The Woman clothed with the Sun.

The Church in general: Pope Francis

The liturgy in particular: I don't know if it's the internet or what but priests, many not that young, are implementing reform of the reform principles popular on forums like this. I went to a weekday OF Mass last week where a priest in his 40's used the Roman Canon with thumb and index fingers together. The trend is clear.

Families.
Mothers and fathers who love the Lord, are catechized well, and are generous and responsible as regards welcoming and educating children.


The homeschool movement in particular is fostering strong family bonds and classical methods of life-long learning and thinking for oneself. The more our culture drifts from God, the more vital independent, creative thinking and well-formed conscience formation will become. Homeschool families are uniquely poised to offer strong formation in the faith.


Of course homeschool can't work for everyone and isn't the only way to keep the faith. Still, it is a movement that is, overall, bearing much hopeful fruit in lots of parishes with active families.

There is a relatively young priest near here who serves as the campus priest for very large university. He is friendly and funny, and has been attracting record numbers of students back to the Church. The one biggest draw? He minces no words. He tells them what is right and wrong. He exhorts them to come to confession. Etc. In short, he actually teaches them what the Church teaches. No shortcuts. No pandering.

The Church's actual teachings are our best hope. When they are taught honestly and fervently, young people, especially, listen, and they know the truth.

Pope Francis' willingness to discuss the discipline of a solely celibate Roman clergy, and the possibility of ordaining married men to a dedicated apostolate of liturgical clergy.

The Resurrection of Jesus

This.

And what MaryAnn said.

The promises of Our Lady of Fatima.

the possibility of ordaining married men to a dedicated apostolate of liturgical clergy.

I rest my case.

Don't try to figure out mellow Charles. You will go nuts trying. LOL.

As for married clergy, we have had married priests in the east since apostolic times. It isn't a cure all for everything that ails the church, but it doesn't cause any noticeable harm, either. Of course, bishops may never marry, but they are monastics in the east so they wouldn't marry in the first place. The Latins could allow married priests. No dogmas would be sacrificed since it is a matter of discipline not doctrine.

I'm not against a married priesthood, especially in regions short on vocations but they bring significant challenges. You'll inevitably end up with some scandalous divorces. You can restrict official compensation but what if you're a parishioner who works with, for, or employs the priest outside the parish? Or his wife or children?

Charles,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm glad I asked.

Cheers,

Chris

Fatima promises

Another 'single most hopeful sign' is a certain priest charged with the formation of seminarians at St Mary's Seminary here in Houston. I shant mention his name because he might prefer not to be singled out. He can (and loves to) sing every single last word of the mass in Latin or in English, including the Roman canon. His preaching is exemplary. He is a frequent visitor to Walsingham (which is about two miles away) and loves Anglican ways. He is as orthodox as one could be, has an indeflectable enthusiasm for the best in liturgy and knows that liturgy is THE crucible which, ultimately, defines and expresses what we really believe.

Other such priests are our very own ordinary, our rector, and our residential priests at Walsingham. No doubt their numbers could be swelled greatly by others known to many on this, our forum.

Oh! And let me not forget Daniel Cardinal DiNardo.

There are always 'single most hopeful signs' where and when the Holy Ghost is active in lay and clerk. Has there ever been a time in the Church's history in which reform and correction of one thing or another was not needed? I think not. Never: not ever! One of the greatest obstacles to genuine reform is the countless numbers who believe that everything was perfect the way it was when they were born... or maybe a hundred or a few hundred years ago. Every age is the same.

It is our lot to endure history's most awful liturgical abuse. Would we rather have the king (or the state, or the local m'lord) choosing and investing our bishops and abbots? Would we rather have emperors choosing even popes? Would we rather have popes' children being made cardinals? Would we rather have archbishoprics being sold to the highest bidder? How about an abbot going into battle at the head of a tank division cavalry brigade in gold-plated armour? (But they all had good music.) Would we, if we could have been who we are, have been indifferent to the slaughter of Albigensians, or have thought it great sport to watch men being burnt at the stake for translating the Bible, or being Jewish, or....; perhaps we would prefer to take on the Arians? Would we rather have attended mass in XIXth century Italy listening to the drums and cymbals on Italian organs, or figuring out that one was really not supposed to giggle at the awful crooning of the Sistine chapel choir? (If you can imagine, it was far worse then than it is now - I've heard recordings.) Do you have any idea how wretched most chant sounded like in most places four generations ago? There really is no end to it. One might even conclude that one of the very greatest 'single most hopeful signs' is that we have overcome, that we have endured, and that our faith, hope, and charity are intact, our love of God and neighbour is alive and fruitful, and that the sun will rise upon our efforts.

There are always 'single most hopeful signs' - and there is always a need for them, especially when things seem to be perfect. And, when all seems rotten, there is always healthy flesh to be had. Deo gratias! ('He watching over Israel slumbers not nor sleeps.')

As to good stuff, I think that word is getting out, and people are starting to understand that they've been denied the vast treasuries of sacred music, and especially the chants that are inherent to the mass.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I'm really glad of the prophetic reading being introduced in the OF. Typology is one of the coolest things ever, and seeing how the NT is hidden in the Old at Mass is beautiful. I also really like the NT Canticles in Vespers of the Office. I mean, Pius V removed the Benedictus and added the Magnificat into Vespers, and these additions don't seem any more arbitrary.

I also am glad of the rearrangement of and return to more ancient chant texts. For instance, the Deus In Loco Sancto Suo at nuptial masses, which speaks to a deep, theological truth of marriage. On the other hand, I much prefer the old Tantum Ergo and Vexilla Regis texts and melodies. But they're options, so it's good.

Beyond that, the increasing understanding of the mutual enrichment of the two Forms of the Roman Rite. I'm especially excited by everything Cardinal Sarah has said about the Liturgy.

Quite right, on the personal letters. But does the Canon Lawyer in the dicastery know less about interpreting Canon Law than Dr. Peters? The letter was issued in consultation with the CDF, so it kind of becomes the old, "is Dr. Peter's more Catholic than the CDF?" It is a change within the praxis of the Roman Church, but that doesn't disqualify it.

Moreover, the prospective deacons wife does have to give her consent to his ordination, precisely because it affects her marital rights.

The thing is, resolving to observe unequivocal abstinence in a marriage is an impossibility that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, as contrary as trying to dissolve a valid marriage. The spouses simply cannot deny each other their conjugal rights. So the stipulation of the wife's consent cannot refer to consenting to complete continence, because it cannot defer her marital rights. Normally, this is part of the nature of the impediment of a married man to the priesthood, perhaps even the principal part, for Canon 207 would conflict with the pre-existing and indissoluble obligations of his marriage. Canon 1042 should be taken to mean that deacons are allowed to become ordained in a way that is not in conflict with their pre-existing obligations. Furthermore, such "simple impediments" as marriage may be dispensed by the Apostolic See, according to Canon 1043, as is the case with married men ordained to the presbytery.

I think Dr. Peters raises a reasonable question, but I don't think it merits any more deliberation. You can certainly disagree with me, but I no longer feel any need to worry about the problem when it is viewed in light of Church teaching as a whole. I struggled with this question much because of the longing for the diaconate along with a certainty of a call to marriage, and a feeling that I could not do the former in view of the later, as I would be violating my conscience. But I no longer see any reason to worry, and I will happily apply to the permanent diaconate, God-willing, in 14 years time.

Yes, you're quite right, you can renounce your marital rights, but you can't unequivocally renounce your spouses. If either of them changes their mind at any time, the other must still accede and give their spouse their due. This stipulation cannot be given up. So conjugal rights can be given up in theory, but the option for either party to end the abstinence cannot be denied, meaning there is always the possibility that the abstinence will end.

@francis, I think I've asked this of you before, are you a fellow member of the Blue Army?

I'm starting to get why Cardinal Burke said Canon Law is not for the faint of heart!

Starting from Scripture, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." (I Corinthians 7:4-5, RSVCE)

St. John Chrysostom (my favorite Church Father) affirms this in his homily on this scripture. "Now what is the meaning of the due honor? The wife has not power over her own body; but is both the slave and the mistress of the husband. And if you decline the service which is due, you have offended God. But if you wish to withdraw yourself, it must be with the husband's permission, though it be but a for short time. For this is why he calls the matter a debt, to show that no one is master of himself but that they are servants to each other."

The SSPX even affirm that to withhold the conjugal debt is a serious sin, unless there is a serious reason.
http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#marriagedebt

"Can. 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which by its nature is perpetual and exclusive."

"Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life."

Because of the perpetual and exclusive nature of Marriage, and the fact that each spouse has "equal duty and right" to the marital debt, amongst other things, those in "ratum et consumatum" Marriage cannot separate or deny each other their marital duties and rights under normal circumstances (spouses may, of course, separate if one is adulterous or abusive, as is dealt with in Can. 1152-3).

However, "Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling." It is possible for a ratified, but unconsummated marriage to be dissolved by the Pope, and this is probably how couples could separate and join religious orders in the current state of the Church and her understanding of marriage. This wasn't necessarily always the case, as the Church's understanding of Marriage has grown.

A married Cleric's first vocation and first obligation is his marriage and wife, and to impose a disciplinary (not moral) restriction on his primary duty isn't in accord with Church teaching.

After talking to the same professor again, as well as another who takes more of Dr. Peter's side, I'm inclined to think that yes, the wording is ambiguous, and it should be revised. In the meantime, however, because of the ambiguity and the fact that the older tradition of married, non-celibate clergy in the East may be appropriated by the Roman Church, and that it's clear that when the permanent diaconate was not intended to be celibate when it was reinstituted, we should follow the bishops on the matter, and the dicastery has stated that this is not what is intended by canon law. My professor suggested that the issue should be taken up with one's Ordinary if they are discerning the Permanent Diaconate and are concerned.

So, does anyone have Cardinal Burke's email address so we can ask him.