Domine, Quo Vadis?, C. 1602' Giclee Print - Annibale Carracci |

But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the Usus Antiquior? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 [of Traditionis custodes] cannot be the denial that the Usus Antiquior is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the Usus Antiquior will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the Usus Antiquior, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.

It is obviously very concerning that some Catholics who adhere to the Roman Rite of Mass question the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council or the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs (which, of course, bears no resemblance to the Novus Ordo Missae). However, it is even more worrying that 69% of Catholics attending the Novus Ordo Missae do not believe in Transubstantiation and thus ‘eat and drink condemnation upon themselves’. In fact, it is probably the case that the inspired word of God and the solemn definitions of Lateran IV, Florence and Trent have even more authority than the prudential judgement of Vatican II. Following the wisdom of the pontiff now gloriously reigning, it would seem that existing groups making use of the Novus Ordo Missae should only be allowed to persist in so doing once it is ascertained that they accept the doctrine of the Real Presence and that care should be taken that no new groups of this kind are established.

“News that shook […] a dozen capitals brought deep peace to one English heart. Now, splendidly, everything had become clear. The enemy at last was plain in view, huge and hateful, all disguise cast off. It was the Modern Age in arms. Whatever the outcome there was a place for him in that battle.”

I am appalled by the announcement of the Gaulish chieftain Macron that he intends in effect to subject his hapless people to a regime of compulsory anti-Wuhan-flu vaccination from the start of next month.  I say in effect because in theory one could get a Covid test every two days instead.  But these will no longer be free, and apparently the test is not pleasant to experience.  So in practice, everyone will need a vaccine to a get a ‘sanitary passport’ and everyone will need a sanitary passport to go into a restaurant or café or supermarket, or to get on a bus, train or plane.

Unless vigorously resisted, this is almost bound to spread to other countries very fast.  One will have to accept things tested on murdered babies as a condition for remaining a part of society.

See also here.

In case you were wondering:

The John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute and the Pontifical Academy for Life have felt the need to involve some researchers in the field of theology in the preparation of a focused and real growth path about the future of Christian thought in relation to the communication of faith and the form of theology in the ecclesial, human and civil context, that after the pandemic will have to let go of some clichés of a Christian era that is waning and of the new kairos of the human condition that is announced.

Why, you may ask?  Surely, it’s obvious:

Theology accepts direct dialogue with the thought and evidence of history, to do justice to the logos of hope that faith brings to the humans, with the transparency of an intellectual loyalty that must represent a point of honor for the understanding of faith.

So, at least that’s clear.

(original here)

From his letters to Olympias:

“For those who love one another, it is not enough to be united in soul; in order to be consoled they require also each other’s bodily presence.  If that is not granted to them, then they are lacking no small part of their happiness.  Even if we turn to the noble nourisher of charity, we find that it is so.  Writing to the men of Macedonia, this is how he expresses himself:  “Being orphaned of your sight for a while, my brothers, in sight not in heart, we have hastened the more abundantly to see your face with great desire” (1 Thess. 2:17)  […]  But what is it that thou desirest, tell me, with such ardour?  The very sight of them.  For, he says, “we have hastened the more abundantly to see your face”.

“What art thou saying?  Thou who have been raised so high?  Thou for whom the world is crucified, and who art crucified unto the world?  Thou who hast forsaken all that is fleshly, who art almost bodiless – thou hast been thus brought into servitude by thy tenderness, to the point of being held toward this flesh made of clay, made from the earth, which the senses perceive?  ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘I am not ashamed to acknowledge it, I glory in it, since carrying in myself an overflowing charity, mother of all good things, that is what I seek.’  And he does not seek only their physical presence, but desires especially to see their fact. “We have hastened the more abundantly to see your face.”

“You want to see them, then, and to look at their face?  ‘Yes: for all the organs of sense are found together in the face.  For a soul by itself, joined to another soul, cannot see or hear anything, but if I have your physical presence, I will speak, I will hear those whom I love.  That is why I desire to see your face; that is where the tongue is, which proffers the sounds making known to us your inmost thought; there is the ear which receives words; and the eyes which express the movements of the soul’” (VIII.12)