekada

[Advisory & disclaimer: See Rules 7-9]

"Robert Siscoe responds to Fr. Cekada" (Gloria.tv, September 3, 2014). It's amazing what sorts of things are being debated these days.

"The scandal that is eating the heart out of the Catholic Church in America"

Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick, "The scandal that is eating the heart out of the Catholic Church in America" (American Life League, March 24, 2014):

Here is the text of Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Several American bishops have made statements to the effect that a bishop must exercise “discretion” regarding whether to “impose the penalty” of denial of Communion. Among them: Chaput, Dolan, O’Malley, and Wuerl.

All bishops who refuse to “impose the penalty” are participating in a lie. Namely, that denial of Communion is a penalty.

Denial of Communion is NOT a penalty.

So? What is the import of this fact?

It means that denial of Communion is not an option that MAY be chosen. It is MANDATED by Canon 915. No bishop, priest, or other minister of Communion is free to disobey Canon 915, for the simple reason that the action Canon 915 forbids is ALWAYS gravely sinful.

Read more >>

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

Extraordinary Community News

"I will go in unto the Altar of God
To God, Who giveth joy to my youth"
Tridentine Community News (April 27, 2014):

Plenary Indulgence for Divine Mercy Sunday

Holy Mother Church has designated Low Sunday, the first Sunday after Easter, as Divine Mercy Sunday. It is one of a handful of days in the liturgical year which are enriched with a Plenary Indulgence. The faithful who take part in public devotions in honor of Divine Mercy in a church on this Sunday are granted a Plenary Indulgence, under the usual conditions of reception of Holy Communion, Confession within 20 days, prayer for the Holy Father’s intentions, and freedom from attachment to sin.

Book Review: A Modern Guide to Indulgences

This is therefore an appropriate day to mention an informative book written by Dr. Edward Peters [pictured right], Professor of Latin and Canon Law at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary: A Modern Guide to Indulgences: Rediscovering This Often Misinterpreted Teaching provides a comprehensive overview of the theology and current norms for gaining these graces bestowed from the treasury of the Church.

Published in 2008, the book has two main parts, the first being an explanation of the history and doctrine of Indulgences, and the second being a listing of the prayers and acts that gain Indulgences. The book resolves many but not all of the questions raised by the official books on the subject: The Vatican’s Enchirídion Indulgentiárum, available in English as The Manual of Indulgences. Those original, invaluable books provide not only the letter of the law, but also the texts of the currently indulgenced prayers and works. Yet the official books raise many questions and seem incomplete.

In a relatively brief 107 pages, Dr. Peters strives to answer some of the questions the faithful may have after reading the official publications. For example, he clarifies that if a particular Plenary Indulgence requires prayer of the Our Father, the Our Father must be prayed a second time to count as a prayer for the Holy Father’s intentions. Not all FAQs are answered clearly, however: For example, Peters does not make it clear whether one can gain an Indulgence for a specific soul in Purgatory, or if it must be directed to the Poor Souls in general, letting God decide which soul will benefit.

It is important to stress that A Modern Guide to Indulgences is not a substitute for the official books. It does not contain the texts of the Indulgenced prayers, for example. Rather, it is a companion work, meant to enhance the understanding of the faithful. In this role it has no peer and is thus recommended to those wishing to learn more about this great gift of the Church.

Crisis Magazine Article: Saving Catholic Culture from Destruction

An article dated April 3, 2014 on the web site of Crisis Magazine, www.crisismagazine.com, begins with the tantalizing opening line, “What kind of mindset built all the immigrant Catholic parishes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the Americas?”

The article, entitled “Saving Catholic Culture from Destruction”, makes a cogent argument for the preservation of historic Catholic churches. Focusing on a group of the faithful intent on saving the now-closed St. Ann Church in Buffalo, New York, the writer cautions against “the replacement of a spiritual battle mentality with a corporate management mentality”. Perhaps it’s more efficient and cost-saving to build less ornate churches in a modern idiom, but such edifices fail to express the fullness of the Catholic faith as clearly as the traditional designs. Grand Gothic and Romanesque churches engage the senses and communicate the Faith in a way that mere words cannot. Indeed, such a timeless “multimedia” expression of Catholicism should certainly qualify as part of the New Evangelization.

Of course, the preservation of inspiring historic churches is not simply a matter of will. It’s also a matter of money and willingness to work. Locally, we have the vivid example of St. Albertus Church, sold in 1990 by the Archdiocese of Detroit to a group of the faithful who labor with amazing zeal to maintain this awe-inspiring but gargantuan structure. The volunteer effort involved is staggering, rivaled only by similar efforts at the Shrine of St. Joseph in St. Louis, Missouri, and St. Alphonsus Church in New Orleans, Louisiana.

One commenter suggests as a commendable example the still-unexecuted plan put forth by Mary Our Queen Parish in the Archdiocese of Atlanta: The pastor is trying to raise funds to purchase, disassemble, and move the shuttered, Roman basilica-style St. Gerard Church from Buffalo, New York, down to Georgia to serve as the new parish church. Impressive thinking, perhaps, but one out-of-the-box idea cannot compare to the dedication of our ancestors, who scrimped and saved from their meager incomes to contribute toward the building of so many magnificent Catholic churches from approximately 1870-1955.

Tridentine Masses This Coming Week

• Mon. 04/28 7:00 PM: Low Mass at St. Joseph (St. Paul of the Cross, Confessor)
• Tue. 04/29 7:00 PM: Low Mass at St. Benedict/Assumption-Windsor (St. Peter of Verona, Martyr)
• Fri. 05/02 7:00 PM: Low Mass at St. Joseph (Sacred Heart of Jesus) – First Friday
• Sun. 05/04 9:45 AM: High Mass at Academy of the Sacred Heart Chapel, Bloomfield Hills (Second Sunday After Easter) – Debut of new weekly Sunday Mass site. Confessions will be heard before Mass, beginning around 9:00 AM. Reception after Mass.

[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@detroitlatinmass.org. Previous columns are available at http://www.detroitlatinmass.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Albertus (Detroit) and Assumption (Windsor) bulletin inserts for April 27, 2014. Hat tip to A.B., author of the column.]