SEDE VACANTE AUC MMDCCLXXVIII

Today, the 2778th anniversary of the foundation of the City of Rome, on Easter Monday, died Pope Francis; of your charity, pray for the repose of his soul:

Deus, qui inter summos Sacerdótes fámulum tuum Francíscum ineffábili tua dispositióne connumerári voluísti: præsta, quǽsumus; ut, qui unigéniti Fílii tui vices in terris gerébat, sanctórum tuórum Pontíficum consórtio perpétuo aggregétur. Per eúmdem Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen. 

(O God, who didst will in thine unspeakable disposition to number thy servant Francis amongst the high Priests: grant, we beg, that he, who ruled as vicar of thy Son on earth, may be aggregated to the fellowship of thy holy Pontiffs. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who with thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.) 

Pray also that Christ the Lord may speedily grant his beloved Bride, the Catholic Church, a worthy Catholic to be his Vicar on earth, that the next Pope may rule wisely and well, for the salvation of souls and the greater glory of God:

Súpplici, Dómine, humilitáte depóscimus: ut sacrosánctæ Románæ Ecclésiæ concédat Pontíficem illum tua imménsa píetas; qui et pio in nos stúdio semper tibi plácitus, et tuo pópulo pro salúbri regímine sit assídue ad glóriam tui nóminis reveréndus. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sǽcula sæculórum. Amen. 

(In suppliant humility, O Lord, we pray earnestly, that thy boundless piety may grant to the most holy Roman Church that Pontiff, who may both by pious zeal for us ever be pleasing unto thee, and to the glory of thy name assiduously be respected by thy people on account of his beneficial rule. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Son, who with thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.)

Viva, viva Benedetto

An unremarked milestone was passed on the 16th of February: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI surpassed the lifespan of Pope Clement XII (who died aged 87 years 306 days), to become the second-longest-lived Pope, outranked only by Leo XIII (who died aged 93 years 140 days): since Georg Ratzinger is still alive, aged 91, God willing, Benedict may indeed live on to surpass that span too, come the 5th of September 2020. Benedict XVI would by now have reigned for over nine years, had he not unexpectedly resigned.

(But do note that Pope John XXII's age at death is uncertain: some sources claim he may have been as many as 89 years old.)

Meanwhile, as the joke has it, the priests of Rome pray at Mass "for Benedict our Pope and Francis our Bishop"! – today begins the third year of the pontificate of Papa Bergoglio, our Latin American leader (caudillo?) from the Silver Republic (that being the literal meaning of his homeland's name). I do hope his second Synod on the Family is less embarrassing and more fruitful than the first; at least he has his own right-hand-man in Cardinal Pell, with the skills (less common in southern Europe and similar places) necessary to reform the murky details of Vatican finances.

If, according to the ineluctable designs of Providence, our one-lunged Argentinian Supreme Pontiff should predecease our former German Shepherd (for after all, as St John Paul the Great opined, the Church ought breathe with both lungs), could a future conclave re-elect the Pope Emeritus, that the Church return to the Golden Age from its current Silver Age, so to speak? And, if so, would he be Benedict XVI & XVII? Or could he take an entirely new Papal name – Ignatius, perhaps? That would be most confusing.

News Catch-up

Two weekends ago, I went to Sydney for the wedding of Sidney and Tien – a beautiful occasion of course! I ended up attending three Solemn High Masses in succession: the first, in the evening of Friday 3rd October at St Benedict's, Broadway, followed by solemn Benediction (and then dinner with friends old and new);  the second, in the late morning of Saturday the 4th at Maternal Heart, Lewisham, the wedding of the happy couple followed by Mass of St Francis (using the Franciscan propers, as the celebrant was a friar minor), with the nuptial blessing and so forth, followed by a reception that lasted till late evening; and on Sunday the 5th, the usual Sunday Mass at Maternal Heart (followed by lunch with mates at the pub). It was pleasant though rather warm in Sydney – when I walked from Annandale to Circular Quay on Sunday afternoon, it hit 34 degrees, which made my subsequent return trip on the Manly ferry a great relief. Many thanks to a friend who put me up (or rather put up with me) at his place over the weekend.

Sister Mary Stephanie of Divine Providence, OCD,  died at the Launceston Carmel on Sunday morningthe 13th of October, in the 53rd year of her religious life and the 91st year of her age – to whose soul may the Lord grant eternal rest. I attended her first Requiem on Monday, and on Tuesday was privileged, after and during morning Mass at Carmel, to pay my last respects before her open casket, placed just on the other side of their choir screen, which the nuns left open for the occasion. On Friday, I attended her moving funeral Mass, which was followed by her burial in the monastic crypt, out of sight to layfolk, where her mortal remains lie alongside those of her sisters, awaiting the resurrection.

This weekend past, I went to Hobart on Saturday, since our mid-month Sunday Missa cantata was to be at the earlier than usual hour of 9:30 am. Unfortunately, Father was late starting Mass (at 9:45 am) owing to various factors, and he had to rush to get to his flight back to the mainland – which was why Mass was scheduled so early to begin with.

I forebear to comment on the recent synod debacle, or rather, utter shambles, pleasing to the Devil only and not to Christ, since I fear I would not edify my readers. Many layfolk, priests and even bishops have been through a severe trial this past week – I certainly have. I commend Rorate cæli for their fearless and honest reporting, and take the opportunity of publically retracting some of my previous criticisms of that blog, ever since the election of Papa Bergoglio – since they have been proven correct, time and again, much as I would have hoped otherwise.

Thank God for the good bishops and Cardinals who actually know what our holy Faith teaches, and have not given in to relativism. Thank God they were not called upon to do what Scripture suggests in extreme cases ("But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." – Galatians ii, 11). And thanks to St John Paul II, who worked a miracle, doubtlessly obtained from Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace.

Gaude, Maria Virgo: cunctas hæreses sola interemisti in universo mundo.

A New Dogma with The Times Every Morning

William Ward – he of The Ideal of a Christian Church, a youthful work that so enraged Oxford as to have him stripped of his degrees; he who announced his conversion and his engagement on the same day – was so Ultramontane as to opine that, once Papal Infallibility was declared, he looked forward to reading a new dogmatic definition each morning in The Times. Thankfully, it appears that Pope Francis does not share so sanguine a view of Papal power, but regards such a naive notion as complete overreach:

Nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church and the world.

— Evangelii Gaudium, 16.

This is the sort of sentiment held by every sound occupant of the See of Peter, and with which every true Catholic, not to say Traditionalist, should agree. Legal positivism is not a Christian philosophical standpoint, and the Pope is not a machine for the manufacture of dogma: he is to safeguard the deposit of faith, as its servant and not its master, let alone its maker!

Furthermore, the creeping centralisation of all dogmatic authority in Rome is actually a sad reflection on the increasing weakness of the varied episcopal, provincial and synodical authorities over the centuries: these having failed to do their duty, Rome has had to assume them. In Patristics one quotes from many and varied Fathers and councils, many of the former not being Popes, but local bishops, many of the latter being not ecumenical but local synods. Why no more? Is it because of their low quality, not to say tendency to heterodoxy, that we put no great store in the pronouncements of mere bishops, and why provincial synods no longer meet to deal with doctrinal issues, but instead live on in bureaucratic organs called episcopal conferences, which are no more than, indeed perhaps less than, the sum of their parts?

But stay: Pope Francis wants to reinvigorate the ancient and Catholic system, a very manifestation of subsidiary, that Catholic principle beloved of Bl John Paul II:

It is not advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory. In this sense, I am conscious of the need to promote a sound “decentralization”.

— Evangelii Gaudium, 16.

And furthermore,

The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position “to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit”. Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.

— Evangelii Gaudium, 32.

Certainly the Curia is not known for its promptitude, and decentralization in a true and Catholic spirit of unity in one Faith is much to be desired, cæteris paribus; but I make bold to assert that there is an important difference between a true and proper local synod or council of bishops, and an episcopal conference: the latter is too often sunk in mundane discussions, rather than, say, as the synods and councils of old, trying cases of heresy, issuing doctrinal teachings on issues other than social justice, and promulgating binding canons for the churches (that is, dioceses) concerned.

I am sure that Pope Francis is not here trying to circumvent the rulings of his esteemed predecessor on the nature and scope of the authority of episcopal conferences, but rather is indicating the need to revive the ancient and too-long-neglected forms that worked so well in ages past, while adapting them in prudent fashion, making use of currently-existing forms.

But the real need, of course, is for a new crop of bishops like unto the sainted bishops of old, who were unafraid to believe and teach the Catholic Faith, and did not smilingly wink at dissent and ineluctable decline, but instead went out and converted the nations to Christ. As St Paul remarked, Woe is me if I preach not the Gospel.

Mass in Hobart, Holy Hour in Launceston

After a good sleep-in, I M.C.'d our Missa cantata – and well attended it was too, with fifty in the congregation; we also celebrated one young fellow's First Holy Communion, and welcomed a new server into the altar party. Since the choir had prepared for the 2nd Sunday after Pentecost, Father celebrated that Mass, rather than the external solemnity of Corpus Christi (and as a commenter noted on the last post, this Sunday's Proper is actually very apposite indeed); unfortunately the family who made and bring with them the vestments had thought we would do Corpus Christi, so Father wore white... ah well, call it very pale green...

Mass, which began late owing to many coming for confessions beforehand, finished just before one o'clock; I quickly changed out of cassock and surplice and jumped behind the wheel, so as to return to Launceston in time for our parish's special four o'clock Holy Hour in union with the Holy Father in Rome – a few stops later, I arrived with ten minutes to spare, and ended up serving as thurifer. Unfortunately my right knee (injured years ago) played up rather – thank you, Lord, for this penance!

Less is more: Exposition began in the usual manner with O salutaris hostia (in English), then Father led us in a few short prayers, before forty minutes of silent adoration. (I decided 'twere best to employ myself in the day hours, and managed to get from Lauds up to half-way through Vespers...) We then concluded in the usual manner with Tantum ergo (in English) &c., Benediction itself, the Divine Praises, and two favourite hymns to end: "Jesus, my Lord, my God, my all" at reposition, and "Let all mortal flesh keep silence" as recessional. We concluded at five o'clock.

Catholic Reform: New Latin Patriarchates?

Upon the discovery of the New World, King Ferdinand asked the then Pope, Leo X, to establish a patriarchate for the ecclesiastical governance of the lands of America conquered by the Spanish. Eventually, in 1524, the title of Patriarch of the West Indies was created, but it remained merely honorific – the Papacy not being keen on setting up an entirely new autonomous jurisdiction. King Philip II again pushed for it to become an actual and not merely titular dignity, but Rome refused. Eventually, it was merged with the Military Vicariate of Spain, until the latter was abolished; the last holder of the title of Patriarch, after the Vicariate's end, was the Bishop of Madrid (1946-1963). The title remains in abeyance, never having been officially suppressed.

Considering that the reform of the Curia, and thus of Church governance in general, is a matter of current concern, I make bold to propose that the Papacy, overburdened by decision-making, ought make a strategic decision, and establish several new Latin patriarchates, with jurisdictional autonomy – not in any way to endanger the Faith or Catholic morals, of course, but so as to relieve the Holy See of matters better delegated to other bodies. The Pope would thereafter relate to these new Latin Patriarchates in the same way as he deals with the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates and the like; they would be autonomous, but subject to his Petrine authority as Vicar of Christ.

The obvious first step would be to elevate CELAM (Consejo Episcopal Latinoamericano), the Latin American Episcopal Conference (or Council), currently a federation as it were of 21 national and 1 international (the Caribbean) episcopal conferences, into a synod for a new Latin Patriarchate: that of Latin America. The old titular Patriarchate of the West Indies would be revived and made into what it was in the first place proposed to be – an autonomous Catholic jurisdiction for the New World (excluding Canada and the USA). Since the title was never attached to any one diocese, it could be conferred by the Pope upon a worthy bishop in some part of Latin America, who would have patriarchal jurisdiction, assisted by CELAM (renamed or reconstituted or not), over that vast region of the globe, which contains over 40% of all Catholics, the vast majority of whom are united by either Spanish or Portuguese culture and by the Holy Faith (for over three-quarters of Latin Americans are Catholic, despite the inroads of secularism and Protestantism). The 798 dioceses and the like (vicariates apostolic, military ordinariates, and so forth) that govern the present territories of CELAM would be presided over by the new Patriarch, with real and not merely titular jurisdiction.

If it seemed timely, the same erection of a new Latin Patriarchate with jurisdictional autonomy could be carried out for South and East Asia combined, with the courtesy title of Patriarch of the East Indies to be transferred from Goa to Manila (the obvious choice, seeing as Catholic Filipinos constitute nearly two-thirds of all Catholics in the Indian Subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and East Asia). This Patriarchate would contain perhaps one-tenth or more of all Catholics worldwide, spread throughout 405 dioceses and the like. However, since unlike Latin America this is still a region in which the Faith is in a minority in nearly all places, the Philippines aside, perhaps it ought remain under the jurisdiction of Propaganda Fide...

In the same manner and for the same reason (and subject to the same caveat), Sub-Saharan Africa could be erected into a new Latin Patriarchate, whose 495 dioceses and so forth would contain more than 12% of all Catholics, and which is the most dynamic and flourishing part of the Universal Church in terms of conversions to the Faith. The title of Latin Patriarch of Alexandria, suppressed in 1963, could be revived and transformed into the title for some worthy prelate, to be appointed from among the ranks of African bishops by the Pope. UPDATE: The primatial see of North Africa was not fixed in any one place, but allotted by seniority; some analogous arrangement could be made for Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Pope, meanwhile, would revive and make meaningful his recently-suppressed title of Patriarch of the West – which would be redefined as encompassing Western Europe, Canada, the US, Australia, NZ, and various satellite regions such as Oceania, and the Catholics of Latin Rite in more than one thousand dioceses and other administrative divisions throughout Eastern Europe, Russia, North Africa and the Middle East (unless the last two were united to the rest of Africa and Asia respectively*). This Patriarchate of the West, whose administration could be made more clearly separate from the purely Petrine jurisdiction of the Pope over all, would still contain more than a third of all Catholics worldwide.

*UPDATE: I now think that the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem ought have its jurisdiction extended over North Africa and the Middle East.

Rather than the centralization of matters in the Roman Curia resulting in administrative paralysis in the heart of the Church, and lack of responsiveness in the periphery, this devolution of jurisdiction to new Latin Patriarchates, parallel to the Eastern Catholic patriarchates and the like, could result in more vigour and action in the cause of the Gospel.  Then again, it may be persuasively argued that in point of fact dioceses are already extraordinarily independent of each other and of Rome!

Is this a mad notion, or not? (For the sake of argument, focus not on any alleged low quality nor potential heterodoxy of bishops, but assume they are Catholic and possessed of the necessary qualities by nature and grace to teach, rule and sanctify.)

I leave it to the musing of readers as to whether, should Pope Francis implement this scheme, he ought appoint himself first Patriarch of Latin America and return thereto, resigning the Papacy – and calling yet another Conclave!

Thirteen Clerics or Thirteen Poor Men

Why were the feet of women not washed of old (and still should not be, according to the rubric, whatever of a certain diocesan bishop's self-dispensation therefrom)? – surely, for reasons of modesty. Consider for a moment even the attitudes of people just a century ago, in Edwardian times: would not it have seemed quite scandalous to them to behold a priest or bishop not merely washing the feet of women, but kissing them? And in any case, the removal of stockings beforehand would have seemed to people of that age awfully erotic (truth to say), making it hardly fit and proper.

In the licentious West in our own time, "anything goes", and so feet are not quite so erotically-charged as they were down to modern times (let alone their close relations ankles and legs!): hence, there is not quite the same unseemliness associated with washing them. But I do wonder if those delighted by the washing of female feet are too uncritically accepting of current Western norms: I suspect in many cultures (those of the Islamic world, for example) it would be totally outrageous for a man to wash the feet of a woman to whom he is not very closely related.

Touch, after all, not to mention the customary kiss of the foot – not required by current rubrics, but still carried out by many, including at least one bishop ordained since the reform of the liturgy in the 1960's – is of its nature quite intimate. To better illustrate this, consider for a moment the problems inherent in carrying out this rite in a chapel of a nunnery: it would seem disquieting, I argue, to see a priest wash the feet of religious sisters or nuns, since their persons are consecrated to the Lord, and are thus sacred and untouchable by males. Rather, in such a case no doubt the abbess or prioress would be the better choice of person to perform this ritual – which would therefore be better done separately from the Mass of Holy Thursday, as a private intramural function.

******

In the past – down to the preparatory liturgical reforms of the Roman Rite in the 1950's, which issued in the Novus Ordo – this ritual foot-washing was prescribed to be carried out after the Holy Thursday Mass and also after the stripping of the altars, and was compulsory only in cathedrals and collegiate churches, being optional and apparently rarely done in others (such as parish churches). Furthermore, the rule was that the prelate or superior who officiated at the Maundy or Mandatum (this being the name for the ceremony of the foot-washing or pedilavium) washed the feet of either thirteen clerics or thirteen poor men. (Apparently Pope St Gregory the Great set out to wash the feet of twelve poor men, but a thirteenth of striking appearance mysteriously joined them, and as mysteriously disappeared afterward before any could determine who he was: Gregory believed him to be an angel; and since that singular occurrence, thirteen, not twelve, became the accepted number of persons for the Maundy.)

Now, if thirteen clerics – priests, or, as at Rome until 2013, bishops – have their feet washed, then they most aptly represent the Apostles, who had been ordained priests of the New Testament at the Last Supper by Christ Himself, when, after first transubstantiating bread into His Body and wine into His Blood, He bade them "Do (offer) this as My memorial." It was the feet of His new priests that Our Lord laved.

But of course His command to them was to wash each other's feet, intimating thereby that they ought serve each other in charity and love; and this command was not merely for His Apostles to fulfil, but for all Christians to do likewise. We need not each one of us literally wash the feet of all Christ's disciples, but we do need to serve and aid and help each other, and not just as the pagans do and as unaided reason teaches us, but in a Christian spirit of Christlike, sacrificial service. Given this significance, it is thus entirely right and proper for a priest or bishop to wash, not the feet of representative members of the clergy, but instead humbly to lave the feet of those most in need of Christian charity – that is, the poor.

For the reasons I have detailed above, until our own age in the West, it would have seemed quite improper for a man to wash a woman's feet, given the sensual nature of such contact; but it may be argued that the former frisson of excitement inherent in such has largely dissipated in modern Western culture, given the greater degree of casual and non-sensual contact between the sexes in everyday life: and so the former rule restricting the Maundy to men may, if competent authority so legislates, be laid aside.

I will, however, re-iterate what often seems forgotten (though a bishop late of Buenos Aires knows it well): if a priest chooses not to wash the feet of clerics (which is one way of instantiating Christ's washing the feet of His chosen band), then it is better not to select members of the parish council, nor various members of the typical middle-class parish, but to go out to the slums and hospitals and hospices, and wash the feet of those who really and truly are poor. That is why – leaving aside any dispute over that word viri in the rubric – the actions of the former Cardinal, now Pope, are so truly evangelical and moving.

******

The words of the Vatican spokesman in response to criticisms of Francis, Bishop of Rome, are quite pointed, and I think truly point out what is more important here: the evangelical and astoundingly powerful witness to Christ's Gospel that he bears in performing these actions (which he does so, dispensing himself, implicitly, as not merely a bishop empowered to do so, but as the Supreme Legislator on earth, from what is the otherwise-binding rule):

In response to the many questions and concerns raised over Pope Francis washing the feet of 12 young people at the Roman Juvenile Detention Centre on Holy Thursday evening, especially that two were young women, Fr. Lombardi has sent me the following information to be shared with you. 

One can easily understand that in a great celebration, men would be chosen for the foot washing because Jesus, himself washing the feet of the twelve apostles who were male.  However the ritual of the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday evening in the Juvenile Detention Centre in Rome took place in a particular, small community that included young women.  When Jesus washed the feet of those who were with him on the first Holy Thursday, he desired to teach all a lesson about the meaning of service, using a gesture that included all members of the community.  

We are aware of the photos that show Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, then-Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who in various pastoral settings washed the feet of young men and women.  To have excluded the young women from the ritual washing of feet on Holy Thursday night in this Roman prison, would have detracted our attention from the essence of the Holy Thursday Gospel, and the very beautiful and simple gesture of a father who desired to embrace those who were on the fringes of society; those who were not refined experts of liturgical rules.  

That the Holy Father, Francis, washed the feet of young men and women on his first Holy Thursday as Pope, should call our minds and hearts to the simple and spontaneous gesture of love, affection, forgiveness and mercy of the Bishop of Rome, more than to legalistic, liturgical or canonical discussions.

(I do in humility beg His Holiness to dissuade others from being led into an antinomian spirit, as they could be by his actions and these quoted words, rather than wisely to perceive his use of the powers inherent in him as bishop and Pope given the circumstances mentioned, by using his power to change the word viri to homines in the rubric governing the washing of feet in the Holy Thursday liturgy. In this way, no one would feel either pressured to do what the law seems to exclude, nor guilty about ignoring it.)

******

One unfortunate aspect of the present contretemps is that the age-old restriction of the laving of feet to those of men parallels the fact that the Apostles given the fulness of the New Testament priesthood at the Last Supper were men, and men only, and that the Church has always understood her Master to have imparted authority to His Apostles to confer the ministerial priesthood on men only, and to pass on that power to their successors the bishops of the Church, so that all Christian priests are men (just as, recall, all the Aaronic priests were, and indeed all priests of God Most High, whether under the Law or before the Law, according to Scripture). Now this is true – and a scandal to some.  

Therefore, those who still pertinaciously dissent from this orthodox Catholic rule are precisely those who most agitate for the washing of feet to involve women also – since they regard it as a symbolic inroad into the "male-dominated" priesthood, just as they crowed over the permission given some decades ago whereby girls may act as altar servers: in both cases, the extension of involvement in these activities is perceived as preparing the way for the uncatholic and antiscriptural dream (or rather nightmare) of obtaining purported ordination for women.

(It goes without saying that it is entirely risible to assume that His Holiness is anything other than totally orthodox in his faith, as all credible reports confirm, so to fondly imagine his actions each Holy Thursday convey some gnostic significance is a vain thing.)

I recommend that those in conscience convinced that the Church is heinously wrong in restricting ordination to men earnestly strive in prayer to reconcile their heterodoxy with the truth; and, if they cannot, then perhaps they ought go somewhere where all their desiderata are won, and they can see how well they work – that is, go off to the Anglicans, where one can have all the heterodoxy one likes, and plenty of latitude in matters of morality too.  Leave those who actually want to be Catholics and believe in Christ's religion to practice their Holy Faith in peace!

******

Another pertinent question arises: did not Christ's command to us to wash one another's feet, particularly in the literal rather than the metaphorical sense, apply only to Christians, or not? Obviously Christians should do good to all; but should Christians in a Christian liturgy wash the feet of non-Christians, even of unbelievers? If I were a Muslim, for example, let alone a female follower of Mahomet, I would hardly wish to join the infidel Christians for their attempts at worship, nor really understand why a man in white was so eager to wash my feet – but perhaps his humility would prepare my heart for conversion to the truth, as is devoutly to be hoped. I invite comment...

Mary Untier of Knots - and Pope Francis

Years ago, I found a booklet about an Argentinian devotion to Our Lady as Untier of Knots.

Last year, when I was in Augsburg visiting a priest friend, he took me to a chapel – dedicated to Our Lady, Undoer of Knots. By her obedience to grace, she unbinds  for herself, and all her spiritual offspring, the knotted bonds of sin that Eve entangled for herself and all her children; and even in temporal affairs she assists the faithful to solve knotty problems that try them.

How did this devotion cross from Bavaria to Argentina, and when?

A certain Fr Bergoglio, S.J., who was studying in Germany, saw the image, and brought a copy back to Argentina... where propagation of devotion to Our Lady under this title has spread far and wide (even to Australia).

And some wretches complain about our new Pope!

I look forward to reading an encyclical of his in honour of the Mother of God, to whom he is entirely devoted, whose Rosary he daily recites (fifteen decades, as is traditional), to whose sacred icons, paintings and statues he pays due relative reverence, and whose patronage he eagerly invokes for all Christian people.

Apparently a silver chalice, to be the gift of the people of the Argentine ("Silver") Republic to Pope Francis, shall bear a representation of the Blessed Virgin under this title; just as the former Cardinal himself gave a chalice emblazoned with the same glorious image to Benedict XVI.

Note, gentle reader, that Pope Francis is quite content (as was St Francis) to give and receive such precious gifts intended for the service of the altar.

Prayer to Our Lady Undoer of Knots

Virgin Mary, Mother of fair love, Mother who never refuses to come to the aid of a child in need, Mother whose hands never cease to serve your beloved children because they are moved by the divine love and immense mercy that exists in your heart, cast your compassionate eyes upon me and see the snarl of knots that exist in my life. 

You know very well how desperate I am, my pain and how I am bound by these knots.

Mary, Mother to whom God entrusted the undoing of the knots in the lives of his children, I entrust into your hands the ribbon of my life. 

No one, not even the Evil One himself, can take it away from your precious care. In your hands there is no knot that cannot be undone.

Powerful Mother, by your grace and intercessory power with Your Son and my Liberator, Jesus, take into your hands today this knot (...). I beg you to undo it for the glory of God, once for all. You are my hope.

O my Lady, you are the only consolation God gives me, the fortification of my feeble strength, the enrichment of my destitution and with Christ the freedom from my chains.

Hear my plea. Keep me, guide me, protect me, O safe refuge!

Mary, Undoer of Knots, pray for me.

What a Preacher!

Listen to our humble Pope as he leads us to meditate on the mercy of God:

Bl Oscar Romero, Bp & M?

According to Mgr Delgado, on several occasions the future Pope Francis assured him that, should he become Pope (per impossibile, as the then Cardinal Bergoglio assumed), he would very soon beatify Oscar Romero, who was murdered in odium fidei on the 24th of March 1980.

Thirty-three years after his death (and, we pray, his heavenly birthday), it seems incredible to me at least that that holy and orthodox bishop, who was unafraid of State terror and sought to defend the poor (in the image of several sainted hierarchs of old, be it said), is still uncanonized, let alone as yet not even beatified.

May we hopefully expect good Pope Francis to give the world a new exemplar of holiness by raising Bishop Romero to the honours of the altars in time for Holy Week, or at the least within the first year of his supreme pontificate?

Philistines and Mockery

Too many are rather cruelly contrasting the simplicity of Pope Francis – especially his sartorial restraint – with what they caricature as the frippery of Pope Benedict's wardrobe: my ears had the nasty experience of hearing the latter described on SBS News this evening as a sort of ecclesiastical Barbie doll by their SBS Rome correspondent, who went on to mock poor Mgr Marini, a learned, devout and dedicated M.C., by claiming that, when Marini offered him the Papal mozzetta to wear for his first appearance, Francis replied (supposedly) "No more carnival attire".

Such a cruel remark would surely be unworthy of our new Supreme Pontiff, who by all accounts is humble, not rude; the offending phrase rather reveals more about those who delight to repeat it (I mention it in anger and sorrow only).

Australians of all nations are given to Philistinism, and scoffing at the appropriate and traditional vesture proper to officials of all sorts.

It is the sin of Judas to say "such and such should have been given to the poor", whereas it was for Christ Himself rightly to testify that the costly nard expended upon the veneration of His Sacred Body was a kindly and justified act given the special circumstances. The latter-day Judases who would celebrate the sacraments in rags tend not to be similarly self-denying in their secular lives; too often, they are self-satisfied middle-class liberals posing at playing poverty, and care not enough about God to expend much if anything when adoring Him.

Holy Church requires that the chalice and paten, as also other items used in divine worship, be of a certain quality, despite the cost thereof: for in determinate circumstances, it is justified and no sin to spend money on sacred things (and similarly in all the circumstances of everyday life).  St Francis, far from despising money spent on the upkeep of churches and on the liturgy, insisted upon careful regard for those things – while always serving the needs of the poor. One can – one ought – do both.

There is no absolute duty always and everywhere to give every last cent away to those needier than oneself – but in certain circumstances, there is indeed a duty to spend very much to help others, even at great cost to oneself: prudential judgement comes into play here. In general, it would be madness to sell all the goods of the Church, so that they fall into private hands and are never more seen by the public, in the false belief that to do so would (for a time) raise funds to advantage the poor, but – when prudence dictates – the sale even of the most valuable treasures may indeed be justified in particular circumstances, so as to satisfy pressing needs.

St Lawrence gave away the treasures of the Church to the poor, lest the pagans seize them; St Chrysostom reminds us to give alms to the poor, lest in giving a costly chalice we forget the beggar at church door; but neither the one nor the other would claim that the Church cannot morally possess good things, nor accept even precious vessels, provided the needy be rightly and fairly helped and aided.

But for a truly insulting display of mockery and hypocrisy, one need only glance (once is enough, I will not reproduce them here) at the twitterings of horrid Cardinal Mahony (how has he escaped prison?) – who maladministered his former archdiocese by sheltering pedo-priests, and thus occasioned payouts of hundreds of millions of dollars to their many victims (as fulsome online documentation reveals), rather than stop those evildoers before they molested, and with the money saved help the poor – a smug prelate who yet unblushingly affects joy at the "low church" arriving in place of the "high church" (the use of Anglican terminology is revealing in itself), and prophesies the disappearance of lace et al. 

If only such asinine whited sepulchres as himself would disappear! Hopefully the rumours about such proud and lying prelates being ordered to do penance in a strict monastery prove true.

Meanwhile, to attempt to "worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" is but to do as Pope Francis himself has said: it is to promote through the media of vesture and music, precious metalwork and rich tapestry the True, the Good, and the Beautiful – since God is all these in Himself, to try and reflect such is evangelical and God-pleasing, be it done unselfconsciously, without conceited self-regard or odious self-love. It would be vile to accuse the recently-retired Benedict XVI of falling into such traps.

Dear Holy Father, please justly punish all ecclesiastics who have by deed or negligence gravely harmed the little ones of Christ, and don't worry too much if your M.C. lays out vestments not entirely to your taste (though of course you may properly insist upon sobriety in their style). I am sure you would agree that the latter trial, if fault it be, is but an imperfection easily to be borne, whereas the former  duty incumbent upon you is most pressing, given the grave scandal it occasions, let alone the demands of justice that compels it.

Ipse harmonia est

Yester-day, while addressing the College of Cardinals, Pope Francis spoke thus of the Holy Spirit and His gifts of grace to all the different members of the Body of Christ:

He, the Paraclete, is the supreme protagonist of every initiative and manifestation of faith. It’s interesting and it makes me think. The Paraclete creates all the differences in the Church and seems like an apostle of Babel. On the other hand, the Paraclete unifies all these differences – not making them equal – but in harmony with one another. I remember a Church Father who described it like this: “Ipse harmonia est.” [He Himself is Harmony.] The Paraclete gives each one of us a different charism, and unites us in this community of the Church that adores the Father, the Son, and Him – the Holy Spirit.”

Now, I have been trying to find who exactly it was who spoke and wrote of the Holy Spirit in those words “Ipse harmonia est” – that is, He Himself is harmony or concord, He the Holy Spirit is harmony itself. There are so many repetitions of these words of the Holy Father themselves online that so far I have not had a chance to locate the original reference, but I do see in these words the idea that the different graces given by the Spirit result in a wonderful symphony.

In any case, these words are beautiful and worth much prayerful consideration; the last line refers I think to a phrase of St Cyprian, as repeated in the Catechism (n. 810), itself repeating Lumen Gentium: "Hence the universal Church is seen to be 'a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'" (LG 4 citing St. Cyprian, De Dom. orat 23: PL 4, 553).

Il Papa che parla

“Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord,” Bergoglio said in 2001. “I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.”

Building upon what my friend the former Lutheran David Schütz has said of Benedict XVI as the Pope who best understood the theology of Luther (both as to its evangelical strengths and its deviations from orthodoxy), does this not sound, while eminently Catholic, not toto cælo distat from an evangelical outlook, in the best sense of that term, both ecumenically and in sober verity?

Humilitas

Whilst some Traddies whined on about His Holiness not wearing the Papal mozetta for his first appearance on the loggia last evening Rome time, early this morning in Rome residents and schoolchildren near St Mary Major's were surprised to see the new Pope arrive to pray there (just as he had promised in his first speech), accompanied by a very small entourage.

The Holy Father prayed for half an hour before the altar of the Virgin Mary, doubtless imploring her aid as Salus populi Romani.

Does not this say something?

Viva il Papa - and Down with Rudeness

What has upset my joy this day?

The appalling, downright rudeness, the veritably vomitous spewing-forth of bile that I have read on some of the very blogs that would most pride themselves on their orthodoxy.

And against which enemies of Holy Church, which imps of Satan have they raged?

Against – imagine! – the Vicar of Christ.

Pope Francis was only elected ten or so hours ago, and in that time the insults that have flown against him are already legion; from atheists, anti-Catholics and the like I would expect such, but from those who pose as the most Catholic such offences are all the more disgusting and hurtful.

Already all manner of things said and done in the past have been dragged up and minutely dissected: as he lived through the military dictatorship in Argentina,  one can expect much digging out of unhappy incidents from those years in order to impugn his good name. It will be alleged that as a Jesuit superior he did this, he didn't do that, and whatever he did in that difficult time will be commented on in the worst light imaginable.

That I can understand, for such is the way of the scoffing world.

But do the Traddies care about those times, when suffering struck many; or do they care about other issues dearer to their hearts?  Apparently as Archbishop of Buenos Aires he was less than enthusiastic about Summorum pontificum, be it noted; but now he has become one of the Supreme Pontiffs, would it really be likely that he, the successor of Benedict XVI – whom he supported and for whom at the last Conclave, it is said, he begged those voting for Bergoglio then to vote for Ratzinger instead – will abrogate and suppress this grant?

May we not at least wait and see, rather than rant and rave in the most disgraceful and abysmal fashion?

I accuse more than one commenter at Rorate Cæli, the NLM, and other prominent blogs of behaving crudely and viciously, neglecting the elementary precepts of good behaviour they ought each have learnt at their mother's knee, let alone the Commandment to "Honour thy father".

The Holy Father ought not be insulted by those who would pretend to be his very best and brightest children.

Habemus Papam - Pope Francis

The Lord bless him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not into the hands of his enemies!

God bless Pope Francis – formerly Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J., Archbishop of Buenos Aires.

I was awoken to the news breaking via radio, and raced to turn on the television, hear the Habemus Papam, and then watched him come forth, listened to him speak, and received his Apostolic Blessing. I was moved by his evident piety, in asking for prayers for Benedict XVI, leading the crowd in a Pater, Ave and Gloria, and then asking all to pray for him – which the vast host did, falling silent in prayer – before he gave all the world his blessing.

He certainly looks a Pope, humble and kindly.

At Mass at Carmel this morning, my parish priest offered the Sacrifice for our new Pope, and reminded us that Our Lord doubtless says to His Vicar what He once said to St Francis of Assisi: "Rebuild My House, which is falling into ruin".

His radical choice of name speaks of the voluntary poverty and humility and evangelizing zeal and love of Christ and His Church that was the mark of St Francis; and it refers also to the great Jesuit missionary St Francis Xavier.

His episcopal (and now papal) motto, miserando atque eligendo, "lowly and yet chosen", has certainly come true! It apparently derives from St Bede the Venerable's Homily 21 for the feast of St Matthew the Evangelist:

Vidit ergo Jesus publicanum, et quia miserando atque eligendo vidit, ait illi, Sequere me. Sequere autem dixit imitare. Sequere dixit non tam incessu pedum, quam executione morum.

(For Jesus saw the tax collector, and because he saw one who needed mercy and to be chosen, he said to him “Follow me”. And he said “follow” meaning “to imitate”. He said “Follow” not so much with the movement of the feet, as by the practice of life.)

God grant that this son of St Ignatius in all things work for the greater glory of God: for what we need now is holiness, the only cure for the ills of the Church and the world.

His Holiness has asked our prayers – pray therefore:

Almighty and everlasting God, have mercy on your servant Pope Francis, our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to your loving kindness, in the way of eternal salvation, that with your help he may ever desire that which is pleasing to you and accomplish it with all his strength. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lord Jesus, shelter our Holy Father the Pope under the protection of Your Sacred Heart. Be his light, his strength and his consolation.