28 June 2023

Screwtape at work?

June 28 is crowded.

It has, of course, a status as the day before, the Vigil, of the great Solemnity of the Apostles of Rome.

But it then acquired Pope S Leo II. 

Then ... when the polemical value of S Irenaeus became apparent, he occupied the day, and S Leo went to July 3.

Until the fashion reverted to the observance of Vigils, when S Irenaeus was relegated to July 3.

And what happened to S Leo?

Who cares, anyway, about Pope S Leo II?

The reason why I care is that S Leo is a quite unique Pope. He is, I believe, the only pope who formally ratified the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, and in doing so condemned with an Anathema a former pope, listing him with heretics. By his negligence, S Leo thought, Honorius had allowed the purity of the Catholic Faith of the Roman Church to be polluted.

I'm not really keen on enabling comments which try to convince me that S Leo II didn't really do any of this.

I will not labour the point of the relevance of all this to our present ecclesial situation, in which, in my view, PF has allowed the Catholic Faith of the Roman Church, and of many other Churches, to be polluted. The precedent of Honorius and S Leo II is highly important. Catholics are not under any obligation to try to convince themseles that PF cannot do wrong; has not done wrong; is incapable of doing anything which is not superduper.

I believe that orders arrived from very deep in the Lowerarchy that S Leo II should be crowbarred out of the record ... and, certainly, out of the Calendar.

It is not thought safe to allow him to show his face in this age in which the Ueberpapalist fanatics are riding so high and with such arrogance.

But stay: there is the CDF liturgical legislation of 2000. Does that allow S Leo to get his red slipper in today's door?


Josephus Muris Saliensis said...

They do jump around, don't they? Leo II (sd) was kept today by Pius X, but had given way to Irenaeus (d) in 1939 under Pius XI, and as you say, Bugnini and John XXIII took him away to leave the Vigil unimpeded. And of course St John the Baptist lost his octave.

Theodore Amherst said...

Dear Father,

Why can't we just have everyone and everything to be commemorated on a particular day commemorated on that particular day? Why is it always a zero-sum game? Other Churches don't seem to have a problem with multiple things to think about at once.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Father. Pope St Leo is smashing.

I stil have one of his quotes from a book about The Mass by Rev Father Lucas S.J.

....Now in a sentence which has been embodied in one of the prayers in the Roman Missal (the Secreta of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost), St. Leo tells us that in His one sacrifice Our Lord has united and consummated the ancient rites with all their diversities. And indeed it is easy to see that His offering of Himself was a holocaust by reason of its completeness ; a propitiatory offering for sin by reason of its atoning efficacy and purpose, and finally a peace-offering whereby the atonement was not only made but sealed by a sacrificial meal.

Dear Father. I'm still trying to get Popes, Prelates and Priests to return to the practice of referring to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as also The Holy Holocaust as some Fathers did pubicly at the beginning of Vatcan Two;

Vatican Two opens and some Council Fathers make a public statement;

We wish to convey to all men and to all nations the message of salvation, love and peace which Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, brought to the world and entrusted to the Church.

In fact, it is for this reason that we, the successors of the apostles, all united in prayer with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, forming one single apostolic body whose head is the successor of Peter, are gathered here at the invitation of His Holiness Pope John XXIII.

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we intend in this meeting to seek the most effective ways of renewing ourselves and of becoming increasingly more faithful witnesses of the Gospel of Christ.
We will strive to propose to the men of our times the truth of God in its entirety and purity so that they may understand it and accept it freely.

Conscious of our duties as pastors, we wish deeply to meet the demands of those who seek God “and perhaps grope after him and find him though he is not far from any one of us” (Acts 17: 27).

Faithful, therefore, to the mandate of Christ, who offered Himself as (a) holocaust “in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory …

Probably owing to ecumenism, the document on the Mass did not use reference that unique description (making it the possession of the Catholic Church alone) and after the closing of the council, according to Prof Dr. Norman Finklestein


the Jews made the word theirs and now there is not a Priest alive who woud publicly refer to the Pluperfect Self Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary as a Holocaust (If they know it is a holocaust)

That is unbelievably tragic for if one were to ask any living Catholic tdoay- "What is the Holocaust?" - less that .01% would say something like "It is the action of Jesus on Calvary where His burning love for mankind substituted for the fires of the OT Hoocausts and it is His action that He actualises in His Priesthood in every single Mass celebrated on earth at any moment." but would say "O, it is what happened to the Jews in World War Two."

Shameful; what a loss

lynn said...

Whatever happened to the mortal sin that somehow became a sin no more? Usury....now that is an interesting history.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Lynn. Usury is still a sin despite the false contrary claims of Michael Hoffman.


"Culture Wars" published several articles in defense of this doctrine and it also featured several lengthy letters-to-the-editor- exchanges by Mr. Michael Hoffman and Mr. Michael Santerelli in which Mr Hoffman fared quite poorly (I am being kind) but he continues to make the same claims to this day.

Banshee said...

Re: holocaust, the usual English translation found in Bibles and Mass readings is "burnt offering." This was true even before the naming of the historic event.

If you want to talk about impoverished vocabulary, fine. But a fair amount of young people today in the US do not even know about the Holocaust, or any other event in WWII, because their history classes never get that far in the textbook. So you cannot fairly blame that for ignorance of the sacrificial meaning of the word.

This situation had briefly been reversed in the US, early last century, because the History Channel was always showing WWII documentaries during most of the day. But now it shows everything but history documentaries.

Banshee said...

"Loan sharking" is still a sin. And that is the proper modern definition of usuria.

Jesus expected the talents to be invested, and to get a good return with interest for the master. Are you going to accuse Him of usuria?

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Banshee.


Adult Catholics are expected to act differently than when they were children hearing, and hopefully absorbing ,what the authorities taught them in catechism classes. They are expected to grow in knowledge of the Faith and they can not rely on the modern ecumenically-minded hierarchy to teach them Tradition.

There is the typology of holocaust in the OT and Jesus is the antitype and why the Church fathers chose to drop the descriptor holocaust during/after Vatican Two is what I have been trying to get at.

They did , for whatever reasons, and the Laity are suffering for lack of knowledge of what Jesus did for mankind on Calvary and I think it is quite well known the the "revised" Roman Rite was originally called The Lord's Supper."

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

Ottaviani Intervention

The idea that Catholics can learn history from TV or from their public schools (Seminaries for the American Faith) is not comforting.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Dear Banshee Vix Prevenit is still in force and if you think the parable of the talents means Jesus succored Usury then you must spend some more time studying that parable.


Moritz Gruber said...

I think while maybe "the fashion reverted to the observance of vigils"... this merits a little distinction.

St. Peter and Paul's Vigil had always (until the liturgy reform... and even afterwards the feast has a "mass on the evening") been observed in the sense of commemorated, plus the occasional Mass at a Cathedral or so, and most obviously: even fasted on (which not many of the other vigils had kept). (I don't know how many people actually kept the precept of fasting, though).

Also, it seems a rather fitting way to keep a vigil of the Princes of the Apostles by having a feast of a Pope, or better still (yes... St. Leo, thanks for the story that it was he who condemned Honorius, I did not know, can have some commemoration somewhere...), St. Irenaeus, on it, just as it would be (today) to commemorate the Vigil of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin on a feast of the particularly Marian devotee St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Why was its observance in unimpeded form restored? Perhaps because of a fashion, but mostly because the Octave was cut. If the Apostles don't get their Octave (and in 1954 it still contained two days not occupied by other feasts, although the further feast of St. Maria Goretti was already to be seen on the horizon), they should at least have their Vigil unimpeded.

Moritz Gruber said...

Dear Theodore Amherst,

neither do we, see the Martyrology, and also Commemorations. But for all that there is still a difference about who is commemorated and who gets the entire shape of Mass and Office modeled for him. Also, the Roman instinct to have the great feasts distinguished by, ideally, not adding a Commemoration at least as far as the official liturgy is concerned (in private devotion, even Easter Sunday may be kept as day suchandsuch of one's consecration to St. Joseph to be held on May 1st because you forgot to begin it for March 19th...) is a sound one. It does add importance to an oration to have only one of them.

In principle, every double feast is that much important. The Church had to compromise and commemorate also on double feasts, anyway. The real reason for the crowded calender though is the abundance of doubles; the decision to degrade some of them to semidoubles was indeed (in my view) long overdue. Something of that sort was actually done in our time of all times, by the 2020 decrees.

Moritz Gruber said...

As for the 2020 CDF legislation's effects to St. Leo... I think I read no. 6 of Cum sanctissima as allowing a Commemoration of him on July 3. Possibly a feast also, or is that restricted to "newer saints"? St. Irenaeus in any case has now an "impedable third class feast", or what I should privately call a semidouble.

In any case, for those who wish to conform to the legislation, June 28th is out of bounds for both St. Irenaeus and St. Leo, because it is a II class vigil. (Rather funny that the decree speaks of "necnon in vigiliis III classis" when if I'm rightly informed there's only one of them, that of St. Lawrence...)

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Holocaust in the Bible


To go from this in 1962 -Faithful, therefore, to the mandate of Christ, who offered Himself as (a) holocaust “in order that he might present to himself the Church in all her glory …

to this in 1969 - "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".

is s profound rupture resulting in the cataclysmic impoverishment of both public pronouncements and sacred praxis.

Who will lead the way back to sound Tradition and stop the slide?

And still invisibilium within the Prelature is that cleric whose puissant possession of Tradition is such that it could be applied as a force against Our Inertia Into Indifferentism

Moritz Gruber said...

Dear Mick Jagger,

the current (and obviously justified) Church doctrine on the subject of usury is that to take a moderate interest is quite allowed. Pope Pius VIII (yes, he did something in his short reign) taught that in a letter to a French bishop. So much for the argument of authority; the speculative proof (as the theologians would call it) will be from the facts (which have always been granted) that one is allowed to demand compensation for a profit missed (such as buying stocks and receiving a dividend), and perhaps for other things, such as the risk that the debt is not paid back (note that credits now do not come with an "imprisonment in the debt tower if you don't pay" attached), a certain fee for bank operations, and the like.

It can be granted, though, that while who charges an interest acts morally lawfully, who buys a stock and receives a dividend does something better fitting. Also, the situation of the 2010s where the basic market interest was something like 0, so people (setting aside the possibility of charitable giving) have to buy stocks and hope for dividends, or consume their money on the spot by buying nice things, was actually a surprisingly fine state of affairs. Things rather shocking to decent middleclass moneysaving citizens, aren't they? But still... yes, we can take a moderate interest now.

PM said...

Irenaeus does get rather crowded out by St Peter and Paul the next day, and that is a pity today because he is a saint for our times. Much rank gnosticism circulates as 'spirituality' in 'progressive' circles today, and has leached into the dreadful Instrumentum Laboris for the synod on synodality. So-called gender theory is gnostic dualism on steroids. Irenaeus's writings are as timely now as when he produced them.