The Byzantine Museum in Athens

The Anaphora // Valaam (Znamenny) Chant

Bishop Milan's Letter to the Eparchy of Parma

here

CNA/CWR: ‘If we are spiritually sterile, we will have no future,’ bishop tells Ruthenian eparchy

The Separation of Chalcedonian East and West

Fr. Behr and Fr. Bouteneff in Bose

Illicit and Invalid?

Sandro Magister: In the Amazon Married Deacons Are Already Saying Mass. And the Pope Knows It

"Mystery"

That's why we need Latin as a sacred language, to preserve the "sense of mystery." But it's ok for people to use hand missals to follow the Mass, if they wish to do so. But even for some traditionalists, having the priest break the silence is too much -- let the people just meditate during the Eucharist! (See the combox.)



(NLM)


Fr. Augustine Thompson:

Having celebrated (with permission under the 1969 indult and those following) the Dominican Rite Mass since my ordination in 1985, as well as the Mass of Paul VI, and, having watched the business that goes on at John XXIII Roman Masses, especially those with the bishop, I am ever more convinced that the supposed comment of a father (not a Dominican) at Vatican II that all the reform of the liturgy needed was for the Church to adopt the Dominican Rite WAS CORRECT.

Okay, do you prefer the age of Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, and Innocent III, and their liturgical tastes? That is the Dominican Rite. Or do we need to resurrect the court rigmarole of 18th-century absolutist princelings, promoted by Jesuits, as our style of liturgy? That is essentially the style of the “Tridentine Mass.” And many of its promoters are happy to say YAH!

Yes, the Mass of John XXIII is now the “traditionalist” norm, but Fr. Z’s urge for “mutual enrichment” is right. Nevertheless, the mutual enrichment should not mean a compromise between 18th-century absolutist Rococo liturgy and the post-1960s hippy perversions of that liturgy. Let’s think about alternatives, that are just as authentically traditional, like our actual thirteenth-century liturgy, still alive (in many places and ever more so) today.

Change Must Start Locally and by Small Steps

OSV: Could a proper implementation of synodality help save the Church? by Adam A.J. DeVille

Properly constituted synods elect their bishops, meet at least annually under his presidency to pass legislation for the diocese, and vote the bishop’s budget up or down. In many synods, the bishop presents an annual report on his conduct and specifies his priorities for the upcoming year, and the people (composed of elected lay and clerical delegates from every parish) have a chance to challenge him on both his priorities but especially his failings. The great Ukrainian Catholic metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky (declared “venerable” by Pope Francis in 2015) in September 1899 immediately following his episcopal consecration, noted with singular humility that “the people are completely right to demand certain things from a bishop, and it is absolutely correct to censure him if he shirks the task that he has to perform on behalf of the Church and his people.”

A bishop’s shirking or incompetence could, under carefully considered canons, trigger his indictment and trial in a properly constituted tribunal, which would include his peers in the episcopate. If found guilty, he could be disciplined or even deposed from office. He would have the right to appeal this to a regional appellate court, and finally to Rome, whose decision would be final. (Scholars agree that Rome as an appellate tribunal for bishops dates back to the Council of Serdica in 343/4.) These latter two processes are safeguards against the risk of a synod refusing to obey a bishop who is “imparting the word of truth without deviation” (2 Tim 2:15). Safeguards are necessary so that no bishop would be run out of town by a people who “will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth …” (2 Tim 4:3-4). On this point it is important to note that a diocesan synod never votes on doctrine or changes to, e.g., a catechism or creed.

Under this system, then, when it would be time to elect a successor of a bishop, the people of the diocese would have the right to propose the names of local clergy they know well and trust. Neighboring bishops could also propose names. And Rome would have the right both to propose its own set of names or to veto — for manifest and grave reasons — those proposed at the local and regional levels. The synod would then investigate each candidate thoroughly before electing a new bishop.

First, does the patriarch of Rome have this right by divine institution? And should he have the right to veto for his patriarchate? Or should his patriarchate be broken up?

Secondly, how can there be such lay involvement in the "governance" of the local Church if there is first not stability of communities and mutual accountability of the Christian people (including the clergy)?

Such reforms must be implemented first, but the local Churches, at least in the urban areas, must recognize that they are in combat with a socioeconomic system which works against communal stability. And if they cannot be reformed then perhaps an alternative solution must be found for those areas.

Raymond de Souza on the Choicers for the Next Consistory

Also bypassed – for the sixth time by Pope Francis – is Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC), largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Even his predecessor during communist persecution was named a cardinal. Despite the concern that Pope Francis showed for the UGCC this past July at a special Vatican summit, it appears that the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow – and behind him, Vladimir Putin – still get a veto on matters Ukrainian, and their hostility to Shevchuk and the UGCC has been manifest for years. The day after the new cardinals were announced, the Holy Father received Shevchuk and the UGCC governing council of bishops in a long-planned audience. It must have been a bit awkward.

All heads of Eastern Churches should automatically be "elevated" cardinals once they have chosen to become the head, or at the next consistory. But even that wouldn't be sufficient "representation" by the Church universal.

Or, the patrirach of Rome could recognize that the Roman Curia is to assist him with affairs pertaining to his own see, and maybe his patriarchate, but not with the Church Universal.



Catgikuc Gerakd

Divine Adoption

Catholic Herald

John Hittinger, "Maritain and Deely on the Renewal of Intellectual Life in the Modern World"

How Strong the Boff-Bergoglio Connection?

LSN: 47-year-old photo shows future Pope Francis with dissident priest who helped engineer Amazon synod by Maike Hickson

See also:
What Pope Francis Unveils by Rod Dreher

The ZdK

CWR: Analysis: Who are the Central Committee of German Catholics? By Ed Condon
(CNA)

Updated (9/9):

Franciscan Reform

Sandro Magister: Two Reforms Dear To Francis Flunk the Test. Too Full of Errors

“PRAEDICATE EVANGELIUM”

This phantom chapter has the title “Council of Cardinals” and would concern that band of nine cardinals, in reality now reduced to six, called by Francis to accompany him from the beginning of his pontificate so that he can be precisely assisted by them in the reform of the curia and in the governance of the universal Church.

Does the text refer to the universal Church, or is that an interpolation by Magister? Who will be the one to sever the Roman Curia from the Pope's responsibilities concerning the universal Church?

THE NEW STATUTES OF THE JOHN PAUL II INSTITUTE

Here the sloppiness of the writing is even more serious, because this is not a matter of a draft, but of a definitive text produced by a university-level pontifical institute, and which moreover has received the approval of the congregation for Catholic education.

"Abrahamic" Religions

New English Review: The Abrahamic Fallacy by Mark Durie

C&L

From 2017: What Is Communion and Liberation? by Sofia Carozza

Videos from the Conference on Florovosky

Now Available

Two Objections to the Amazon Synod

A Latin Synod with Teeth?

CNA/CWR: German bishops to green light binding ‘Synodal Assembly’