Not "Ex Cathedra"

Something the debate over Dignitas Infinita has so far oddly neglected to call much attention to is that it seems that it has now been conclusively demonstrated that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra. For the new DDF document (issued with the pope’s approval)…

— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) April 9, 2024

We Can Hardly Wait

Vatican’s Doctrinal Office Preparing ‘Very Important Document on Human Dignity,’ Cardinal Fernández Says | National Catholic Register https://t.co/Ibn3bmcCSf @NCRegister

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) January 13, 2024

Rome Has a Problem

Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández’s response to ten dubia from Cardinal Dominik Duka, Archbishop Emeritus of Pragues, seems to require the faithful to embrace teachings contrary to Catholic doctrine, write E. Christian Brugger and Fr. Peter Ryan, SJ.https://t.co/t6u7jcx4mb

— Catholic World Report (@cworldreport) December 10, 2023

Still Anaxios

After his appointment to lead the DDF, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez spoke with @pillarCatholic.

Here's what he said:https://t.co/xwgaF86SBL

— The Pillar (@PillarCatholic) July 17, 2023

Anaxios

Here below is a translation of #PopeFrancis' letter today to the newly appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández. All quotations have been taken from the original documents. https://t.co/JOIdlz62NV pic.twitter.com/iKyhjgiWdL

— Diane Montagna (@dianemontagna) July 1, 2023

The Argentine theologian Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández is the new prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.https://t.co/fqTfKpoSQJ

— The Pillar (@PillarCatholic) July 1, 2023

Pope Francis named Argentine Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez as Prefect of the Vatican's Discastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, saying he expects Fernandez to reject using "immoral methods" in defense of Catholic teaching.https://t.co/tJxrCMdeXI

— Crux (@Crux) July 1, 2023

I've highlighted some interesting points the Pope makes, in his letter to his new Chief Theologian.

It should be noted that this appointment will cause quite a stir in the Church, due to Archbishop Fernandez's writings, including his role drafting Amoris Laetitia. pic.twitter.com/ljylqLQ5n4

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) July 1, 2023

Pope to new head of Vatican Doctrinal office: “The dicastery that you will preside over in other epochs came to use immoral methods..promoting theological knowledge they chased after possible doctrinal errors..I expect from you something..different” https://t.co/9GiMU6NXgZ

— Raymond Arroyo (@RaymondArroyo) July 1, 2023

Latin Progs Continue to Spin Cardinal Ladaria's Letter

Note that @NCRonline and Winters continue to misrepresent Cardinal Ladaria's letter. Nowhere does he say, "slow down". Rather he outlines the path forward -- precisely the path that @ArchbishopGomez and the @USCCB have already laid out. https://t.co/TxHDgS0K1s

— Fr. Pius Pietrzyk OP (@PiusOP) May 28, 2021

Another misunderstanding of the Ladaria letter is to misread his calls for unity. Collegial unity is not simply the bishops agreeing with each other. It is the Bishops being in unity with the Truth, as made known in Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. https://t.co/9ilkmWoJGE

— Fr. Pius Pietrzyk OP (@PiusOP) May 28, 2021

Vatican Double-Speak

When Rome's calls for "dialogue" and "consensus" are taken by a minority to mean "shut down the debate."

One does sometimes wonder... https://t.co/Qf12Jtui2c

— Stephen White (@Stephen_P_White) May 25, 2021

Unworthy of the Red

Further confirmation received today that Cardinals Cupich and Tobin “heavily influenced” Cardinal Ladaria’s response to Archbishop Gomez about a national policy on Holy Communion and pro-abortion Catholic politicians https://t.co/cT4JV4kwWx

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) May 17, 2021

Neumayr on Rome and the USCCB

The Vatican Defends Biden on Communion by George Neumayr @george_neumayrhttps://t.co/f4r2HnUmHk

— The American Spectator (@amspectator) May 16, 2021

More on the CDF Letter

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Highlights Doctrinal Note on Catholics in Politics in Letter to US Bishops on Eucharistic Coherence https://t.co/WSa2jmWdYb via @cnalive

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) May 11, 2021

Cautionary notes: what Cardinal Ladaria did NOT say. He did NOT say that it would be wrong for a diocesan bishop to bar a pro-abortion Catholic from receiving Communion. https://t.co/0HlCgPnkG4

— Philip Lawler (@PhilLawler) May 11, 2021

The CDF and the USCCB

Among other things, Cardinal Ladaria noted it was actually the CDF which suggested the US bishops discuss the issue in the first place. https://t.co/0A5PzAsymr

— Ed. Condon (@canonlawyered) May 10, 2021

An Office of a Centralized Papacy

Vatican doctrinal office is ‘no longer the Inquisition,’ cardinal says.

Rather, its main focus is handing down the teachings of the apostles, said the office’s prefect.https://t.co/MUhWFUhyqC pic.twitter.com/5dJWyCrU9O

— CATHOLIC UNIVERSE (@ukcatholicpress) February 6, 2021

Francis' CDF

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Asserts Itself, in Support of Church Teaching | National Catholic Register https://t.co/wep4uefTbb @NCRegister

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) November 11, 2020

Wasn't Expecting the Next Problematic Statement So Soon

Will Latins reconsider their ecclesiology now? What will it take?

#PopeFrancis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance https://t.co/kTtlwYyENd via @cnalive

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

Where do the Pope’s comments leave Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco who in 2007 led a major campaign against Italian government proposals for civil unions for same-sex couples, leading to death threats against him? He again resisted similar proposals in 2016 https://t.co/eK5SxvRIjF

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

The Vatican’s 2003 document on “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” https://t.co/ZIi9hgjx0A pic.twitter.com/gbigAgR2rI

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) October 21, 2020

From @HuffPosthttps://t.co/qGpDOyae0m

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

From @NewWaysMinistry https://t.co/bhZtu6yBoW

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

From @TIME https://t.co/5C3XcqEtzt

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) October 21, 2020

CDF Reiterates the Christian Position on Euthanasia

The link has been changed, this should work: https://t.co/9TaxkOX2uP

— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) September 23, 2020

Related:

The CDF and euthanasia – analysis and podcast with Rome Correspondent @CtrLamb https://t.co/xdjKcsFd7C #Catholic #news #euthanasia #cdf

— The Tablet (@The_Tablet) September 23, 2020

Full text of the CDF's Letter
'Samaritanus bonus', which reaffirms the Church's absolute prohibition of euthanasia and assisted suicide and the moral obligation to exclude futile aggressive medical treatment in the terminally ill.https://t.co/vqvRv5zwIk pic.twitter.com/1bSCrVd9Ti

— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) September 22, 2020

FEATURE: 'Even If Nothing Can Be Done Medically, One Can Stay' - CDF Prefect, Cardinal Ladaria Tells ZENIT’s ⁦@DeborahLubov⁩ #CatholicTwitter #euthanasia #Vatican https://t.co/8Qyyw99ONk

— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) September 22, 2020

Oops

While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said baptisms administered according to the “We baptize” formula are invalid, another Vatican congregation had previously given advice to the contrary.https://t.co/nilZ8qZVCw

— JD Flynn (@jdflynn) September 16, 2020

Weigel on Eucharistic Offering (or Sacrifice)

CWR Dispatch: Rediscovering Eucharistic Amazement by George Weigel
If Christ is not the principal actor in the celebration of the Eucharist, then the Mass is a social ritual, the community’s celebration of itself.


This caught my attention at first glance:

How many Catholics understand that we are called to the weekly celebration of the Eucharist so that, in union with Christ the Head of the Body, we might offer ourselves to the Father along with the eucharistic Christ who is offered?

But his reporting of the recent Vatican response on the proper form for Baptism in the Roman rite is of interest too:

The question the Congregation had to answer was whether Baptism is validly conferred by saying “In the name of the father and mother, the godfather and godmother, the family, the friends, and in the name of the community, we baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The answer was “No.” Why? Because the ancient formula, “I baptize you….” expresses the bedrock truth the Second Vatican Council inscribed in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: “When anyone baptizes, it is Christ himself who baptizes.” To speak of “we” baptizing is to suggest that the Church invents the sacraments rather than her being created by the sacraments. And that, to cite an image from Father Robert Imbelli, is to decapitate the Body of Christ.

Christ is the principal actor in the sacramental drama of Baptism. Christ acts through the baptizer, to be sure. But it really is Christ who acts. Otherwise, Baptism would be merely a welcoming rite rather than the radical reconfiguration of a person to Christ as a member of his Mystical Body, the Church.

LSN on That Survey

Here LifeSite's report on the leaked letter (by @RorateCaeli) of the CDF concerning the Traditional Latin Mass, with responses from several good sources (among them Dr. Kwasniewski, Mr Nardi), some of whom are concerned, and some of whom are not concerned:https://t.co/GynMCIwL4Z

— Maike Hickson (@HicksonMaike) April 24, 2020

LSN

Collegiality for a Good Reason or Not?

Rorate Caeli: BREAKING - IMPORTANT - Summorum Under Threat? - Holy See sends survey to Bishops on Summorum Pontificum (Exclusive)

Dom Alcuin Reid Weighs in on the New Prefaces and Saints for the EF of the Roman Rite

The older form of the Roman rite is alive and well by Dom Alcuin Reid
Observations on Rome’s permission for new saints and more prefaces in the usus antiquior.

Rome moves slowly as we know, and there is no sign as yet of the official enrichment of the missal of Paul VI by its predecessor (that of 1962 and the tradition it transmits) on the horizon—indeed, idolatristic partisans of the missal of Paul VI seem determined to quash any possibility thereof. Their generation may need to reach retirement before a calm study of the question can proceed and bear fruit. In Roman time, that will not be too long.

Now, however, a mere thirteen years after the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum—and numerous consultations and drafts later—we do have precisely that which the bishop could not envisage after dinner in Oxford that evening: the enrichment of the usus antiquior with some modern elements. Lest those who hold the ancient liturgical tradition dear become overly alarmed, it must be said that for the most part this enrichment has been done with care and sensitivity and can be welcomed without difficulty.

Can it be said with justice that the CDF handled this better than it did the Anglican Catholic Missal?

The omission of the preface for Advent amongst those newly permitted is truly odd, for the 1962 missal and its antecedents do not contain one. This must be regarded as a sadly missed opportunity. It would have greater use than some of the others approved. (It could be observed that the season of Advent is the ‘poorer sister’ in the older missal, not having proper Mass formulae for each day, as does Lent. Indeed, there is scope for careful future development here.)

Organic development. Is such a thing possible in a centralized patriarchate such as that of Rome? Wasn't Dom Alcuin Reid was going to discuss it in his sequel to The Organic Development of the Liturgy, but did he scrap that project? Or is he just busy and also waiting to gather more material for the book? According to this interview from a few years ago, he is still working on the book.

The other four prefaces, however, ‘come from’ the missal of Paul VI. Their central texts (the “embolism”) in the versions approved for use now in both new and old missals are practically identical. They have various origins, some quite ancient. But each of these texts as they appear in the missal of the usus recentior (the missal of Paul VI) and which are now permitted for (but which are not imposed on) the usus antiquior, have passed through the ideological sieve of the same study group (18b) of the Post-Conciliar Consilium which substantially edited and evacuated the theological content of the prayers of the missal (the collects, prayers over the gifts and postcommunion prayers), as the painstaking work of Professor Lauren Pristas (The Collects of the Roman Missals, 2013) has more than adequately demonstrated.

In respect of the four prefaces in question a detailed comparative study of their sources and content is necessary. That is impossible here (Anthony Ward and Cuthbert Johnson’s The Prefaces of the Roman Missal, 1989, is an exemplary resource for this). The prefaces of St John the Baptist and of Martyrs are “centonised” texts, that is effectively new compositions of the study group drawing on fragments of older ones. That is to say, they do not appear in liturgical tradition before 1970 in anywhere near the form given them by the Consilium which they now have. The preface of the Angels has an ancient precedent but is nevertheless an edited version of the traditional text. The preface for the Nuptial Mass is also edited, though less severely, without substantially altering the integrity of text.

Pope Benedict’s intention in 2007 was, without doubt, to enrich the usus antiquior with further prefaces. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. However, I very much doubt he intended to visit ‘products’ of the Consilium upon the older missal. It could easily have been augmented with the integral texts found in liturgical tradition. This would avoid the highly likely disdaining of the texts of these latter prefaces because of their at least perceived ‘tainted’ origin or editing in the post-conciliar Consilium. The lack of pastoral care and sensitivity here—seemingly sacrificed for the sake of an unnecessary textual uniformity between both missals—is regrettable and may well jeopardize the intent of the project, at least in part. So-called “traditionalists” can be hyper-sensitive. Offering the addition of at least three of these four texts may well offend those sensitivities.

Looks like I spoke too song about the CDF's handling of this. Did the CDF not consult any real liturgical scholars during the process? (Who would be recognized as such today?)