Deaths: Gerry Marsden (Gerry and the Pacemakers); Tanya Roberts; Gregory Sierra; Tommy Lasorda; Phil Spector; Don Sutton; Hank Aaron; Hal Holbrook; Larry King; Bruce Kirby; Cloris Leachman.
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival." Winston Churchill, May 13, 1940
Friday, December 31, 2021
Over and Done: 2021
Deaths: Gerry Marsden (Gerry and the Pacemakers); Tanya Roberts; Gregory Sierra; Tommy Lasorda; Phil Spector; Don Sutton; Hank Aaron; Hal Holbrook; Larry King; Bruce Kirby; Cloris Leachman.
Wednesday, December 29, 2021
Random Observations at Year's End
Saturday, December 25, 2021
Thursday, December 23, 2021
To Excommunicate the Whole Church
Friday, December 17, 2021
Yes, Pope Benedict Did Abdicate
Would we even be talking about this if the 2013 papal conclave had given us another Gregory the Great? Somehow I doubt it. But the 2013 conclave did not give us another Gregory the Great, and so here we are, talking about this.
There is no specific required form for a papal abdication. It should therefore be sufficient for the Pope to make clear his intention. Did Pope Benedict sufficiently express the intent to abdicate?
From the Declaratio of Pope Benedict addressed to the consistory of February 11, 2013:
For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
The intent to abdicate the throne of Peter, such that a conclave must be convened to elect a new Pope, seems pretty clearly stated.
From the last General Audience of Pope Benedict, St. Peter's Square, February 27, 2013:
I ask you to remember me in prayer before God, and above all to pray for the Cardinals, who are called to so weighty a task, and for the new Successor of the Apostle Peter: may the Lord accompany him with the light and strength of his Spirit....
...I will continue to accompany the Church with my prayers, and I ask each of you to pray for me and for the new Pope....
Yes, elsewhere in this General Audience he talks about sorta kinda not completely divorcing himself from the papacy, possibly pursuant to some modernism-tainted notions about the papacy; but he pretty clearly refers here to a conclave to choose a new Pope, and he refers also to the new Pope, who obviously will not be himself. There is really no other way to interpret this.
And, the killa dilla, from the Farewell Address of Pope Benedict to the Cardinals, February 28, 2013:
Before I say goodbye to each one of you personally, I would like to tell you that I shall continue to be close to you with my prayers, especially in these coming days, that you may be completely docile to the action of the Holy Spirit in the election of the new pope. May the Lord show you the one whom he wants. And among you, in the College of Cardinals, there is also the future pope to whom today I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience. For this reason, with affection and gratitude, I cordially impart to you the Apostolic Blessing.
So here, Pope Benedict refers to:
- The upcoming conclave;
- The election of a new Pope, not himself;
- The future Pope, not himself;
- The reverence and obedience that he promises to the future new Pope -- obedience that Benedict would not owe to any man if he were to continue as Pope.
By this series of outward signs, spread out over a period of weeks, the reasonable conclusion would seem to be that Pope Benedict XVI validly abdicated. At that point, a conclave was convoked, which conclave elected Jorge Bergoglio, whom the Church peacefully, if apprehensively, accepted as the new Pontiff, and there have been no other serious claimants to the Throne of Peter since then.
Could I be wrong about this? Of course. I can even sympathize with the desire to look upon Pope Francis as an antipope, because that would certainly make him a lot easier to cope with. But (a) I am going by the evidence as it stands right now, guided by common sense, and (b) I do not have the ability to pass a final judgment on this issue anyway, so (c) God is not going to send me to hell for being wrong on this if I am wrong, which means (d) nobody has the right to tell me I am blaspheming for refusing to accept the contrary.
There is another possibility, namely, that Pope Francis was validly elected but forfeited his office due to heresy and schism. A number of theologians, including saints, have speculated about this possibility, but the Church has never defined what is to be done in this situation. All we can say for certain is that, beyond doubling down on prayer and penance, this problem lies far beyond the competency of Joe Pewsitter to deal with. A future Pope will have to tackle this.
So yes, I am afraid things really have gotten that bad in the Church, that such a man as we now have on the Throne of Peter could actually be the true Pope. The reality is that he is a typical cleric of his generation; and once we raised up such a generation, it was only ever a question of time before we got one like him as Pope. So we have to hold fast to the promises of our Lord, and remember that, however close to the abyss the Holy Ghost may allow the Church to teeter, He will never let her fall in.
Wednesday, December 08, 2021
Potuit, Decuit, Ergo Fecit
A self-professed ex-Catholic turned non-denominational once commented on this blog:
Mary had to have sinned. She called Jesus "my Savior" and what is Jesus the Savior for? Sinners. She had sinned. And there is no biblical evidence for her having no sin.
God can do the impossible (as distinct from the absurd) more rapidly and easily than we can blink our eyes or draw a breath. It was perfectly within His power to preserve Mary free from the taint of sin from the instant of her Conception. This singular privilege of His grace was purchased for her by the limitless merits of Christ's suffering and death on the Cross. God, not bound by the constraints of time or space, was perfectly capable of applying these merits beforehand and granting this privilege in advance of the Crucifixion. Thus God really was Mary's Savior, and did not need her to sin in order to be her Savior: His intervention to prevent her from receiving the taint of sin that she would otherwise have contracted as a descendant of Adam was also a salvific act. Have you never been prevented from committing sins, by being deprived of means or opportunity, or because you have never experienced the temptation to commit particular sins? These are also interventions of God's grace. So you should know from experience that God saves us, not only by forgiving sins we have actually committed, but also by preventing us from committing sins we would otherwise have committed, perhaps to our eternal ruin. Why, then, should it be so hard to accept that God, out of the abyss of His goodness and mercy, could exercise His infinite power to prevent the Mother of His Son from being tainted by the least stain of iniquity from the very instant she began to exist?
It is altogether fitting that God should preserve Mary inviolate and immaculate from the first instant of her life. God always gives us the grace we need to do the work He gives us: the greater the work, the greater the grace given to carry it out. Was ever a more important mission given to a mere human being than that entrusted to Mary? To fulfill it, she had to be able to give herself completely and unreservedly to God at every instant of her life, which she could not do if she were hobbled by sin. It was her task to supply the matter out of which the all-holy Son of God would take flesh, to bear Him in her womb, to nurse Him and to rear Him to manhood, and to share in her soul in the agonies of His Passion. This touches on a point raised by my correspondent in a follow-up comment:
Here my correspondent, though off the rails in the implications for the importance of Jesus, hits on an important truth. Mary did in fact suffer with her divine Son in her soul, more than any other human being could have. The saints (e.g., St. Alphonsus Liguori) are of the opinion that her sufferings were greater than that of all other men who have ever lived or will ever live put together, and that only a miracle kept her from dying of grief. This is why Catholics honor her under the titles of Mother of Sorrows and Queen of Martyrs: only her Son's sufferings exceeded hers. When she presented her Son in the Temple, holy Simeon prophesied that a sword would pierce her soul, that out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed (Luke 2:35). It makes sense that she should bear so great a share in her Son's Passion: not only was she his loving mother; she was also fully aware that He was God, and therefore of the horrible outrage that He should be murdered by His own creatures. Moreover, would it have been possible for her to suffer entirely for his sake and not at all for her own if she herself had had a share in the sins that caused Him to be nailed to the Cross? Still, this share of hers in Christ's suffering does not in any way diminish Him. Jesus was the perfect Sacrifice not only because He was without blemish, but because He was God. Mankind had outraged the infinite God, and therefore it would take infinite merits to repair the outrage; these could only be offered by the Son of God.Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for dying for our sins because He was without blemish. If Mary had no blemish either, that would pretty much validate her for crucifixion too. Which would make Jesus less important.
If you do not accept the Immaculate Conception, then I am bound to ask you why you would want the Mother of God to have been a sinner. Is this not tantamount to wanting an unworthy vessel for the Incarnate God? Is it also not tantamount to hoping that there is no creature capable, within the limits of creatures, of giving God a worthy return of gratitude for mankind's redemption? How can you say you love God if you want His Mother to have been at any time under the dominion of satan? Does it make sense for the woman entrusted with bearing and caring for and suffering alongside the Son of God to have spent even a single instant under the dominion of hell? No: especially when you consider that the Woman of Genesis 3:15, between whom and the serpent God put enmity is none other than the Mother of God, and her Seed is none other than Jesus Christ:
Here is scriptural proof of the Immaculate Conception. If God creates perfect and implacable enmity between the Woman and the serpent -- and surely it is unthinkable that if God creates enmity between the Mother of God and evil, this enmity will be imperfect and half-hearted -- then it follows that she could never be under the serpent's sway, or in allegiance with him, as she must be if she had sinned. Thus it was fitting for God to preserve her without sin from the very beginning.I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
Since it was perfectly possible for God to preserve Mary free from sin from the moment of her conception, and it was fitting that He should do so, it follows that He in fact did do so. It would be a gross omission on God's part, and incompatible with His infinite perfection, if He should leave undone that which was fitting. Therefore, we may safely take it that He did not leave it undone.
Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit! He could; it was fitting; therefore, He did it!
Mary, Queen Conceived without Original Sin, You DID Know.
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Mary did you know that your baby boy will one day walk on water?
Mary did you know that your baby boy will save our sons and daughters?
Did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new?
This child that you've delivered, will soon deliver you.
Tuesday, December 07, 2021
Eighty December 7ths Ago