This has, I guess, turned into a post on the Synod on Synodality.
The Synod on Synodality is a three-year process of listening and dialogue beginning with a solemn opening in Rome on October 9 and 10, 2021 with each individual diocese and church celebrating the following week on October 17. The synodal process will conclude in 2024.
Pope Francis invites the entire Church to reflect on a theme that is decisive for its life and mission: “It is precisely this path of synodality which God expects of the Church of the third millennium.” This journey, which follows in the wake of the Church’s “renewal” proposed by the Second Vatican Council, is both a gift and a task: by journeying together and reflecting together on the journey that has been made, the Church will be able to learn through Her experience which processes can help Her to live communion, to achieve participation, to open Herself to mission."
United States Council of Catholic Bishops.
I am, if the truth be told, in such a tone of mind that I shun every assemblage of bishops, because I have never yet seen that any Synod had a good ending, or that the evils complained of were removed by them, but were rather multiplied….
St. Gregory of Nazianzus writing to Procopius in 382.
Originally, when I started this post, I was going to post Bishop Strickland's letter to his flock, and then held back on it as it generated so much controversy, from this already controversial Bishop, whom I don't know much about, that I thought better of it. Immediately, the terms schism and the like came in.
Then two things occured, followed by a third.
The first was a weekend homily from our young priest on the principal reading for August 27, which was:
Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi and he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply,
"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Mathew, Chapter 16.
This is one of the most important Gospel readings in the New Testament, as in it, Christ gives the keys to St. Peter, the first Pope.
In his homily, without referencing Bishop Strickland or the Pope at all, the young priest stated that the Catholic Church was the only thing holding back the destruction of the culture in the United States. That's a big claim, but frankly, correctly understood, he may be very well correct.
Another thing, which I learned of after Sunday, was that the Pope spoke to a group of young Jesuits in Portugal, where he was asked as series of question. He's been quoted in part (but largely only in part) regarding one question, which was about the Faith in the United States. As is so often the case with Francis, he was not quoted in full, or fully in context.
The question, and his answer, were:
Q. Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother. I am Francisco. Last year I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there, and at times made me suffer. I saw many, even bishops, criticizing your leadership of the Church. And many even accuse the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now. They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make of the pope, the Magisterium, the Vatican?
A. You have seen that in the United States the situation is not easy: there is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.
Let us get to specifics. Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned. I like to use the “upward” image, that is, ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. Always on this path, starting from the root with sap that flows up and up, and that is why change is necessary.
Vincent of Lérins makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fidei, which grows and is consolidated with the passage of time. Here, our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness also deepens. The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth in understanding. The view of Church doctrine as monolithic is erroneous.
But some people opt out; they go backward; they are what I call “indietristi.” When you go backward, you form something closed, disconnected from the roots of the Church and you lose the sap of revelation. If you don’t change upward, you go backward, and then you take on criteria for change other than those our faith gives for growth and change. And the effects on morality are devastating. The problems that moralists have to examine today are very serious, and to deal with them they have to take the risk of making changes, but in the direction I was saying.
You have been to the United States and you say you have felt a climate of closure. Yes, this climate can be experienced in some situations. And there you can lose the true tradition and turn to ideologies for support. In other words, ideology replaces faith, membership of a sector of the Church replaces membership of the Church.
I want to pay tribute to Arrupe’s courage. When he became superior general, he found a Society of Jesus that was, so to speak, bogged down. General Ledóchowski had drafted the Epitome – do you young people know what the Epitome is? No? Nothing remains of the Epitome! It was a selection of the Constitutions and Rules, all mixed up. But Ledóchowski, who was very orderly, with the mentality of the time, said, “I am compiling it so that the Jesuits will be fully clear about everything they have to do.” And the first specimen he sent to a Benedictine abbot in Rome, a great friend of his, who replied with a note: “You have killed the Society with this.”
In other words, the Society of the Epitome was formed, the Society that I experienced in the novitiate, albeit with great teachers who were of great help, but some taught certain things that fossilized the Society. That was the spirituality that Arrupe received, and he had the courage to set it moving again. Some things got out of hand, as is inevitable, such as the question of the Marxist analysis of reality. Then he had to clarify some matters, but he was a man who was able to look forward. And with what tools did Arrupe confront reality? With the Spiritual Exercises. In 1969 he founded the Ignatian Center for Spirituality. The secretary of this center, Fr. Luís Gonzalez Hernandez, was given the tasks of traveling around the world to give the Exercises and to open this new panorama.
You younger ones have not experienced these tensions, but what you say about some sectors in the United States reminds me of what we have already experienced with the Epitome, which generated a mentality that was all rigid and contorted. Those American groups you talk about, so closed, are isolating themselves. Instead of living by doctrine, by the true doctrine that always develops and bears fruit, they live by ideologies. When you abandon doctrine in life to replace it with an ideology, you have lost, you have lost as in war.
The Pope, who seems to get caught off guard with his comments relatively frequently, is trying to move past this one right now. This was sort of accidentally helped when he made a comment praising Russian imperial rulers, which may have been taken out of context, but which was bad timing. That brought a disappointed comment from the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Indeed, Ukrainian Catholics have been loyal to Rome in spite of persecution both by the Communist in the USSR and historically by the Russian Orthodox Church. Imperial Russia, after the schism, was not a friendly place for Catholicism.
Now, frankly, the Pope's comments overall regarding the US, which have been extracted down to just a few lines, are not nearly as incendiary as they're being portrayed. But Pope Francis has a tendency to speak without a lack of clarity, as well as offhand. His comments caused some very orthodox and mainstream American Catholic apologist to ask "who are you speaking of"" and it frankly isn't very clear.
There's an enormous fear right now that Francis is going to follow the wayward German bishops into destruction. I don't think he will, and he likely knows that if that were to be attempted, which I don't believe he wants to attempt anyhow, it will cause a schism in the church. Added to that, for devout, orthodox and believing Catholics, the Church cannot be lead into error due to the protection of the Holy Spirit, so a lot of the criticism shows a certain element of disblief.
That doesn't mean, however, that Pope Francis must be viewed as a great Pope.
Right now American, and other conservative, Catholics are routinely mentioning schism as a fear, and while its hardly noticed here, the Eastern Rite Catholic Syro-Malabar Church is in outright defiance of Rome, and darned near in schism, over an issue in their liturgy that didn't need to become one and which Pope Francis has elevated to the level of a contest between their clergy and him. It recalls, in serious ways, the issues that partially gave rise to the Great Schism, or the separation of some Eastern Rite Catholics from the Roman Catholic Church and into the Russian Orthodox Church about a centuray ago, and is something we truly don't need. Rome should back off.
All of this now comes in the context of the Synod on Synodality.
More than a few rank and file loyal Catholics are pretty skeptical on the Synod on Synodality. Indeed, I suspect, without knowing, that part of the Syro-Malabar Church crisis is due to this as well. The Eastern Churches are famously dedicated to tradition, and the Vatican has been upsetting that, and then retreating from the upset, and then upsetting it again, since 1965. Added to that, anyone who has ever sat on a Parish Council probably is, as so often the people drawn to such matters in terms of organizing them, and this Synod involves laity, are the people who have time to do it. That doesn't tend to be the busy Catholic orthodox businessman, or the highly educated Catholic lawyer or engineer. It tends to be older people who formed their views in the 1970s on the left and who are massively out of touch with the young people in the pews, or at least older people. The Catholics that Trads like to point to, the young couples with children at a Latin Mass, aren't likely to have time to attend synods.
Maybe the laity delegation will be different here, but if it omits the orthodox, Trads, and the Rad Trads to any significant degree, there's reason to fear that it'll be made up of let wing Catholics who often have all kids of complaints about the Catholic Church, or so many orthodox, conservatives, and Trads (and they aren't all the same thing) fear.
These fears amplified a great deal are what caused highly traditional Bishop Joseph Strickland, much in the news recently, to issue his recent letter, which read:
August 22, 2023
My Dear Sons and Daughters in Christ:
May the love and grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you always!
In this time of great turmoil in the Church and in the world, I must speak to you from a father’s heart in order to warn you of the evils that threaten us, and to assure you of the joy and hope that we have always in our Lord Jesus Christ. The evil and false message that has invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride, is that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity. This idea must be shunned and refuted at every turn. We must share the joyful good news that Jesus is our only Lord, and that He desires that all humanity for all time may embrace eternal life in Him.
Once we understand that Jesus Christ, God’s Divine Son, is the fullness of revelation and the fulfillment of the Father’s plan of salvation for all humanity for all time, and we embrace this with all our hearts, then we can address the other errors that plague our Church and our world which have been brought about by a departure from Truth.
In St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he writes: “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by {the} grace {of Christ} for a different gospel {not that there is another}. But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach {to you} a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:6-9)
As your spiritual father, I feel it is important to reiterate the following basic truths that have always been understood by the Church from time immemorial, and to emphasize that the Church exists not to redefine matters of faith, but to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as it has been handed down to us from Our Lord Himself through the apostles and the saints and martyrs. Again, hearkening back to St. Paul’s warning to the Galatians, any attempts to pervert the true Gospel message must be categorically rejected as injurious to the Bride of Christ and her individual members.
Christ established One Church—the Catholic Church—and, therefore, only the Catholic Church provides the fullness of Christ’s truth and the authentic path to His salvation for all of us.
The Eucharist and all the sacraments are divinely instituted, not developed by man. The Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and to receive Him in Communion unworthily (i.e. in a state of grave, unrepentant sin) is a devastating sacrilege for the individual and for the Church. (1 Cor 11:27-29)
The Sacrament of Matrimony is instituted by God. Through Natural Law, God has established marriage as between one man and one woman faithful to each other for life and open to children. Humanity has no right or true ability to redefine marriage.
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female, and all people should be helped to discover their true identities as children of God, and not supported in a disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological and God-given identity.
Sexual activity outside marriage is always gravely sinful and cannot be condoned, blessed, or deemed permissible by any authority inside the Church.
The belief that all men and women will be saved regardless of how they live their lives (a concept commonly referred to as universalism) is false and is dangerous, as it contradicts what Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel. Jesus says we must “deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.” (Matt 16:24) He has given us the way, through His grace, to victory over sin and death through repentance and sacramental confession. It is essential that we embrace the joy and hope, as well as the freedom, that come from repentance and humbly confessing our sins. Through repentance and sacramental confession, every battle with temptation and sin can be a small victory that leads us to embrace the great victory that Christ has won for us.
In order to follow Jesus Christ, we must willingly choose to take up our cross instead of attempting to avoid the cross and suffering that Our Lord offers to each of us individually in our daily lives. The mystery of redemptive suffering—i.e. suffering that Our Lord allows us to experience and accept in this world and then offer back to Him in union with His suffering—humbles us, purifies us, and draws us deeper into the joy of a life lived in Christ. That is not to say that we must enjoy or seek out suffering, but if we are united to Christ, as we experience our daily sufferings we can find the hope and joy that exist amidst the suffering and persevere to the end in all our suffering. (cf. 2 Tim 4:6-8)
In the weeks and months ahead, many of these truths will be examined as part of the Synod on Synodality. We must hold fast to these truths and be wary of any attempts to present an alternative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or to push for a faith that speaks of dialogue and brotherhood, while attempting to remove the fatherhood of God. When we seek to innovate upon what God in His great mercy has given us, we find ourselves upon treacherous ground. The surest footing we can find is to remain firmly upon the perennial teachings of the faith.
Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed. Be assured, however, that no one who remains firmly upon the plumb line of our Catholic faith is a schismatic. We must remain unabashedly and truly Catholic, regardless of what may be brought forth. We must be aware also that it is not leaving the Church to stand firm against these proposed changes. As St. Peter said, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Therefore, standing firm does not mean we are seeking to leave the Church. Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.
I urge you, my sons and daughters in Christ, that now is the time to make sure you stand firmly upon the Catholic faith of the ages. We were all created to seek the Way, the Truth and the Life, and in this modern age of confusion, the true path is the one that is illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ, for Truth has a face and indeed it is His face. Be assured that He will not abandon His Bride.
I remain your humble father and servant,
Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop of Tyler
That's the letter as written. Let's break it down again, with some text in bold.
In this time of great turmoil in the Church and in the world, I must speak to you from a father’s heart in order to warn you of the evils that threaten us, and to assure you of the joy and hope that we have always in our Lord Jesus Christ. The evil and false message that has invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride, is that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity. This idea must be shunned and refuted at every turn. We must share the joyful good news that Jesus is our only Lord, and that He desires that all humanity for all time may embrace eternal life in Him.
Once we understand that Jesus Christ, God’s Divine Son, is the fullness of revelation and the fulfillment of the Father’s plan of salvation for all humanity for all time, and we embrace this with all our hearts, then we can address the other errors that plague our Church and our world which have been brought about by a departure from Truth.
In St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he writes: “I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by {the} grace {of Christ} for a different gospel {not that there is another}. But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach {to you} a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:6-9)
As your spiritual father, I feel it is important to reiterate the following basic truths that have always been understood by the Church from time immemorial, and to emphasize that the Church exists not to redefine matters of faith, but to safeguard the Deposit of Faith as it has been handed down to us from Our Lord Himself through the apostles and the saints and martyrs. Again, hearkening back to St. Paul’s warning to the Galatians, any attempts to pervert the true Gospel message must be categorically rejected as injurious to the Bride of Christ and her individual members.
Christ established One Church—the Catholic Church—and, therefore, only the Catholic Church provides the fullness of Christ’s truth and the authentic path to His salvation for all of us.
The Eucharist and all the sacraments are divinely instituted, not developed by man. The Eucharist is truly Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, and to receive Him in Communion unworthily (i.e. in a state of grave, unrepentant sin) is a devastating sacrilege for the individual and for the Church. (1 Cor 11:27-29)
The Sacrament of Matrimony is instituted by God. Through Natural Law, God has established marriage as between one man and one woman faithful to each other for life and open to children. Humanity has no right or true ability to redefine marriage.
Every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female, and all people should be helped to discover their true identities as children of God, and not supported in a disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological and God-given identity.
Sexual activity outside marriage is always gravely sinful and cannot be condoned, blessed, or deemed permissible by any authority inside the Church.
The belief that all men and women will be saved regardless of how they live their lives (a concept commonly referred to as universalism) is false and is dangerous, as it contradicts what Jesus tells us repeatedly in the Gospel. Jesus says we must “deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him.” (Matt 16:24) He has given us the way, through His grace, to victory over sin and death through repentance and sacramental confession. It is essential that we embrace the joy and hope, as well as the freedom, that come from repentance and humbly confessing our sins. Through repentance and sacramental confession, every battle with temptation and sin can be a small victory that leads us to embrace the great victory that Christ has won for us.
In order to follow Jesus Christ, we must willingly choose to take up our cross instead of attempting to avoid the cross and suffering that Our Lord offers to each of us individually in our daily lives. The mystery of redemptive suffering—i.e. suffering that Our Lord allows us to experience and accept in this world and then offer back to Him in union with His suffering—humbles us, purifies us, and draws us deeper into the joy of a life lived in Christ. That is not to say that we must enjoy or seek out suffering, but if we are united to Christ, as we experience our daily sufferings we can find the hope and joy that exist amidst the suffering and persevere to the end in all our suffering. (cf. 2 Tim 4:6-8)
In the weeks and months ahead, many of these truths will be examined as part of the Synod on Synodality.We must hold fast to these truths and be wary of any attempts to present an alternative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or to push for a faith that speaks of dialogue and brotherhood, while attempting to remove the fatherhood of God. When we seek to innovate upon what God in His great mercy has given us, we find ourselves upon treacherous ground. The surest footing we can find is to remain firmly upon the perennial teachings of the faith.
Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed. Be assured, however, that no one who remains firmly upon the plumb line of our Catholic faith is a schismatic. We must remain unabashedly and truly Catholic, regardless of what may be brought forth. We must be aware also that it is not leaving the Church to stand firm against these proposed changes. As St. Peter said, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Jn 6:68) Therefore, standing firm does not mean we are seeking to leave the Church. Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.
I urge you, my sons and daughters in Christ, that now is the time to make sure you stand firmly upon the Catholic faith of the ages. We were all created to seek the Way, the Truth and the Life, and in this modern age of confusion, the true path is the one that is illuminated by the light of Jesus Christ, for Truth has a face and indeed it is His face. Be assured that He will not abandon His Bride.
Bold words.
But in large degree, Bishop Strickland is correct on the spirit of the times. That doesn't mean he can't be questioned on everything. He certainly can, and some of his other statements, including some regarding a radical traditionalist priest, and some regarding Pope Francis, would nearly require a loyal Catholic to hold some reservations about him.
Where we may start off with a bit of doubt is here. Has an "evil and false message. . . Invaded the Church, Christ’s Bride" and is it "that Jesus is only one among many, and that it is not necessary for His message to be shared with all humanity"? I'm not sure what the Bishop is referring too, but I don't see evidence of that inside the Church's structure or its clergy.
It's long been the case that the Church has held that salvation can only come through the Church, but we don't really know how that occurs, so those who are not Catholic may be saved. I don't think Bishop Strickland is questioning that, but it could be read that way.
Beyond that, Bishop Strickland is expressing fears that are widely held, and not without good reason. The German Bishops, presiding over a Church that's rich due to the Church tax but poor in terms of parishioners actually in the pews, is in fact expressing views that orthodox Catholics view as not only wrong, but immorally wrong. The fear is that they're going to bring their errors into the synod, the need for which is not largely appreciated.
Those fears may be misplaced, and I've written on that earlier. Declared doctrine cannot be changed, and there's no evidence that Pope Francis is going to attempt to do so. But Pope Francis' managerial style is simply maddening. Having come up in Argentina, which really only turned to democracy recently, he appears to be attempting to somewhat democratize the Church while not really grasping that the conveyance of clear information is a vital feature of that.
A potential result of the Synod may well be a correction of the errors of recent years in more liberal wings in a way that those liberals have to accept, or which will require them to go into outright schism. I basically expect that to occur, which is not the expectation that most are expecting. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, a very conservative, orthodox Priest who runs a significant blog, posted:
My view is that there are two, not three, possible outcomes for the Synod (“walking together”). They are a) it’ll fizzle into pointless posturing after which there will be a mainly yawn-inducing document with a couple of crowbar-inviting ambiguities or b) something disastrous will swiftly emerge out of a spirit of radical discontinuity.
What will not happen is c) sound, pastoral proposals will be brought to light based on a clear ecclesiology rooted in tradition.
He makes it plain that he expects number "b" to occur. Fr. Dwight Longnecker has more or less indicated that something less than "a" will occur in his view.
I frankly expect something more like "c".
We may, and I feel likely will be, surprised. But the Pope's words certainly aren't calculated to derive comfort for the loyal orthodox in the pews.
Indeed, and ironically, what the Pope might be seeking to achieve may be a necessary, or not, restructuring, which also not only brings risks, but is problematic due to the ongoing problem of the Boomers in control.
What the Pope has noted is that the Eastern Orthodox govern themselves through synods. There have come to be some doctrinal differences between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches, but they are not huge, and the East does have apostolic succession. What the Pope seems to admire is the individual synods those Churches have within themselves, and he might be aiming to establish them in the Catholic Church.
If that is the aim, and there is reason to think it is, it has a problem right off the bat in that the local synod for the Latin Rite would be one big synod. It would dwarf the largest of the Eastern synods. Maybe, however, he's thinking of more local synods and giving those local synods something that approaches autocephalous status. If that's the case, however, his recent actions in regard to the Syro-Malabar Church cut the other way. That doesn't mean it isn't the goal, however.
If that is the goal, however, it automatically has a problem in that the German Church, which is unfortunately supported by taxes, has already pretty much gone in another direction and, if it keeps heading that way, is going to disappear a law Episcopal Church. That pathway is so clear, with the Episcopal Church operating to take away crosses in much of its territory (although it had dissident portions that remain very traditional), that its lost its meaning and, at the same time, its members. If the German Church was seeking to address attendance, what it ought to do is support orthodoxy and demand that the Bundestag eliminate the Church Tax, which really is an unfair tax on average Germans.
What the Church Tax reveals, however, is the mentally lax way that many Catholics in Catholic countries view the Church. Southern Germany, which is where most German Catholics live, is pretty much all Catholic, but people have acclimated themselves to being Christmas and Easter Catholics and ignoring everything else, and still conceiving of themselves as good Catholics. In Catholic countries that have vast geographies, which includes most of South America, that's also the case. Even the clergy in these regions often takes that sort of view, not really challenging the faithful to live up to the Faith, and being comfortable with "we're all Catholic", as if that's enough.
St. Paul clearly stated it wasn't.
Pope Francis is an Argentine, and that's probably, as already noted, one of the problems here. The US, which he is criticizing, is a Protestant country, and to be a real Catholic here always meant to be part of a fighting faith.
Indeed, everywhere the Church as been strong in the last century, it's had to be a fighting faith. It was in the US, that was true in Ireland, and that was true in Southern Germany. The Catholic Church, with its adherence to the Faith, tends to suffer when times are really good and when there's little societal opposition to it.
There is a lot of societal opposition to it right now in the US, and it's been interesting to see the growing strength of orthodoxy in reaction to it.
Indeed, it's hard for American conservative Catholic not to feel, at some point, that the Pope is one of the group of at least somewhat liberal Catholic attacking them. An author in First Things, whose article postdates everything written in this essay above, put it well for a lot of them, and at least somewhat for myself, when he noted:
I am a “conservative” Catholic, but I am no traditionalist, in the TLM sense. I was deeply formed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and am committed to the Novus Ordo (the Mass of Vatican II). I embrace the universal call to holiness as developed during Vatican II. I love the Scriptures. I support the preferential option for the spiritually and materially poor. I view the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a north star for our faith. I think the Church has much to say to the modern world.
I also reject the notion that doctrine can change, as opposed to develop. I think certain actions are intrinsically evil. I do not think it is compassionate to affirm individuals in their sin. I think the Church’s tradition is a great spiritual treasure.
These things should be uncontroversial, and yet the impression the Holy Father creates is that to hold all of these positions is to be a rigid, backward-looking Catholic as opposed to one led by the Holy Spirit. He seems to think that the rock-solid belief many American Catholics have in the deposit of faith and the Church’s historical moral teachings is a rejection of authentic development of doctrine. But this portrayal is a cartoon.
Pope Francis notes that doctrine “progresses,” but that this “change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with [St. Vincent Lerins’] three criteria [for authentic development articulated].” I don’t know a traditional Catholic who disagrees with this. But I do know many who vehemently disagree that the Vatican’s free-wheeling questioning of long-held teaching meets these criteria. Pope Francis oversees a curia where the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality claims the Church’s teaching about homosexual acts is “false,” where the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life endorses a book that calls for a complete reversal of the Church’s teaching on contraception, and where the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith espouses an openness to blessings for same-sex couples—to name just a few recent examples of churchmen flatly opposing the authentic development espoused by the Holy Father. Meanwhile, Francis gives the Germans freedom to push heretical positions. And yet somehow, he brands as “backwards” the Catholics who dislike it when high-ranking Vatican prelates bandy about serious errors.
And for this reason, it's not surprising that many conservative Catholics, who weren't already at least somewhat lacking in enthusiasm for the upcoming synod, are losing their enthusiasm for it. That doesn't mean that there's going to be big doctrinal changes. There will not be. But it may mean that the results will either be surprising or that they will be disappointing.
Indeed, Catholics must recall that the Church is protected from error. So fears about the Synod are overdone. And not every change that is proposed is an attack on dogma, such as the often suggested lifting on married clerics.
But we also might remember that we're not promised that everyone who steps into the shoes of the Fisherman is promised to really well them well. They're still people. And Pope Francis, who is no doubt a holy man, is also a very old one in an age in which it seems that the world is full of old leaders whose vision often looks back to a liberalism of their youth, while the younger mass of humanity looks back to the best things that the same liberalism lost.
Skyline Drive dominates Cody's horizon, which is a big part of the reason for the controversy there.
I don't have a comment on this, nor should I. I don't live in Cody, and what occurs there in regard to something of this type isn't my affair. Rather, what I'd point out, as a blog that deals with church architecture, that contemporary LDS Temples are obviously all the same, and indeed, they're basically sort of a kit. As a person who likes every religious building to be unique, I find that a bit sad. According to the LDS site this particular style, which they term "modular", is new to the 2020s.
Franz Jägerstätter, 36, Austrian farmer and conscientious objector, was executed by the Germans.
Born into poverty and illegitimacy, he was the son of a farmer and chambermaid who could not afford to marry. He was initially raised by his grandmother, the pious Elisabeth Huber. His father was killed in World War One and his mother latter married Heinrich Jägerstätter, who adopted him and who gave him his farm upon his marriage.
Irreligious in his youth, he underwent a sudden religious conversion after fathering an illegitimate child and spending a period of time in community exile, during which he worked for several years in iron mines. Upon returning he became profoundly religions and in turn married a deeply religious spouse. Upon the German invasion of Austria he openly opposed the Nazis and while he did serve in the German Army in 1940 he refused to take the Hitler oath. Called back into service in 1943 he refused combat duty, although he did offer to serve as a medic, which was ignored. He was ultimately died and executed on this day.
He was beatified in 2007.
The US signed a military assistance treaty with Ethiopia.
Archbishop Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, was expelled by the church and declared a traitor by the Communist dominated All Russian Church Council and declared "henceforth a simple citizen—Vasily Bellavin."
The body further declared:
Inasmuch as the Soviet Government is the only one in the whole world fighting capitalism, which is one of the seven deadly sins, therefore its struggle is a sacred struggle. The Council condemns the counterrevolutionary acts of Tikhon and his adherents, lifts the ban of excommunication he laid on the Soviet Government, and brands him as a traitor to the Church and to Russia. It hereby formally abolishes the office of Patriarch forever and establishes an annual Church Council as the supreme directive body in Church affairs.
The Russian Orthodox Church naturally did not recognize the move, and he continued to offer Devine Liturgy for the rest of his life, which at this point was not to be much longer. The Russian Orthodox Church has declared him to be a saint. The move by the All Russian Church Council lead to the establishment of a competing church, which died out in the 1940s. Of note, the establishment of competing government aligned churches is a common practice by authoritarian regimes. Communist China at one time established a rival church to the Catholic Church, aligned with the government, and Nazi Germany attempted to create an aligned Lutheran Church, although the German efforts failed.
The move would lead to a period of irregular leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church, which was unable to procedural choose a successor in the regular method for a period of time, after Tikhon's death.
Then Bishop Tikhon at the consecration of Anglican Bishop Reginald Heber Weller at St. Paul's Cathedral in the Episcopal Diocese of Fond du Lac. Also present are Anthony Kozlowski of the Polish National Catholic Church in what sort of amounts to an interesting collection of clerics either claiming Apostolic succession, in the case of the Anglican's, or actually having it in the case of the Russian Orthodox and Polish National Catholic Church, and yet not being in communion with Rome.
Tikhon had been a clergyman for a very long time, but had only been head of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1917. Earlier in his career he had been the Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, which became the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America, and was a naturalized American citizen. He was a participant, which is to say receptive, to the conversion of Byzantine Catholics into the Orthodox Church due to the ill feelings caused by Catholic Bishop John Ireland's view toward Eastern Rite Catholics comporting with the Latin Rite and Pope Pius X's restriction on Eastern Rite priests marrying, the latter which was later changed and the former which is recognized as a signficant mistake by Bishop Ireland.
The guest, early on, makes a comment about the beginning of the 20th Century, end of the 19th, and mentions "archeology was new". I thought I'd misheard that, but he mentioned it again, and added sociology.
He explained it, but it really hit me.
Archeology, and sociology, in fact, were new. Many academic disciplines were.
Indeed, that's something we haven't looked at here before. People talk all the time about the decline of the classic liberal education (at a time that very few people attended university), but when did modern disciplines really appear?
Indeed, that's part of what make a century ago, +, more like now, than prior to now. Educational disciplines, based on the scientific method in part, really began to expand.
So, we can take, for example, and find the University of Wyoming recognizable at the time of its founding in 1886.
But would Princeton, as it is now, be recognizable in 1786?
And interesting also how this effected everything, in this case, the Church's look at its liturgy.
But also, everything, really, about everything, for good and ill.
I no longer do, as the Mass I went to, daily, was cancelled.
In every Parish which is served by an attendant pastor, there is daily Mass. Locally, there are three parishes, and they all have a daily mass. Their schedules are:
Downtown:
6:30 a.m.
East:
9:00
West:
9:00.
And that's why I don't go to daily Mass.
9:00 a.m is a time guaranteed to wipe out any working person from attendance. If you have a job, you are not making it.
6:30 a.m. is pretty early in the morning.
Now, it could be argued that, well, anyone could make that.
Not hardly. Again, if you work, that means that you pretty much have to be prepared to go to your office by about 6:00 a.m. It's 5:35 a.m. as I start writing this, and I'm still trying to wake up from not getting enough sleep the night before, drinking my coffee.
Today, I have to shave, shower, put on my lawyer costume and head out the door prepared to take on the plethora of other people's problems I deal with every day. I'm not going to be able to do that, and make a 6:30 a.m. Mass.
I could make a noon Mass, and that's the daily Mass I used to attend.
I certainly wasn't alone, there were always others there. By and large, they were people who walked up from their offices or drove there. Working people who came on their lunch hour, skipping lunch,.
Indeed, I often notice, as I sometimes drive by when its getting out, that early morning attendees downtown have a sort of social schedule built into attendance at that Mass. Not all of them, by any means, but some.
And that's 100% okay.
What I mean is that I see them walking from Mass to a nearby café. They probably do that all the time. I don't have time, however, to engage in that sort of activity in the morning, and I probably wouldn't go to a café in the morning much if I did. I point that out, however, as the people who hiked up at noon were giving their lunches up, in some cases, just to be there. They were dedicated.
I fear, sometimes, that it's easy to forget the working folks. They don't say much, they just go to their jobs and back, and come on in on Sunday. They aren't retired, so they don't have time to get to a 9:00, and frankly a lot of them couldn't easily make a 6:30.
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Washut, Burkhart, Crago, Harshman and Olsen and Senator(s) Biteman, Hutchings, Kolb and Salazar
A BILL
foe
AN ACT relating to religious freedom; creating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; providing definitions; limiting specified governmental actions that burden religious freedom as specified; authorizing claims and defenses against governmental action that burden religious freedom as specified; providing exceptions; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 9‑25‑101 through 9‑25‑105 are created to read:
CHAPTER 25
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
ARTICLE 1
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT
9‑25‑101. Religious Freedom Restoration Act; short title.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Wyoming Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
9‑25‑102. Definitions.
(a) As used in this act:
(i) "Burden" means any action that intentionally either directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails or denies the exercise of religion by government action, including any person acting under the color of state law where the action is intended for that purpose, including, but not limited to:
(A) Withholding of benefits;
(B) Assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties;
(C) Exclusion from governmental programs; or
(D) Denial of access to governmental facilities.
(ii) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief;
(iii) "Government" means any department, agency, division, board, bureau, commission, council, authority, employee, official or other entity of this state or a political subdivision of this state, or a person acting under color of state law;
(iv) "Person" means any natural person, association, partnership, corporation, religious institution or other legal entity;
(v) "This act" means W.S. 9‑25‑201 through 9‑25‑205.
9‑25‑103. Limitation on government action; exception.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, government action, including action by any person acting under color of state law, shall not:
(i) Burden a person's right to the exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability;
(ii) Burden a person's right to the exercise of religion more restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of any economic need or benefit;
(iii) Burden a person's right to the exercise of religion more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk.
(b) Government may substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to that person's exercise of religion in that particular instance is:
(i) Essential to further a compelling government interest; and
(ii) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
9‑25‑104. Claims.
A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this act may have a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction and may obtain appropriate relief.
9‑25‑105. Provisions to be liberally construed.
Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize acts of licentiousness or practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state or its laws which protect the health and safety of the public.
At this moment of great responsibility, let us listen with special attention to what the Lord says to us in his own words. I would like to examine just a few passages from the three readings that concern us directly at this time.
The first one offers us a prophetic portrait of the person of the Messiah - a portrait that receives its full meaning from the moment when Jesus reads the text in the synagogue at Nazareth and says, "Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing" (Lk 4: 21).
At the core of the prophetic text we find a word which seems contradictory, at least at first sight. The Messiah, speaking of himself, says that he was sent "to announce a year of favour from the Lord and a day of vindication by our God" (Is 61: 2). We hear with joy the news of a year of favour: divine mercy puts a limit on evil, as the Holy Father told us. Jesus Christ is divine mercy in person: encountering Christ means encountering God's mercy.
Christ's mandate has become our mandate through the priestly anointing. We are called to proclaim, not only with our words but also with our lives and with the valuable signs of the sacraments, "the year of favour from the Lord".
But what does the prophet Isaiah mean when he announces "the day of vindication by our God"? At Nazareth, Jesus omitted these words in his reading of the prophet's text; he concluded by announcing the year of favour. Might this have been the reason for the outburst of scandal after his preaching? We do not know.
In any case, the Lord offered a genuine commentary on these words by being put to death on the cross. St Peter says: "In his own body he brought your sins to the cross" (I Pt 2: 24). And St Paul writes in his Letter to the Galatians: "Christ has delivered us from the power of the law's curse by himself becoming a curse for us, as it is written, "Accursed is anyone who is hanged on a tree'. This happened so that through Christ Jesus the blessing bestowed on Abraham might descend on the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, thereby making it possible for us to receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3: 13f.).
Christ's mercy is not a grace that comes cheap, nor does it imply the trivialization of evil. Christ carries the full weight of evil and all its destructive force in his body and in his soul. He burns and transforms evil in suffering, in the fire of his suffering love. The day of vindication and the year of favour converge in the Paschal Mystery, in the dead and Risen Christ. This is the vengeance of God: he himself suffers for us, in the person of his Son. The more deeply stirred we are by the Lord's mercy, the greater the solidarity we feel with his suffering - and we become willing to complete in our own flesh "what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ" (Col 1: 24).
Let us move on to the second reading, the letter to the Ephesians. Here we see essentially three aspects: first of all, the ministries and charisms in the Church as gifts of the Lord who rose and ascended into heaven; then, the maturing of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God as the condition and content of unity in the Body of Christ; and lastly, our common participation in the growth of the Body of Christ, that is, the transformation of the world into communion with the Lord.
Let us dwell on only two points. The first is the journey towards "the maturity of Christ", as the Italian text says, simplifying it slightly. More precisely, in accordance with the Greek text, we should speak of the "measure of the fullness of Christ" that we are called to attain if we are to be true adults in the faith. We must not remain children in faith, in the condition of minors. And what does it mean to be children in faith? St Paul answers: it means being "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4: 14). This description is very timely!
How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.
Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.
We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth.
We must develop this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith - only faith - that creates unity and is fulfilled in love.
On this theme, St Paul offers us as a fundamental formula for Christian existence some beautiful words, in contrast to the continual vicissitudes of those who, like children, are tossed about by the waves: make truth in love. Truth and love coincide in Christ. To the extent that we draw close to Christ, in our own lives too, truth and love are blended. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like "a clanging cymbal" (I Cor 13: 1).
Let us now look at the Gospel, from whose riches I would like to draw only two small observations. The Lord addresses these wonderful words to us: "I no longer speak of you as slaves.... Instead, I call you friends" (Jn 15: 15). We so often feel, and it is true, that we are only useless servants (cf. Lk 17: 10).
Yet, in spite of this, the Lord calls us friends, he makes us his friends, he gives us his friendship. The Lord gives friendship a dual definition. There are no secrets between friends: Christ tells us all that he hears from the Father; he gives us his full trust and with trust, also knowledge. He reveals his face and his heart to us. He shows us the tenderness he feels for us, his passionate love that goes even as far as the folly of the Cross. He entrusts himself to us, he gives us the power to speak in his name: "this is my body...", "I forgive you...". He entrusts his Body, the Church, to us.
To our weak minds, to our weak hands, he entrusts his truth - the mystery of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; the mystery of God who "so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (Jn 3: 16). He made us his friends - and how do we respond?
The second element Jesus uses to define friendship is the communion of wills. For the Romans "Idem velle - idem nolle" [same desires, same dislikes] was also the definition of friendship. "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (Jn 15: 14). Friendship with Christ coincides with the third request of the Our Father: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". At his hour in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus transformed our rebellious human will into a will conformed and united with the divine will. He suffered the whole drama of our autonomy - and precisely by placing our will in God's hands, he gives us true freedom: "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26: 39).
Our redemption is brought about in this communion of wills: being friends of Jesus, to become friends of God. The more we love Jesus, the more we know him, the more our true freedom develops and our joy in being redeemed flourishes. Thank you, Jesus, for your friendship!
The other element of the Gospel to which I wanted to refer is Jesus' teaching on bearing fruit: "It was I who chose you to go forth and bear fruit. Your fruit must endure" (Jn 15: 16).
It is here that appears the dynamism of the life of a Christian, an apostle: I chose you to go forth. We must be enlivened by a holy restlessness: a restlessness to bring to everyone the gift of faith, of friendship with Christ. Truly, the love and friendship of God was given to us so that it might also be shared with others. We have received the faith to give it to others - we are priests in order to serve others. And we must bear fruit that will endure.
All people desire to leave a lasting mark. But what endures? Money does not. Even buildings do not, nor books. After a certain time, longer or shorter, all these things disappear. The only thing that lasts for ever is the human soul, the human person created by God for eternity.
The fruit that endures is therefore all that we have sown in human souls: love, knowledge, a gesture capable of touching hearts, words that open the soul to joy in the Lord. So let us go and pray to the Lord to help us bear fruit that endures. Only in this way will the earth be changed from a valley of tears to a garden of God.
To conclude, let us return once again to the Letter to the Ephesians. The Letter says, with words from Psalm 68, that Christ, ascending into heaven, "gave gifts to men" (Eph 4: 8). The victor offers gifts. And these gifts are apostles, pro-phets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Our ministry is a gift of Christ to humankind, to build up his body - the new world. We live out our ministry in this way, as a gift of Christ to humanity!
At this time, however, let us above all pray insistently to the Lord that after his great gift of Pope John Paul II, he will once again give us a Pastor according to his own heart, a Pastor who will guide us to knowledge of Christ, to his love and to true joy. Amen.
So, as a result, it's the day which the Orthodox who follow the Julian calendar, which is not all of them, celebrate Christmas.
Emblem of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
In Ukraine, where the majority of Christians are in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which obtained autocephalous status on December 15, 2018, Metropolitan Epiphany, its head will lead a service in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra monastery for the first time since 1685. In that following year, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church fell under Moscow's authority. The Metropolitanate of Kyiv actually became an ordinary diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1722
This year, however, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church gave its members the option of celebrating Christmas on December 25, which became a widely discussed topic in Ukraine itself, where celebration of a civil Christmas on December 25 had already become widespread. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, an Easter Rite Catholic Church which is the largest Eastern Rite church in the world, apparently already did.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church's having obtained autocephalous status has been an odd backdrop to the war. The Russian Orthodox Church is the largest Eastern Orthodox Church in the world, and it has been one of the primary opponents to reunion with Rome. The relationship between the various Orthodox Churches is complicated on a legal basis, but generally the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as being the primus inter pares between the various autocephalous church's heads, although sometimes the Pope is also referred to in that fashion. He is regarded, generally, as having the power to accord autocephalous status, which at least from the outside is problematic as it would seem to suggest that he has a sort of superior authority which the Eastern Orthodox otherwise reject as to the Pope, even though they recognized early in their history. Anyhow, the granting of autocephalous status by the Ecumenical Patriarch was fiercely resisted by Moscow, and it has lead to a round of schisms. Moscow continues to deny that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is autocephalous, and one of the claims of Russians in the war is that they are defending Orthodoxy.
As for the United States, about 1,200,000 Americans are reported as being in an Eastern Orthodox Church. At least in Wyoming, most of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are Greek Orthodox, although they often have Russian Orthodox members and may be served by Priests who are from another branch of Orthodoxy. Gillette has an Antiochean Orthodox Church, which represents a congregation which converted from Protestant fundamentalism following an intense study of the early church.
At one time, I assumed that the entire globe had the same Catholic Holy Days of Obligation, but this is not true. No, not at all.
The United States has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Ascension of the Lord
Assumption of the Virgin Mary
All Saints' Day
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary
Christmas
In contrast, our immediate neighbor to the north, Canada, has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Christmas
What the heck? This seems rather light.
Mexico has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
The Body and Blood of Christ
Christmas
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Mexico is, of course, a Catholic country, but it has a history of anti-Catholic revolution, so that may explain it. We share two of its four, one of which we also share with Canada.
I think frankly Canada should receive a couple of more. Canada had its only sort of civil anti-Catholic revolution, quietly, which has made Quebec a mess, and perhaps an added Holy Day might be in order.
Having said that, Australia and New Zealand, which like Canada has a strong English history, also has only two. The United Kingdom, however, has more than that.
Likewise, which devolved a strong Lutheran influence after at first having a very lukewarm one (Scandinavians have forgotten that the Reformation wasn't really that keenly received there at first, and then foisted upon them by a Swedish King who probably didn't believe at all), has only two.
But them, Sweden has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Epiphany
Feast of the Ascension
Feast of Saints Peter and Paul
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
All Saints' Day
Christmas
That's more than the U.S. And Qatar has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Thomas the Apostle
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Birth of our Lady
Christmas
And even Saudi Arabia has the following:
Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Christmas
Serbia has only two, but it's mostly Orthodox. So is Ukraine, but it has the following:
Epiphany
Presentation of the Lord
Annunciation of the Holy Virgin Mary
Feast of the Ascension
Transfiguration of the Lord
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Presentation of Mary
Christmas
Ukraine, however, has a strong Eastern Rite Catholic tradition in its west, minority population though it is. Its Catholic population persevered through Communism, even though its adherents were compelled to attend Orthodox services, which they did, before going to secret Catholic ones later.
Venezuela, in contrast, has a Catholic heritage, but like Canada, has only two Holy Days of Obligation.
The total possible Holy Days of Obligation are, currently:
Placed in the order of the liturgical calendar, the ten days (apart from Sundays) that this canon mentions are:
8 December: Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
25 December: Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas)
1 January: Solemnity of Mary, the Holy Mother of God
6 January: Solemnity of the Epiphany of the Lord
19 March: Solemnity of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Thursday of the sixth week of Eastertide: Solemnity of the Ascension of the Lord
Thursday after Trinity Sunday: Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ (Feast of Corpus Christi)
29 June: Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, Apostles
15 August: Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
1 November: Solemnity of All Saints
That's ten.
Prior to 1911, the total possible was thirty-six. Then, as now, Bishops could reduce the number. Today, only Vatican City and the Swiss Diocese of Lugano observe all ten, although some Dioceses have added Holy Days not on it, such as Ireland, which as St. Patrick's Day, and Germany and Hungary which have Saint Stephen's Day on 26 December, Easter Monday, and Pentecost Monday.
Now the country has fewer than two.
And two seems too few to me.
The Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, I'd note, has the following:
The Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord (Christmas)
The Epiphany
The Ascension
The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul
The Dormition of Holy Mary, the Mother of God
Note, however, the situation in Ukraine. The Orthodox have a duty of worship on the following days, although what that means is not clear to me:
The Nativity of Our Lord, December 25
The Circumcision of Christ, January 1
Ascension Day, 40 Days after Pascha (Easter)
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15
All Saints Day, November 1
The Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8
In noting all of this, I feel a little bad and whiny about Holy Days, as I've often felt it a burden to get to Mass on them. But, in my defense, I've often not grasped why no noon Mass was offered for them in my Tri Parish locality. All in all, looking at it, I think we should add a couple to that six, and that the other country of which I am a citizen, ought to double the number of theirs.
Yes, it's a bit of a burden, and yes you stand out. But perhaps that's part of it.
This is an oddly controversial topic among a select group of people even today.
Catholic female factory workers attending a Palm Sunday Mass after getting off work, 1943.
I wasn't aware of the Church of England rule, nor why it was abolished at this point in time. That it existed, however, isn't surprising, as even though "High Church" Anglicans are critical of the Catholic Church in some ways, they very much lean into it as well. Indeed, attending a High Church Anglican service gives a glimpse of some of the things that existed in the Catholic Mass long ago, and most older Anglican Churches retain their alter rails.
At any rate, while this may surprise some, in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it was a custom, not a law, that women wear head coverings up until the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which required women to wear a head covering and precluded men from wearing hats in church. While this was the Canon Law, as of 1917, it was also the custom at the time as well, in any event. Also, contrary to what some may suppose, it was only the Latin Rite that imposed these conditions, not hte Catholic Church as a whole.
The 1917 Code remained in effect until 1983, when a new one was promulgated. The 1983 Code removed the requirement that women wear head coverings. By that time, however, the practice had fallen completely away in much of the Western World anyhow. I can't recall at all a time in which women generally wore head coverings in church, although a review of old photographs of weddings and the like shows that they certainly did well into the early 1960s. Perhaps they were a casualty of the trend towards ever-increasing informality in the west, or perhaps it was something that the "spirit" of Vatican II reforms brought about, or both.
Oddly, however, in recent years, in Catholic circles, it's seen a bit of a revival. There were always some who regarded female head coverings as Biblically mandated, citing St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians, in which he states, in part:
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife,and God the head of Christ.
Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head.
But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved.
For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.
A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord.
For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.h
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given [her] for a covering?
St. Paul is, truly, the most ignored Apostle and the one most likely to make almost everyone in the modern world uncomfortable. At any rate, some people have read this to mean that women must wear head coverings in church.
I'm not really qualified to comment on it, but I'd note that this was the subject of an article relatively recently in US Catholic, which stated, in part:
A hairy problem
Personally, I think it’s a no-brainer that the changes in the 1983 Canon gave us all freedom of choice about headgear. But a simple Google search convinces me this a matter that still isn’t settled in the minds of some Catholics.
Msgr. Charles Pope addressed this issue in a blog called “Community in Mission” on the Archdiocese of Washington’s website. It’s interesting that he calls the piece, dated May 19, 2010, “Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?” Like it’s still a matter of debate.
It’s even more interesting how he starts out: “Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter.”
While admitting that the church currently has “NO rule” on hat wearing, he offered his thoughts to “try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.” He explains that even before the 1917 mandate, it was customary in most places for women to wear some kind of head covering.
He also tries to explain how the church got tangled up with this hat stuff in the first place. The reasoning is not easy to understand. He points to tradition and custom as well as feminine humility and submission.
I’m not weighing in on this one; I’ll defer to Msgr. Pope. He notes that in biblical times Jewish women often wore veils or mantillas in public worship. This custom got carried over to the New Testament by virtue of St. Paul’s letters, particularly 1 Corinthians 11:1–11, which takes up the topic of head coverings for women and men:
“For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.”
Msgr. Pope calls this a “complicated passage” with “some unusual references,” and goes on to say that Paul sets forth four arguments in it as to why a woman should cover her head. “Argument 1—Paul clearly sees the veil as a sign of her submission to her husband.” A second argument, based on custom or accepted tradition, is pretty straight forward and reasonable. Don’t ask me to explain the two remaining “arguments.” Even Pope concedes that Paul’s claims in the passage—that women should wear veils “because of the angels” and “nature”—are more “difficult references to understand.”
Heading forward
So who knows? Whether it was due to custom, a fascination with Victorian mores, or thinly-veiled patriarchy, the fact remains: After centuries of ignoring the matter, the church decided to codify regulations on head coverings in 1917 and to say nothing about them when it changed its own rules in 1983. For 66 years, milliners had a good run.
Of course, with the women’s liberation movement, most women had stopped wearing hats to church anyway. The whole idea of covering the head was a sign that had lost its meaning and even taken on a negative connotation in mainstream society. Besides, in the 1970s, in a document titled Inter Insigniores (On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already linked wearing chapel veils with customs that were “scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance” and obligations that “no longer have a normative value.” The 1983 Code change just put the nail in the coffin.
Of course, some may still beg to differ. You have to wonder why church leaders like Cardinal Burke and Msgr. Pope would even feel the need to take up this issue. Chalk it up to the fact that old habits die hard and no one likes change but a wet baby. Today, traditional Catholic blogs advocate not only a return to the Latin Mass but pre-Vatican II accouterments like vintage attire for priests and nuns. Could a push for veils in the pews be the next big thing?
I wouldn’t bet on it.
I wouldn't either.
Let's take a look at the Msgr blog entry. It states:
Should Women Cover Their Heads in Church?
Now be of good cheer. This blog post is meant to be a light-hearted discussion of this matter. The bottom line is that the Church currently has NO rule on this matter and women are entirely free to wear a veil or a hat in Church or not.
I thought I’d blog on this since it came up in the comments yesterday and it occurred to me that it might provoke an interesting discussion. But again this is not meant to be a directive discussion about what should be done. Rather an informative discussion about the meaning of head coverings for women in the past and how such customs might be interpreted now. We are not in the realm of liturgical law here just preference and custom.
What I’d like to do is to try and understand the meaning and purpose of a custom that, up until rather recently was quite widespread in the Western Church.
With the more frequent celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, the use of the veil is also becoming more common. But even at the Latin Masses I celebrate, women exhibit diversity in this matter. Some wear the longer veil (mantilla) others a short veil. Others wear hats. Still others wear no head covering at all.
History – the wearing of a veil or hat for women seems to have been a fairly consistent practice in the Church in the West until fairly recently. Practices in the Eastern and Orthodox Churches have varied. Protestant denominations also show a wide diversity in this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law in the Catholic Church mandated that women wear a veil or head covering. Prior to 1917 there was no universal Law but it was customary in most places for women to wear some sort of head covering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law made no mention of this requirement and by the 1980s most women, at least here in America, had ceased to wear veils or hats anyway. Currently there is no binding rule and the custom in most places is no head covering at all.
Scripture – In Biblical Times women generally wore veils in any public setting and this would include the Synagogue. The clearest New Testament reference to women veiling or covering their head is from St. Paul:
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering? But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:1-11)
This is clearly a complicated passage and has some unusual references. Paul seems to set forth four arguments as to why a woman should wear a veil.
1. Argument 1 – Paul clearly sees the veil a woman wears as a sign of her submission to her husband. He also seems to link it to modesty since his references to a woman’s hair cut short were references to the way prostitutes wore their hair and his reference to a shaved head was the punishment due an adultress. No matter how you look at it such arguments aren’t going to encourage a lot of women to wear a veil today. It is a true fact that the Scriptures consistently teach that a wife is to be submitted to her husband. I cannot and will not deny what God’s word says even though it is unpopular. However I will say that the same texts that tell a woman to be submitted tell the husband to have a great and abiding love for his wife. I have blogged on this “difficult” teaching on marriage elsewhere and would encourage you to read that blog post if you’re troubled or bothered by the submission texts. It is here: An Unpopular Teaching on Marriage. That said, it hardly seems that women would rush today to wear veils to emphasize their submission to their husband.
2. Argument 2 – Regarding the Angels– Paul also sees a reason for women to wear veils “because of the angels.” This is a difficult reference to understand. There are numerous explanations I have read over the years. One of the less convincing ones is that the angels are somehow distracted by a woman’s beauty. Now the clergy might be 🙂 but it just doesn’t seem likely to me that the angels would have this problem. I think the more convincing argument is that St. Paul has Isaiah in mind who wrote: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they veiled their faces, with two they veiled their feet, and with two they hovered aloft.(Is 6:2-3). Hence the idea seems to be that since the angels veil their faces (heads) it is fitting for women to do the same. But then the question, why not a man too? And here also Paul supplies an aswer that is “difficult” for modern ears: A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. In other words a man shares God’s glory immediately whereas a woman does as well but derivatively for she was formed from Adam’s wounded side. Alas this argument too will not likely cause a run on veil sales.
3. Argument 3 – The argument from “nature” – In effect Paul argues that since nature itself veils a woman with long hair and this is her glory that this also argues for her covering her head in Church. What is not clear is that, if nature has already provided this covering, why then should she cover her covering? I want to take up this notion of glory in my conclusion.
4. Argument 4- The Argument from Custom– This argument is pretty straight-forward: Paul says it is customary for a woman to cover her head when praying and, other things being equal, this custom should be followed. Paul goes on to assert that those who insist on doing differently are being “argumentative.” In effect he argues that for the sake of good order and to avoid controversy the custom should be followed. However, in calling it a custom, the text also seems to allow for a time like ours where the custom is different. Customs have stability but are not usually forever fixed. Hence, though some argue that wearing veils is a scriptural norm that women “must” follow today, the use of the word custom seems to permit of the possibility that it is not an unvarying norm we are dealing with here. Rather, it is a custom from that time that does not necessarily bind us today. This of course seems to be how the Church understands this text for she does not require head coverings for her daughters.
Conclusions –
1. That women are not required to wear veils today is clear in terms of Church Law. The argument that the Church is remiss in not requiring this of her daughters is hard to sustain when scriptures attach the word “custom” to the practice.
2. I will say however that I like veils and miss women wearing them. When I was a boy in the 1960s my mother and sister always wore their veils and so did all women in those days and I remember how modestly beautiful I found them to be. When I see women wear them today I have the same impression.
3. That said, a woman does not go to Church to please or impress me.
4. It is worth noting that a man is still forbidden to wear a hat in Church. If I see it I go to him and ask him to remove it. There a partial exception to the clergy who are permitted to wear birettas and to bishops who are to wear the miter. However, there are strict rules in this regard that any head cover is to be removed when they go to the altar. Hence, for men, the rule, or shall we say the custom, has not changed.
5. Argument 5 – The Argument from Humility – This leads me then to a possible understanding of the wearing of the veil for women and the uncovered head for the men that may be more useful to our times. Let’s call it The Argument from Humility.
For both men and women, humility before God is the real point of these customs. In the ancient world as now, women gloried in their hair and often gave great attention to it. St. Paul above, speaks of a woman’s hair as her glory. As a man I am not unappreciative of this glory. Women do wonderful things with their hair. As such their hair is part of their glory and, as St. Paul says it seems to suggest above it is appropriate to cover our glory before the presence of God.
As for men, in the ancient world and to some lesser extent now, hats often signified rank and membership. As such men displayed their rank and membership in organizations with pride in the hats they wore. Hence Paul tells them to uncover their heads and leave their worldly glories aside when coming before God. Today men still do some of this (esp. in the military) but men wear less hats in general. But when they do they are often boasting of allegiances to sports teams and the like. Likewise, some men who belong to fraternal organizations such as the various Catholic Knights groups often display ranks on their hats. We clergy do this as well to some extent with different color poms on birettas etc. Paul encourages all this to be left aside in Church. As for the clergy, though we may enter the Church with these ranked hats and insignia, we are to cast them aside when we go to the altar. Knights organizations are also directed to set down their hats when the Eucharistic prayer begins.
I do not advance this argument from humility to say women ought to cover their heads, for I would not require what the Church does not. But I offer the line of reasoning as a way to understand veiling in a way that is respectful of the modern setting, IF a woman chooses to use the veil. Since this is just a matter of custom then we are not necessarily required to understand its meaning in exactly the way St. Paul describes. Submission is biblical but it need not be the reason for the veil. Humility before God seems a more workable understanding especially since it can be seen to apply to both men and women in the way I have tried to set it forth.
There are an amazing number of styles when it comes to veils and mantillas: Mantillas online
This video gives some other reasons why a woman might wear a veil. I think it does a pretty good job of showing some of the traditions down through the centuries. However I think the video strays from what I have presented here in that it seems to indicate that women ought to wear the veil and that it is a matter of obedience. I do not think that is what the Church teaches in this regard. There can be many good reasons to wear the veil but I don’t think we can argue that obedience to a requirement is one of them.
As noted, I'm not qualified to opine on this, and I'm loath to not take St. Paul at his word, but in some ways what I think St. Paul is instructing on here is simply to "dress decent". That changes, quite frankly, over time, and varies by culture.
Indeed, on this, I heard awhile back an interview of an Easter Rite icon painter who was disturbed by the rich Renaissance art in Latin Rite churches. His view was that the paintings bordered on indecency (well, he thought they were indecent but was too polite to say so) as seeing the naked or mostly naked body of a woman was strictly limited to her spouse. St. Paul is saying something that's sort of in the same ballpark, a bit. Having lived through the wrecking ball of the late 70s and early 80s in clothing standards, I can get that, as there was a time in there in which I'd see clothing at Mass that was occasionally indecent. It might be the case that St. Paul is instructing people not to put themselves on display, and as recently as a few months ago I was at a Mass at which an attractive young woman with very long hair was constantly addressing it, for lack of a better way to state it.
No, she wasn't being indecent. Yes, it was hard not to notice, but not in an indecent way.
Anyhow, as the articles above note, veils and even rarely hats at Mass are making a little bit of a comeback, but when you see them, they're making, usually, a bit of a statement. The women wearing them is usually some sort of Catholic Traditionalist. That can be a bit distracting in its own right, but I don't mean to criticize it either.
Indeed, again by way of an example, some time ago I attended an early Holy Day Mass in which two young women, either on their way to work, or maybe to school, sat in front of me. One was very well turned out, but in a modern fashion. A nice wool seater paired with a nice leather skirt. She was wearing what we call inaccurately a veil. Her friend in contrast was wearing jeans, etc. The veiled young woman also cut, in her apparel, an attractive presence.
Where am I going with this?
Well, nowhere really. I'm just noting another clothing change here that's taken place over time, the second in one day, really.
Before closing, I'd note that the "veil" or "chapel veil" is a "mantilla". I know that my mother had some, as all Catholic women did. No idea what happened to them.
A friend of mine actually recent got his wife, a convert from the Baptist faith, one. He was asking me about it at the time, and I had no advice of any kind. I don't know where you get them, etc. He wasn't sure how she would take it, and I never followed up to find out.
By the way, my wife wouldn't wear a veil at church. No way.
Also, back when head coverings were required, mantillas weren't required, just a head covering. I recall my grandmother wearing a hat, usually of the pillbox type, and occasionally my mother doing so as well.
