Avoiding the Rupturists Agenda on Amoris laetitia

Liberals are getting angry about Amoris laetitia, according to Joanna Redman, (Tablet and Guardian) who the BBC got to voice the progressive, rupture, conflict stance: good Pope Francis was held back by evil old men in the Vatican, who want to oppress women, gays, the divorced and remarried. It is not position any sensible or orthodox Catholic would want to get into.


Amoris Laetitia, has its problems, but let's not follow the liberal agenda and talk up either its problems or its importance.
Any sensible reading of this not very important and non-magisterial document must stress the importance of placing it in the light of the Church's tradition, of its Magisterium and of documents of greater weight, but most of all in a Spirit of Continuity not of Rupture. Having praised its stance on gay marriage, on transgenderism, on its support for life-long monogamous marriage, on the rights of parents, on its openness to life, etc etc, and that the Holy Father is Catholic and not some crazed lunatic who wants to ally himself with the anti-Christ, only then should we point out that Pope Francis is perhaps not one of the greatest Thomist scholars and might actually have misunderstood the Church's teaching, perhaps that he seems to be a bit deaf to advice and that Catholics certainly should treat his teaching with respect but it is not infallible, and is in the words of the Holy Father himself not in any sense binding.

One might then point out that the Holy Father, in the words of Ms Redman, is a like a kindly, old, much loved parish priest, but whose heart tends to rule his head. What we should never do is take up the agenda of the Rupturists, a more precise and less 'soft' name for Liberals, that this document changes everything, that is simply not Catholic.

God Bless Our Pope (his successors and predecessors).

Amoris Laetitia‬ and truth

I know I shouldn't read emails before Mattins but I do. This morning I was a bit surprised to find I had been sent from three sources, not people I actually know, a PDF of the embargoed Papal Exhortation, all three were the English translation, which would indicate a common source. Later, when I had finished Lauds, a friend, and then journalist also wanted to discuss the document, they too had received the document, so much for Papal secrets.

It doesn't strike me as being a terribly interesting document, perhaps the difference with this exhortation, is the way in which it has been given to the press, and most especially the way in which the press has been prepared for it before hand. Most papal exhortations have already been forgotten, I think I am the only priest in my diocese to take seriously Pope Benedict's exhorting us to retain the use of the communion plate, for example. The very length of this document is a source of confusion, search and you will find what you will, oh for the day when papal documents were brief and clear, rather than of manifesto proportions. Whilst dictators speeches dragged on for page after page, Popes could say something revolutionary in a brief address.

Others will provide an analysis but I fear that as Fr Zuhlsdorf points out people will interpret it according to their preferences, either positively or negatively, but for many it will make no difference, who will wade through its two hundred pages? The bottom line is that those who shouldn't receive communion will still come up and do so, it is the pastoral reality of Catholic life today. And yet the document itself tells us that doctrine and pastoral practice are to be interpreted according to culture. This, if Cardinal Kasper was right, is revolutionary character of Amoris Laetitia‬; since Nicea the Church has sought to bring into unity, now that seems to be reversed, time will tell.

I think the crisis in the Church is one of integrity. Benedict interpreted it as a crisis of the disintegration of the liturgy, following the idea that we believe what we say and do in the liturgy, lex credendi lex orandi. It stems of course from the 2nd Commandment,  that if we keep Holy the name of God, nothing we do in the name of God should be trivial or false, that our "yes means yes and no means no". The ending of our  prayers, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ ..." turns them into a sacred oath. Lies and obfuscation have no place in the Christian life. There must be something very different in way Christians speak, most especially bishops and priests, Christ after all spoke with authority, unlike the religious and political leaders of his day. His words were witnessed to by God himself, the Father and the Spirit witness to Him as the Truth. It is as the Truth that Pilate is incapable of recognising Him, and therefore as the Truth that He is condemned and crucified. Those who are on the side of Truth listen to His voice, because He is the Word of God, the Son of the Father, full of Grace and Truth.

The child abuse crisis and consequent episcopal cover-ups revealed the Church or rather its leaders as being without integrity, as being far from the truth, in fact many were shown to be downright liars. If we are to witness to the truth of Christ we need to be men and women of total integrity, the knotty wood of the Cross is the great sign of integrity, it is through our trustworthiness as witnesses to the resurrection that others are called to believe, if the Church cannot be trusted we cannot be faithful witnesses.

Perhaps it is not just in the Church but in society in general that there is a problem with the truth, manipulation by politicians, journalists, spin-doctors, political correctness, language manipulation all in one way or another create an environment of mistrust in which communion/communication between human beings breaks down. Its the tower of Babel situation there are so many voices crying out but no-one can hear what is being said. The Church is supposed to be different, making out of many nations one people, with one certain truth, down the centuries the Church has sought truth, the One Truth, now it seems to me that the Church is following the world, that bishops are emulating politicians, that we are not so much concerned with truth as its application or spin, that we no longer see truth as person but a commodity.

An Angry Nun - God send us more!

I have never watched EWTN, I don't do television, I have seen some clips of Mother Angelica. I don't know if she is a saint, as some have suggested. She just strikes me as being one of those feisty, even angry nuns we used to have, the type of nuns that set up hospitals and schools, orphanages and nursing homes, who were part of the first wave of women in Universities, who sought academic excellence, who weren't afraid to stand up to dictators, both secular and religious, who would be as unabashed by troop of Imperial or Nazi soldiers as they would by a class of third form girls.

Some people talk about emasculation of men in today's Church, I ask what about the women, where are they today? Why aren't they as feisty as they were? Why are they not like St Claire demanding their right to live in poverty, or St Catherine demanding the Holy See clean up its act? Where are the great founders who had the vision of sanctifying the poorest parts of our cities or like Theresa of Kolkata, as we call it now, the poorest parts of the world? 

What has happened to these women? My suggestion is that the old pre-Concilliar Church might well have been a stifling airless place waiting for John XXIII to open up a window or two but actually one man's stifling airless place is another's hothouse, a hot house that produced outstanding people with a deep a spiritual life and deep roots growing into the possibly foetid but rich compost. In order for any plant to bear fruit it needs to have stable roots.

Mother Angelica's legacy is her daring to speak out, to stand up and confront misused authority to demand her Church is given back to her. Mother speaks from a position of the common authority and common ownership that belongs to all Catholics. Her's is a simple faith, the faith of the Baltimore Catechism, the faith of everyman (and woman). She does what all Catholics should do, she demands to be given back her Church. I love that early video (see below) where she condemns 'the Liberal Church of America'. She is hopping angry and God used her anger, just the same as so often he uses the stubbornness of martyrs.

She does what monks and nuns and lay people have always done when bishops and priests - the experts - have tried to steal the faith, she rose up, she shouted in the streets, she denounced, she shouted aloud, she demanded her Pastors fed the sheep not on their own theological or pastoral experiments but on the Catholic faith. The terrible thought I have is that instead of shouting aloud far too many Catholics now remain silent and leave by the back door. Mother Angelica formed a mob, at least in the media, and demanded the faith. The faith is too important to be left to the heirarchy it needs charismatics like Mother Angelica and the angry people in the Church to create a necessary tension.

What Mother Angelica did is intensely traditional, it is very much part of the prophetic monastic tradition, it is what St Anthony and the monks of Egypt and Palestine did, emerging from the desert 1700 years ago, to denounce Arianism, so happily embraced by the bishops and the higher clergy.

In these new times of madness, may the dear Lord send us thousand angry Mother Angelicas.

Looking back

.

I discovered this old picture on the net, it is Mass here five years or so ago, when we  had no sanctuary floor for a couple of months. Because of lack of space the only possibility was to push the altar as far back as possible, even then there was only a couple of meters between the front pew and the chasm that was the sanctuary, 'ad orientem' was the only possibility for Mass. Before that we had used the so called 'Benedictine arrangement', which really is odd, with a small altar especially, people criticised it as "the priest hidden behind bars [candlesticks]", it seems odd to me to have a crucifix for the priest in front of him, with the corpus facing him and one behind him facing the people (two different Christs), which do you incense?  In a big church like Westminster Cathedral, as improved as the present arrangement might be, but where the sheer size of the building renders the priests anonymous, it always seem strange to see only the priests torso and head behind the altar, rather than a whole priest in front of the altar. It such a huge building it seems a little comic, it is not after all as if one might see his facial expressions, even his voice is a little out of sync with his his lip movements, if you can see them.

At the same time there was a study group in the parish who read Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy and Michael Lang's Turning towards the Lord, about the same time I attended a conference of about a hundred priests, at which Archbishop Di Noia spoke and the consensus was that the liturgy and consequently the life of the whole Church would benefit by a return of ad orientem worship.

When eventually we restored the church and there was a sanctuary floor the altar was designed for Mass to be celebrate both ways, initially I celebrated all the Masses, except in the Old Rite facing the people but it was they, certainly the servers, and those involved in the liturgy who urged facing east. I left it up to them and the sacristy staff to decide, I would celebrate Mass in either direction but found that generally it was arranged ad orientem.

There was no serious outcry, for most people it just seemed natural, even now visitors might tell me my preaching is shocking, or complain about the absence of guitars or rhythmic beat in our music but rarely, if ever, about the orientation of our worship. Our bishop at the time expressed some concern in one his friendly letters but when I cited a letter from the CDW, with its protocol number, which pointed out that the choice of orientation was entirely up to the priest I heard no more about it.

During the last days of Benedict there was a rumour that the CDW were preparing a document, perhaps even a new edition of the Missal that would promote ad orientem celebration. With the recent remarks of Cardinal Sarah regarding foot-washing and calling for ad orientem worship it seems that work still continues and awaits better times.

There is a nice little piece on the Christian significance of the East by St John of Damascus, which Fr Henry has posted. As Ratzinger points out whether we actually face East in our worship or not, we should at least be orientated towards the spiritual East: the Cross and the direction of the Resurrection and the Second Coming.

It is part of the "poorer Church for the poor", the recognition that "gold and silver have we none but in the Name of Jesus ...". For me it is the recognition that I have little to offer but Christ has everything. That it doesn't matter if I am happy, a good communicator, wise or stupid, etc. all that matters is I offer Christ in his sacraments. It seems entirely natural after a short homily to say, "... and so let us turn to the Lord".

I rather bore my penitents by saying the most important thing to remember is that you are not the Lord: Jesus alone is Lord. all we can do is rely on Him, and turn to Him in our need and point to Him, if we take attempt to take His place it is beyond us, we will become neurotic, frustrated and are doomed to fail, all we can do is turn to him in faith, hope and trust.

Foot washing: Charity Begins at Home

Comment on the Pope's foot washing seems to go and on. I suspect never has this aspect of the Gospel's been discussed so much. Fr Hunwicke has done a good analyses, that is well worth reading.
He says,

The Lord did not, as people sometimes carelessly assert, "wash the feet of his disciples", who were many; He washed the feet of a much more limited group, the Twelve. He did not wash the feet of the people who flocked to hear Him teach in the fields or on the Mountain or beside the Lake or in the village square, or even the feet of the Seventy He sent forth or of the women who ministered to Him; when He washed the feet of the Twelve, it was behind the closed doors of an exclusive Meeting arranged in almost 007-style secrecy. And the implication of  S Peter's words was that this had not been the Lord's regular custom.

If one takes the Tradition seriously, then the Twelve were clergy at this moment, it is Christ the High Priest washing the feet of  his bishops. It is as Fr Hunwicke points out an intimate act with intimates. In the liturgy it happened rarely before the Bugnini reforms but I suspect the the most perfect parallel would have been the Bishop washing the feet of the Canons of his diocese, it would have happened in the intimacy of the Chapter House, during Prime, well away from the popular gaze.


The clergy of the diocese of Rome are not a happy bunch, three years ago they lost their bishop in events surrounded by mystery, there are hints of intrigue, 'mafia' involvement, a curia 'out of control' and of course 'the lobby' with its enormous power. I think I would feel rather like child of a father who finds it easier to show kindness in the pub or to strangers rather than at home to his wife and children.

Closer to home I met with a gang of Westminster clergy recently, most anticipate their own bishop to resign in the next few months. Because of his significance the Archbishop of Westminster has always been a distant figure to his clergy and fear who his replacement might be. Being a Cardinal he tends to only have half an eye on his diocese, unlike other bishops he is forced to rule by diktat or through others. Rarely do his priests sit in the intimacy of his apartment and just chat, nor would a priest with anxieties feel free to ring him up and spend time chatting late at night. None would expect him to drop round for a cuppa and a chat. This is not a criticism of the present incumbent it applies to practically all of Westminster's Archbishops.

Neither is Westminster an exception, most bishops are not on 'foot washing' terms with their clergy. The humble service of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples is the model of charity of a bishop towards his priests and amongst themselves. Bishops who get into trouble are invariably treated as non-persons by their brothers, and more likely to receive a cold shoulder rather than Christ-like charity.

A friend, a student of the Venerable English College at the time, told how the students themselves took pity on a former Archbishop of Cardiff and took him out for a drink when he was ostracised by his brother bishops a few months before his resignation.

The act of foot washing is a reminder that charity that binds the Church together, it goes with Jesus' own words to the Apostles, "I give you a new commandment: Love one another. In the same way that I have loved you, you are also to keep on loving each other". It is charity expressed in the seclusion of the Upper Room that is the basis of Communion within the Catholic Church, it really is an illustration that charity begins at home and then sets the world on fire, A good bishop is one who cares above all for his clergy and his brother bishops with Christ-like compassion.

The morale of many clergy, especially the elderly is very low. Many priest suffer from the festering wounds and are travel sore. Child abuse and the other clerical scandals that have hit the Church have their obvious victims but the more hidden victims are the innocent clergy. Many of us have a sense that our life work will simply vanish, that no-one will be left to continue it, that we will leave nothing behind us. A bishop is not a chief executive, or an administer, he is above all the washer of feet in his diocese, and the feet he is called are the feet of his brothers and sons, the clergy.

A Happy and Blessed Easter to you all

Our Easter Vigil

A Foot Note: Vestment changing

Fr Hunwicke, with his usual clarity of mind and humour has written on the Pope's new rite of pedilavium. As footnote I was interested to note that in the pictures of the rite His Holiness vests as a deacon, wearing his stole upon his shoulder. Priests in the Old Rite often vest and exercise their ministry as Deacon or Sub-Deacon, in New Rite this is less common. In fact many would suggest that this should not happen, even that in the New Rite it is positively forbidden. The Pope has answered this.

Now the Supreme Pontiff has clearly shown that it is something to be positively encouraged. Another Old Rite practice, that follows on from this, that he has obviously restored is 'vestment changing'. In the absence of a deacon at the Easter Vigil it would seem that it is more than legitimate for a priest to bless the fire and the Paschal Candle wearing, according to the current rite, his white chasuble and then to remove his chasuble, re-adjust his stole and change into a dalmatic for the Lumen Christi procession and the singing of the Exultet. Similarly, if a bishop should visit a one horse parish, it seem more than legitimate for the parish priest to assist him vested as a deacon, and if it is a two horse parish, for the assistant to wear a tunicle and act as Sub-Deacon.
"Roma locuta; causa finita est,"

Gifts from Rome

And just in time for the Mass of the Lord's Supper and thanks to Steffano atMessrs Gamerelli.
The green lined grey will be very nice  in a few weeks time but the white for tonight, it has just the hint of Passiontide with the violet flowers.

And here are a couple of pictures of our Altar of Repose

Good Stuff

I don't know if you see Facebook entries if you are not a member but try and see this page. It is from a friend's parish, Fr Sean Finnegan's Church of the Sacred Heart in Caterham. He is still comparatively new in the parish but he has started renovating his nice but on first sight not outstanding church but the Pippet (a Hardman contractor)  wall paintings are outstandingly beautiful.

The years were not kind to them, they had become discoloured and faint, damp had got to them. One parish priest had people with scrubbing brushes attacking them, part of them had been painting out but this Easter as the lights come on at the Vigil the restoration so far will revealed

We can come up with lots of reason why such a treasure was, let's say neglected, but what is significant, it is not just here but in so many places there has been a restoration. I think one of the chief contributory factors is Pope Benedict's theology of Liturgy and Beauty. Again and and again there are church restorations that put aside the confused, ugly, theologically illiterate 'wreckovations' of the 1970s.

Here, we have done our best with restoring the church, now thanks to our director of music we are trying to do something with the our music, the smaller works of Monteverdi or Lassus, Byrd or Palestrina, as well as the chant of the Graduale of course, are part of our normal liturgical life. Ten years ago Catholic music was ghastly, now little by little there is a gradual resurgence. Our sacristan is away in Dublin for the Triduum (I will eventually forgive him), he is most probably going to the services at here but I was amazed by the music at the Pro-Cathedral - Mozart, Palestrina, who would have thought this five years ago?

 So, maybe during the Triduum, share some good stuff, preferable with pictures or links.
Another renewal I have been following is what is happening at Corpus Christi, Maiden Lane under Fr Alan Robinson, very beautiful
.

'Realities' more important than ideas

Andrea Gagliarducci writes a very interesting piece here on Pope Benedict's recent interview, it highlights the great breach between the Pontiffs, it is not, as Gagliarducci points out, a significant doctrinal breech between the two but rather one of approach but it is this which is vital.

Some people accuse the present Holy Father of all sorts of heresies. I simply don't understand what he says, nor actually am I that interested in searching his long speeches and even longer documents to discover a heresy. What is more I don't have the Spanish to understand him and taking what he says in the media, seems to me be just spin, form but no substance.

The real difference is, as Gagliarducci points out, the lack of intellectual substance in the present Pontificate, the principle that 'realities' are more important than ideas, is as Benedict points out ultimately bankrupt.

Benedict XVI’s recent words also challenge the principle that realities are more than ideas, which Pope Francis states as one of the four pillars of his apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium.” This notion is quite widespread in Latin America, and can be considered a relic of liberation theology. Practiced Marxism has become a pragmatic Marxism, close to common thinking and tailored to foster the social development of peoples.

Gagliarducci is right this idea of that 'realities are more important than ideas' seems to underscore the thought of many of Francis' placemen, Cardinal Parolin and Rodriguez Maradiaga are prime examples, so too is Cardinal João Braz de Aviz of the Congregation for Religious, whose merciless pogrom against of the Franciscans of the the Immaculate, started under the guise of a financial investigation by Fr Volpi but has been increasingly revealed as an attack on their intellectual exploration of the  of the Vatican Council and significantly in the light of Benedicts interview their questioning of Rhanner's 'anonymous Christianity'. In rather terrifying Marxist terms Braz has even spoken of the need for their 're-education'. On the part of the present men of power in the Church there seems to be a real contempt even hatred of the intellect.


One can see that 'realities' will be important to the massive German church corporation, which though it is haemorrhaging members, still seeks public support from an increasingly secularised membership who look to the Church not for its proclamation of Christ but for its schools, hospitals, child and nursing home care. It is one of the biggest German employers, and therefore feels obliged to deal in 'realities'. To be quite unkind, what seems the bottom line 'reality' for the Germans is what fills its coffers and its place at whatever table it can get its snout into. One can see how this search for 'realities' has formed Kasper's theology, especially his theology of  'Mercy'.

The great problem is that in the world 'realities' change, Germany's realities today are radically different from what they were 18 months ago. The men who choose the Church's 'realities' perhaps have a certain blindness, the (rumoured) movers and shakers behind Francis' election, Kasper, Daneels, Marx, Murphy O'Oonnor even, are men of certain age, experience and ecclesiology, they reflect a very narrow perspective. Fewer younger bishops, even among their own appointed successors would share their 'realities', society and the Church has moved on. Frankly, if the Church followed their trajectory it would collapse, even for the most factionalist supporters, mission or death stares them in the face. Those very carefully chosen 'realities' that have been  the focus of the Pope's generation and seen in the life work of many of those Cardinals who have retired in the last ten years, have been very narrow, and myopic. Their chosen 'realities' have often been about power and faction within the Church rather than about its Dominical Mission to teach the nations but they have failed to reflect the 'signs of the times'.

The signs of times are different, even beyond the European or North American experience: migration, climate change, economic disenchantment and injustice, shifting power bases, the rise of aggressive secularism, the rise of even more aggressive Islam, the rise of nationalism or regionalism and terrorism are creating a world far different than what might have been understood even three years ago. In the Church the signs of the times are different too, old men simply have nothing to say to the young; three ordinations in the almost 3 million strong diocese of Buenos Aires sums up how much a generation has failed in its proclamation of the Gospel and how unattractive they have made following Christ.

No-one today is interested in the Church that merely mouths what any other NGO can say more articulately. Indeed as the Church enters into partisan politics rather than gathering the faithful it divides them. Younger clergy and even new bishops are a distinct from the previous generation, their values and formation have occurred under vastly different conditions to the previous generation in training during the turmoil of the Council.

The great problem with a Church focussed on 'realities' is all it can do is to do what any other NGO does and feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned - not an unimportant part of Christ's teaching - but it is the sum of it. Christ raises the dead to life, opens heaven, reconciles mankind to his Father. Christ changes man in the depth of his being from sinner to saint, he not only comes alongside of man in solidarity but raises him up, even to the point of enthusing him with divinity. Such a Church is incapable offering hope, especially if cuts itself off from the supernatural.

.

Kasper isn't credible

Cardinal Kasper speaking of the document Pope Francis will sign following the Extraordinary and Ordinary Synod on the Family said, “This will be the first step of a reform that will make the Church turn a page after 1700 years.”

I find this terribly troubling. If I took him seriously I would be starting to pack, I simply do not recognise what Kasper implies as being consistent with the Catholic faith; it stinks of  Protestant rupture rather than Catholic continuity.

I don't take this seriously because even in a Church that seems increasingly dominated by careerist clergy and spin doctors and media manipulation, to say nothing of the influence of wealthy and powerful lobyists, a notorious racist liar like Kasper is simply not a credible witness.

The unfortunate thing is that his incredulity poisons the credibility of the Church.

Are Englishmen Wimps?

For those of you with a smattering of Polish, this is a little video of the Polish Men;s Group along the coast from us in Eastboune doing the Stations of the Cross. We have hosted the Polish Community in Brighton for thhe last 70 years and Eastbourne is part of the Brighton Polish parish. The priest giving Benediction is the excellent and hard working Oratorian Fr Tadeusz Bialas. Last year he was in Church hearing Confession until 2 in the morning having started at 9pm.
These men, 150 of them, did this Stations on 25 kilometer night walk in honour of Lord' Passion, over the Eastbourne cliffs - scary! I am impresseed, I want them to do the same in Brighton.
What is interesting is the local clergy invited English men to join them, there were no -or few- takers. Are Englishmen wimps?
The video above is from last year the one below this year's, the celebrant is Fr Neil Chatfield of the Ordinariate, who I think is not a Polish speaker.

Congratulations to Alex

Congratulations to Alex who was ordained deacon, one of seven ordinations. Alex has been to Mass here on a few occasions, he has/had a family connection with Brighton, his splendid mum goes to Mass in New Brighton at the Dome of Home, congratulations to her too.

He is one of 12 deacons ordained for the FSSP in Denton USA, all twelve should be ordained priest next year. I can't but help making a comparison with the diocese of Buenos Aires where with a Catholic population of almost 3 million only 3 priests will be ordained this year.

If vocations to the priesthood are a sign of 'good fruit' in the Church, there are inevitable questions we cannot avoid asking:
Where is the Church healthy?
Where is the Church producing fruit?
Where is the Church attracting the young?
Where is the Church making disciples?
Where is the Church undergoing true renewal?

Where has the Church a future?
What is the Church's future?

more pictures here

Conscientious Objection

Of note is Fr Simon Henry's post on Holy Thursday foot washing. Father Henry quotes Fr. Joseph Fessio's concerns 'that now the practice is allowed, it will be imposed by some bishops Bishop', a not uncommon phenomena in today's Church. He also quotes Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who says that in conscience he could not wash the feet of women as it would alter Christ's intention of washing the feet of his Apostles rather than anyone's. What the Bishop is concerned about, I suspect is not so much the washing of women's feet but the blurring of a connection with Christ, who chose to wash the feet of those closest to him and who at the Last Supper were entrusted with celebrating the Eucharist and along with it episkope of the Church. I share the Bishop's conscientious objection, others might not, including the Pope, I do,

I interpret St John's language, all that taking off and putting on of vestments as a priestly act meant by the Apostle to remind his readers of the institution of the Aaronic priesthood. I used to wash any foot that turned up but now in conscience I think it would be a denial of what Christ intended and I can't do that. I am grateful I have the freedom to express my conscience. Before the invention of Pius XII the rite happen outside of Mass, and anyone could be involved, within Mass it takes on a Eucharistic meaning.

I have been fortunate, there are many things I do or don't do because of conscience. Though I have used it I really feel uncomfortable about using that trattoria-written-back-of-a menu Eucharistic Prayer (EPII), in fact I have a problem with using one other than the Roman Canon. I don't consider them invalid, just not of the Latin Rite which since the time of St Gregory used this text. They are part of the hermeneutic of rupture, in conscience I don't believe it is possible to be Catholic and to be part of the rupture.
I know it is a bit of a convoluted conscience but it is mine.
I think it is very interesting that Cardinal Sarah felt it necessary to 'clarify' this issue, and to underline my right to be a conscientious objector, Will other Cardinals suggest that there is a conscience clause with regard the issuing of the Holy Father's post - Synod document?
As much as I might welcome conscientious objection I can't help pushing people to the point of making such an objection is the beginning of schism. Yet if bishops and priests do not have a sensitive conscience have they anything to offer?

+++++

An interesting video on the liturgy by CNS in which the scholar Father Jeremy Driscoll OSB, corrects some contemporary liturgical errors.