For those who are still keeping track at home.

My interest in Eastern Orthodoxy has cooled considerably as of late. I still think the pontifical "reform" of annulments and his wrecking ball of an exhortation (especially in his promotion of the Maltese and German defenestration of the three affected sacraments) have left minimal to no substantive difference between EO's divorce culture and the right-now practice endorsed by the Vatican.

HOWEVER, there is still some hope that Catholic marriage may survive in places where a bishop can pull the theological equivalent of Chopped and turn Tucho Fernandez's progressive processed school cafeteria turkey roll into something with Catholic spiritual nourishment.

Despite the pontiff's best and unceasing efforts to the contrary.

Ironically, it was the "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" wing of Eastern Catholicism which turned me away from Orthodoxy. I was left with the distinct impression that it was the Sacrament of Economia, not Marriage, and you know--shrug--shit happens. That, and the Romans are losers with their Tridentine insistence on indissolubility, and the East is always and everywhere right and...

It gets old, fast.

Now I recognize that such gents don't speak for Orthodoxy, but they do accurately reflect the laxism that besets some of Orthodoxy's jurisdictions. Not all of them--ROCOR seems fairly rigorous about the remarriage process, but others...well, let's just say there's some not-so approaches.

So when I saw an estimable and genuinely admirable Eastern Orthodox priest say that he really didn't think that the arguments for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary held up in the face of the Assured Results of Modern Biblical Scholarship, it wasn't so much the last straw as the recognition of something a wise Eastern Catholic friend told me when he learned of the beginning of my study:

"Eastern Orthodoxy will drive you nuts."

And so it seems. 

Not that there aren't treasures there, and something for Romans to learn--starting with the high Christology and emphasis on the Transfiguration, both of which are helpful correctives for the meek non-judgmental Palestinian life coach currently much in vogue. And that's just the beginning. I'm glad I've begun to take a look at Orthodoxy.

But I can't see it as the path for me. Never say never I guess, but I'm not seeing it.

So, you might have detected a somewhat negative vibe recently.

As in, regarding Catholicism.

Indeed, you would be correct. 

It is difficult to see the current era as anything less than a "progressive" demolition of what was left of the pre-VatToo church and its replacement with a flabbier, preachier version of liberal mainline Protestantism. 

The latest trial balloon from the pontificate's point-man theologian is a call for "intercommunion." Because, as with divorce and remarriage (and contrary to the claims this is a "pastor" focused on the wider church), this is a "pressing" issue in the de-Christianized West. Plus, as a bonus, the Church's Catholic distinctives can once again be immolated on the altars of that most jealous of gods, Ecumenism. 

In reality, intercommunion is at most a small problem. In mature mixed marriages, the parties understand the restrictions and don't presume entitlement to the prerogatives of full membership in their spouse's community. Or, if they want to, they choose to convert to get access to the Catholic sacrament. 

So, the real motivation is not some vanishingly small number of immature people who carp about some imagined entitlement. The real goal is the erosion of Catholic identity. 

Think about it:

A Catholic who advocates for "intercommunion" is arguing against the Catholic faith. He is saying that one need not ever profess Catholicism to receive the Body and Blood--to be in actual full communion with the Church. One need not believe in all that crap to receive the so-called source and summit of the Catholic faith. Indeed, one of the Lutheran ministers who met with the Bishop of Rome said as much in an interview:

In the Catholic Church, if you receive the Eucharist in the wrong state, without for example consenting to the main dogmas of the Church, then you’re in fact bringing condemnation upon yourself. Do you agree this is a danger?

No, because it’s Jesus Christ who invites us to participate, it’s not the Catholic or Lutheran Church, and it’s not a question of Lutheran dogmas or Catholic dogmas. Jesus Christ himself invites us and gives us His blood and His body. 

So that trumps doctrine in a sense?


Yes, there’s no danger I think of receiving the Eucharist in the wrong way when a Lutheran participates in a Catholic Eucharist because they’re receiving Jesus Christ and not the teachings of the Catholic Church.

You have to admire his candor, if nothing else. 

But he is 100 percent correct. And he neatly states the reality of so-called "intercommunion": it's not a real profession of shared belief, it's just a ceremony that makes participants feel good.

Except, of course, that it doesn't. Leaving aside Paul's injunctions, what does "intercommunion" say to Catholics who have followed the Church's teaching and discipline on the sacrament?

Yep. It flips the bird to every convert and, indeed, every parent and youth who jumps through the "sacramental prep" hoops.

All that sacrifice and hard work and some carping Lutherans jump to the front of the line without having to believe all that shit? Too bad.




If one doubts Catholic teaching, one should graciously refrain from the altar and respect the discipline and--especially--the Catholics who hold to all the Catholic church teaches. It's what Catholic teaching asks and it's what I do. I can't understand the entitlement mentality of non-Catholics who think otherwise.

But, I suppose, these are unserious times, and we in the west have become an unserious people. Everyone is a victim, and victims expect redress. Even--maybe especially--when they haven't really been hurt at all.

Enabling Chaplain and Cloak-holder for the Bourgeois West.

One of the many falsehoods told about this pontificate is that it is supposedly one of the "Third World," and is not focused on the obsessions of the West. 

This is, of course, utter bullshit. 

For starters, it ignores the cultural reach of the apostate West and the determination of Western clerics and those educated in a Western milieu to accommodate themselves to that culture.

And really--look at the Bishop of Rome's inner circle: men of northern and western Europe to the core (with the exception of Maradiaga who nevertheless regurgitates the same slogans). Then, of course, there is the soft, therapeutic rhetoric of the man at the top, oh-so-sensitive to the decadents who respond with rapturous applause. 

And why not? This pontificate is wholly concerned with bourgeois rhetoric and therapy, right down to the admiration of Western-born Marxism and class consciousness. The tenured pseudo-revolutionaries at your local public university sure aren't living in slums nor are their kids rubbing elbows with children from déclassé zip codes.

With that in mind, R.R. Reno offers this eviscerating insight into the Atlantic Canadian bishops' pro-euthanasia declaration and the pontiff who midwifed it:

These bishops are convinced that they can bring people the gospel of life in some mysterious, inner way, even as their words and actions tell the world that the choice of death should occasion “dialogue,” not a clear statement of moral truth.

Shame on the bishops of Canada’s Maritime Provinces. Shame on this pontificate. As I’ve written in the past, sidelining the objectivity of truth encourages the triumph of bourgeois religion, a generic do-good sentimentality characterized by only one stricture—which is that the conduct of the well-off, well-educated, and well-intentioned residents of the rich world of the West is not to be judged in any definitive way. People like us make mistakes, of course. But our issues are “highly complex” and “intensely emotional,” and we mean well. We can be complicit with “structures of injustice,” and even play roles in an “economy that kills.” 

But we never sin.

It’s ironic that this supposedly revolutionary pope should be such a reassuring champion of the therapeutic culture of the West. Though perhaps it’s not ironic. The rhetoric of revolution has long served wonderfully to transform sin, judgment, and redemption into injustice, consciousness-raising, and social change.

"For your penance, say two Hail Gaias and purchase a carbon credit."

Ecological formation of priestly candidates moves to the forefront, requiring a "conversion" on their part. 

Yep-per: paragraph 172.

The next generation of priests wouldn't dream of bringing up bedroom issues, but they'll be closely inspecting your recycling bin. 

 Progress.

Communion with Rome--it's magic!

From Catholicism's Multiple Personality Disorder Files:

Euthanasia is a sin in Alberta but probably not in New Brunswick.

Why? Because Pope, of course.

In announcing it, the bishops rejected the approach of Alberta's bishops, who, while also stressing "pastoral accompaniment," insisted that in justice and mercy priests ought to be clear with euthanasia seekers that they would be committing a gravely sinful act.

The Atlantic bishops' November 27 guidelines are closer to the Quebec bishops’ pastoral response to euthanasia than the response of the Alberta bishops, according to Bishop Claude Champagne of Edmunston, New Brunswick, president of the Atlantic Episcopal Assembly.

The document, entitled A Pastoral Reflection on Medical Assistance in Dying and signed by 10 bishops, emphasizes pastoral care more than doctrine, Champagne told the Catholic Register.

“Our concern is pastoral accompaniment. Pope Francis is our model,” he said.

Champagne said the guidelines released by the Alberta and Northwest Territories bishops in September do not, in the words of the Catholic Register, “express the vision of all Canada’s bishops.”

Champagne also referred to the Holy Father’s Amoris Laetitia in explaining the Atlantic bishops’ vision of pastoral care for those contemplating or arranging for assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Amoris Laetitia affirms Catholic teaching while recognizing “there are people who are not yet there,” Champagne said.

Thus when it comes to people who are suffering and contemplating, or are arranging for assisted suicide or euthanasia, “we will welcome them, try to understand and journey with them.”

Putting aside the problem with trying to journey with euthanasia, which is all about cutting the trip short, let us marvel at the insanity of pastoral accompaniment.

Namely, it never meets a sin it can't bless, accompanying you right to the doors of Hell, smiling indulgently all the way.

Note also how the New Magisterium of the current pontifical officeholder is employed for some rather interesting purposes. Conscience trumps all.

But the important thing is that these bishops are in communion with Rome, and that makes everything all right. 

You are most welcome to it.

A little dose of Byzantium.

A Byzantine fresco of Joshua, the Hosias Loukas Monastery, Greece. Dated to the late 12th-early 13th Century. 

If you want an idea of what a contemporary Byzantine army officer looked like, right down to the lamellar armor and sword, there you go.

As always, give it a click for more detail.

The Transfiguration.

Again, embiggen by clicking, if you are so inclined.

The Gospel passage is obvious, but it's essential to remember the theophanies involving Moses (here also) and Elijah.

See also 2 Peter 1:3-4.

 

I like this icon.

Allegory of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Tree of Life by Father Andrew Tregubov.

You can click to embiggen.


For the curious, it is cropped from the cover of this book. See also Rev. 22:1-2.

The Magisterium of the Moment.

One of the staples of Catholic apologetics is that the Catholic magisterium safeguards the truth and ensures a unity and clarity that Protestantism lacks.

I would not be so sure of that. In fact, I would say (and have said before) that the current pontiff is demonstrating that the magisterium is little more than the mouthpiece of the reigning pope and only safeguards whatever iteration of whichever truth he wishes to utter. In short, the magisterium is sola papam currentis.

Why no, I am not a Latinist? How could you tell?

This thought was driven home by a recent piece at the estimable One Peter Five: Amoris Laetitia and John Paul II by Josh Kusch.

In short, Kusch spells out with undeniable clarity that Amoris Laetitia expressly contradicts the magisterial statements of Francis' predecessor, and does so in a particularly unsavory fashion--by either partial quoting or choosing to ignore prior statements altogether. For the latter, Kusch points out how the encyclical Veritatis Splendor flatly contradicts what Francis wants to say--so Francis ignored it. To wit:

The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid.  They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception.  (VS 52)

The negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever. (VS 67) 

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth.  (VS 96)

It would be a very serious error … to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man. (VS 103)  

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer, that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God’s holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships.  (VS 103)

As Kusch ably demonstrates, each contradicts certain central assumptions in the later text.

And yet, the Vatican's official newspaper is at pains to assert that the later text is, in fact, authoritative.

So Veritatis Splendor--with its forceful restatement of Catholic moral teaching--has been round-filed after less than a quarter of a century?

Anyone else see the problem here?

What I have not been able to suss out is precisely why I should salute Francis' newest flag when he burnt John Paul II's. His actions completely undercut his claimed "authority."

Rather than call Amoris Laetitia "authoritative," isn't the honest answer "wait at least a couple of popes and then see?" 

Of course, progs are brandishing it like new holy writ. To be expected, yes, but wholly dishonest if one is following McCormick's contemptuous course. But I don't see any honest reason why I should regard it similarly. 

If this is Catholicism, then I never really understood it. And if the magisterium is just the press office of the current officeholder, then cue Flannery O'Connor.

Speaking of electric Praetorians...

Recently, one of the pope's unpaid Yankee spin doctors issued his first statement on the pope's destructive "You probably aren't married--but that couple shacking up might be!") blurtations on marriage.

I won't link to him, but if you're curious, he blogs at Patheos and has a cringe-inducing long sword logo at the top of his page. 

As I said, he didn't discuss the original statement, nor does he acknowledge the pope's assertion that cohabitation can be real marriage.

In any event, this particular electric Praetorian asserts that the real problem is not the actual statements themselves. No, of course not. 

No, rather the really damaging thing is that Catholics don't accept the fact that it was supposedly just a misstatement, and one (at best partially) "corrected" by a post-hoc Orwellian transcript scrubbing.

Never mind that the no-doubt increasingly-retirement-yearning Fr. Lombardi only discussed the Minitrue treatment because journalists brought the bowdlerized transcript to his attention.

Nope. The Blurts Heard 'Round The World are shruggable, since such were (partially) altered without comment or explanation.

Something tells me that if this writer were verbally referred to as a "Cincinnati-area Scientology official" he would not be, shall we say, entirely mollified if he were to be handed a "transcript" that said "Cincinnati-area resident." 

It should not be hard to explain that such damaging blockbuster statements cannot be "recalled" that way, much less repaired.

As a Michigan jurist said in another context: that which is "announced with flourishes and fanfare at noonday should not be revoked by a pennywhistle trill at midnight."

But that's what the Vatican tried to do.

Apparently, however, in the Age of Francis, we all have to learn that the problem is not Francis's words and actions, but rather our reaction to his words and actions. And those reactions must account for the memory-holing of the historical record.

In other words, tighten your cilice and shut up.

It's the end of marriage as we know it--and he feels fine.

Some additional thoughts on the pope's latest joy-buzzer pronouncement.

1. You'd think that the total failure of the Church's sanctifying mission with respect to the sacrament of marriage would not be brought up offhand in response to a question, but would be front and center, an all-hands-on-deck moment. And it would be delivered in a tone of horror, not with the offhand sadness of an American who just saw a CNN report about a typhoon hitting Bangladesh. 

2. In fact, you'd think that he might have hit us with this crucial supposed fact during, I don't know...one of those Synod on the Family confabs we just suffered through twice during the past two years? 

"Oh, hai, guys--I think we might want to talk about the fact we're running nullity factories in every diocese in the world, and might want to do something about that. Sound good?"

Did he? Did anyone? Cardinal Kasper did, but it too was offhand, and not during the Synod. And he was sneered at by the pope's electric Praetorians...who again proved to be as reliable as a rain dance.

So, apart from that, was this Church-shaking fact broached? Nope. 

3. Another ideal spot to maybe enlighten everyone about this continuing disaster would have been in Amoris Laetitia, but... again, nada.

4. Finally, he's been a priest for nearly fifty years. He's part and parcel of this explosion of allegedly invalid marriages. But do you see the slightest glimmer of a mea culpa, of ownership here? Nope. Apparently, like typhoons, bad things just happen to good bishops.

So, if you're wondering about why I don't take the "great majority of marriages are null" blurtation seriously, there you go. Taken together, he's just engaged in the equivalent of dorm-room spitballing.