This post has been a long time coming, and I have zero excuse for the delay.
I was alerted to the existence of an amazing company in October ARSH 2019 that makes semi-custom dresses – semi-bespoke is really the word – for very little money, and with excellent quality and labor practices. The company is out of India and is called eShakti.com , and many of you ladies might already be aware of them through weddings, etc.
I cannot say enough about this company. You set up a profile and enter over two dozen sartorial measurements. Their computers then form a custom pattern for you – semi-bespoke – and then you choose from their 1000+ dress patterns. But wait. It gets better. Every dress on their website can be modified. Usually 8+ necklines, 8+ sleeve lengths, and 8+ hem lengths. And you can SEE on the “virtual model” what each modification looks like. As of a month or so ago, they have now added a feature whereby if you find a dress pattern that really works for you, you can choose the fabric from their entire selection of the same fabric type.
This is the benefit of being totally “on demand”, driven by a database. The computers tell the fabric mill what to cut, and the machines how to cut and stitch it. It’s an absolutely brilliant business model, and has totally changed my sartorial life. Buying clothes used to be almost impossible- IMMODEST, too short, bad fit, ugly, etc. But now, I open my closet and it’s a genuine pleasure to pick which dress I’m wearing today.
After the War, something like this MUST be started in North America.
I get stopped and complimented every single day. Every day, and I live in a pretty “fashionable” place, or at least where there are “fashion people” slithering around. 🤢 And I’m low-key setting the tone. Folks, the counter-Revolution has to begin somewhere. Brushfires of… fashion? Why not?
So here is a photo essay of me today. My huge project this summer is wearing white wrist gloves – as all ladies did until ARSH 1965 or so.
The more I see fat, naked slobs walking around and rolling into shops and restaurants in slovenly garments that I literally would not sleep in, the harder I COUNTER-REVOLT. Hence the white summer gloves.
Ann, today, a Tuesday in June:
Navy blue with white polka-dot zip-front, ruched-waist, cap sleeve, mid-calf full skirted dress. I optioned for the neckline to be 2″ higher. This dress cost me $55, including the $10 semi-bespoke customization fee. I’m not kidding.
I have red espadrilles, which are very sharp with the blue, but today I’m wearing white.
Matching blue and white straw hat with wide brim. I bought this hat eight years ago for $15.
Finally, yes, white viscose gloves. Cheap ($15 per pair), and they can be washed frequently. I bought three pair right away so I can always have a clean pair. I actually recommend viscose and not cotton for the ease of care. Glove etiquette says a lady shakes hands WITH, but ALWAYS removes to eat or drink. Keep gloves on in church except to get Holy Water at the stoop upon entering and exiting. I do have to remove at least my right glove by necessity when using DivinumOfficium.com as my missal/breviary in order to use the touchscreen. I had to look glove etiquette up, because I had no idea, given my age. I was born in ’76 and thus missed the glove culture.
Folks, I dress like this EVERY DAY.
How ironic. All these girls walking around almost nekkid, or in uber-expensive designer trash (but I repeat myself), and it’s the 45-year old slightly-squishy woman rocking it like it’s ARSH 1951 in a $55 dress that everyone notices. Gentlemen chastely and respectfully appreciate, ladies appreciate and inquire. Children smile and stare. And I smile back. Occasionally I wink. 😉
The ultimate counter-revolt is being yourself, that is, being who God made you according to your true state in life, including dignity, and beauty. God did not make you a gutter slag or a fat pajama-wearing slob. Dressing with dignity and beauty (in both the feminine and masculine senses) is a sign of SELF-respect, and more importantly a sign of fundamental respect FOR OTHERS, including total strangers (Second Joyful Mystery of the Rosary – the Visitation; Fruit of the Mystery: Love of Neighbor, Fraternal Charity).
Even though I am nearly alone for now in my aesthetic, remember, beauty and fraternal charity are OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, and therefore I am the normal one, and the rest of society, naked or in pajamas, no matter their relative numbers… they are objectively ABNORMAL. They are not intrinsically inferior-quite the opposite is the entire point! Let us help our fellow men and women reclaim NORMALCY and their own inherent dignity by our good example, and by always radiating the joy that comes with the frequenting of the Sacraments.
I would point out that the priestly cassock is just about the sharpest masculine form of dress, and that real nuns literally wear wedding dresses and wedding veils every day of their lives. Why should we seculars not emulate this standard? Ugliness is NOT humility. Quite the opposite. Humility is knowing and acknowledging both what you are not (!!), but also what you ARE. Acknowledge your dignity as a rational intellect created in the image and likeness of God, and redeemed by His Most Precious Blood. Respect yourself and respect others. Get dressed. And I mean DRESSED. Every single day.
UPDATE: How could I have neglected to mention the impetus for married ladies to dress well… your husbands!!! Make them proud. Never take them for granted. Including around the house. Sweatpants have caused more divorces and male online self-abuse situations than any of us can imagine. Get up and get dressed, wives. You don’t have to be perfect – it’s the EFFORT. The charity is in the EFFORT.
I have a few problems with this clip that recently aired on “Tucker Carlson Tonight”.
First, the suggestion that a fetus feels pain from 15-20 weeks is demonstrably false. In 1984, former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, then a pro-life convert, sought to show the world the brutality of abortion by airing actual video footage of a 12-week, ultrasound-guided abortion. In the video (which can be viewed here), the unborn child is clearly seen opening its mouth to scream, and recoiling from the abortionist’s instruments. My graduate school training in anesthesia taught that pain pathways as well as EEG brain waves were present in children as early as 9 weeks’ gestation, and probably sooner. So I take issue with the physician on Carlson’s show – his technical info isn’t exactly accurate.
And second: what is the point of this interview? Is the point to assert that murder is okay as long as it’s painless for the victim? Because if that’s the argument being made here, then I assure you the pro-aborts will push back with early-term “pain free” abortions using things like RU486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. And there are already abortionists out there touting their digoxin abortion methods, which involve injecting an unborn child with high-dose digoxin to stop the heart. The baby dies before the dismembering begins. These are sold to mothers as “painless”.
Out of charity, I will assume Tucker is airing this interview to offer some perspective on the brutality of abortion and the humanity of the unborn, who have been so thoroughly dehumanized for the last several decades. Most militant pro-abortionists do not care about the pain felt by unborn children. But, I do think there is a younger generation out there who truly are so intellectually lazy that they haven’t realized exactly what an abortion entails. Or they think of the fetus as some magical sleeping baby that neither perceives nor feels anything until it takes its first breath. So I’ll give Tucker credit for trying to start that conversation.
However, as pro-lifers, we must be vigilant not to fall into these arguments. Arbitrary conditions on abortion, such as “is the fetus feeling pain” or “is there a heartbeat” are logical fallacies – avoid these traps. In a conversation I had with Dr. Beep earlier today, he pointed out that sedating people to death is also “painless”, just like two-to-the-back-of-the-head of your political enemy. These atrocities are still murder regardless of how pain-free they may be for the victims.
And as for the heartbeat argument: life begins at conception. Full stop. The heartbeat laws enacted in several states are nice, but they do not acknowledge nor do they prevent the earliest abortions that are happening every day: abortifacient contraceptive pills, IUDs, and the “morning after” pill.
Let us celebrate the overturning of Roe while still being mindful that a tremendous uphill battle faces us. Our culture is a thoroughly pagan one, so we must articulate carefully that abortion is always wrong no matter the method or circumstances.
Mike, you need to get out from under Chris Ferrara’s thumb while you still have an audience and a subscriber base. Seriously. The vast majority of Trads in the English-speaking world either know or strongly suspect that Benedict never validly resigned. Because it’s obvious. You’re tinkling into the wind by berating pretty much everyone in your audience for simply acknowledging reality, and actually believing that it’s important, and wanting the situation rectified.
(It was pointed out to me that this is actually mandated in Canon Law itself:
Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and His Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.”)
For the life of me, I simply cannot comprehend what these “It doesn’t matter who the Vicar of Christ on Earth is, or is not” people can possibly be thinking. Usually I can at least dimly see an opposing position’s rationale – wrong though it may be, I can still see what they’re thinking. With this, I got nothin’. If it makes no difference WHO the Pope is, then what possible purpose can the papacy serve at all? Don’t these people see that they are serving the Freemasonic agenda to a T?
I screen-capped this portion of the comment box on the piece. Very well-said here.
Folks, this could very well spark the beginning of the actual, hot civil war.
Pretty much everyone I know who is a believing Catholic says, at this point: BRING IT.
LET’S. GET. THIS. ON.
Because peaceful coexistence is not possible with these demoniac, sodophilic child killers. Let’s do this.
Today is also the date of the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, who is bumped for the Feast of the Sacred Heart as is only right – “He must increase, I must decrease.”
“Here. Take it.”
Today is the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. A few thoughts on the Sacred Heart, and the Law.
A. A mercy that springs forth from the wild and often detrimental technological progress curve of the past 100 years is the confirmation of all manner of things regarding Our Lord and His Holy Church. Specifically today I am reminded of the fact that science has now confirmed that in all of the Eucharistic miracles which have been confirmed as genuine and involved a Consecrated Host turning fleshy, the Flesh in every instance, upon testing, is from a human male, blood type AB, and the flesh is ENDOCARDIUM, that is, INTERIOR HEART WALL.
The Sacred Heart of Jesus is not a syrupy platitude. It is a physical reality, and moreover, it is a physical reality present at every valid Mass. The Eucharist literally, physically IS the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
B. The Gradual of the Mass for the Feast of The Sacred Heart is from Psalm 24: 8-9
“The Lord is sweet and righteous: therefore He will give a Law to sinners in the way. He will guide the mild in judgment: He will teach the meek His ways.”
If you have watched the bigDiabolical Narcissism video, you will probably remember the “three rules for things you NEVER say to a DN”. They are:
Never tell a DN that you love them. This makes you a target for soul murder (that is, scandalize you unto spiritual death and ultimately damnation).
Never tell a DN what makes you happy or what you are grateful for. They will take away these things as part of their campaign to murder your soul.
Never tell a DN that they have hurt you. They will use your confirmation of the success of their tactics to hurt you again, and to hurt you harder the next time.
Now, going back to the Psalm verse above, we are reminded of what The Law – that which Antipope Jorge Bergoglio rails against constantly – actually is. Read this over and over again until you get it:
The Law is God Almighty telling us what actions of ours HURT HIM AND WOUND HIS SACRED HEART.
The Law is God basically pleading with us to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NOT do these certain things, because these things break His Heart, and all He wants is to love us and be loved by us. So, in order for the relationship to work, we need to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE NOT do these specific things, and if we do, we need to stop doing them, repent, confess, and be contrite.
Because when we hurt ourselves, it breaks His Heart.
Think about this in terms of relationships between men. Doesn’t it make sense that if someone – friend, family member, spouse, coworker, even a stranger on the street, is doing something to hurt us, we want to TELL THEM so that they will understand the gravity and consequence of their actions and STOP so that we can continue the relationship in peace, whether that peace is the peace between spouses or the peace between strangers on the street?
But more importantly, any MORALLY SANE PERSON, that is, a person who is NOT a Diabolical Narcissist/Sociopath/Psychopath WANTS TO KNOW if something they are doing is hurting, much less murdering the soul, of another person SO THAT THEY CAN STOP DOING IT. When the person is someone that we love, how much more do we want to tell them, “Please, please, please don’t do X, because you hurt me profoundly when you do X.”
Do not confuse this for the Social Justice Warrior “triggering” and “micro-aggression” nonsense. The presumption here is normal, human moral sanity. (How sad that I have to even state this….)
Psycho-spiritually sane people do NOT prowl throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls. Diabolical Narcissists do. Remember, exactly like demons, they invert everything.
So God, knowing everything, and being pure, infinite LOVE, “breaks” the three rules above, and does it knowing exactly what He is in for in doing so. This is why the image of The Sacred Heart is oftentimes Jesus, literally holding his Heart in His hand, offering it to us, showing it to us, completely exposing it to us. It is total, complete, infinite vulnerability.
“Here. Take it.”
He tells us that He loves us. Over and over and over again. And, He is, without question, the most hated thing in the universe.Men and demons hate God precisely because God loves them.
He tells us what pleases Him, what He wants from us, both in terms of worship, and in terms of The Law, namely: Love Him above all else, Love our neighbors for love of Him, and spread the Gospel to all men and nations.
He tells us what hurts Him. These are the “Thou shalt nots”….
Looking at this list, it is no surprise whatsoever that Antipope Bergoglio, the Alpha DN infiltrators, and the massive Beta DN caste, all despise solemn, reverent, God-centered liturgy; they rail against The Law and “Lovers of the Law”; and they rail against proselytization. Antipope Bergoglio has called proselytization “solemn nonsense”, has told people explicitly NOT to convert and enter the One True Church, and has compared The Great Commission to islamic jihad. Finally, everything Antipope Bergoglio and his toadies have done to date has had as its goal the disregarding or overriding of The Law. He is at war with the Rule of Law – GOD’S LAW. Marriage, confession, reception of Holy Communion, holy orders is coming next, and on and on.
If this does not constitute being at war with God, then I have no idea what does.
And yet, Christ, all-knowing, all-understanding, and pure, infinite love for each and every person, told us exactly how we can hurt Him, becauseif He didn’t tell us how we can hurt Him, neither would we know, by definition, how to Love Him.
Andclearly, to Him it was and is worth it.
This is why The Law and the Sacred Heart of Jesus are inextricably connected.
These three public social media posts by a neonatologist woman doctor about her proud sacrificing of her children, with one proudly confirmed maimed, are a testament to the evil insanity of the totally mainstream cult of child sacrifice that the former United States and the post-Christian West now is.
It’s going to burn. To the ground. By its own instigation and hand. Expect a combination of nuclear weapons (whether by the hand of “scourging” nations like Russia and China, or false flag self-attacks) but more especially the resulting starvation and disease arising from the cessation of water purification and functioning sewage systems, and the inability to produce and transport food.
Behold, one of the most evil people alive today. And you could be standing in line next to her at the grocery store and never have any idea what she is. When this evil is so normalized, so totally ubiquitous, so pedestrian as to be “invisible” by its sheer quantity in a culture, the culture can only be doomed, whether by its own suicide, or an outside agent acting according to the positive will of God as infinite Justice.
Or we will get what’s coming to us by the direct supernatural intervention of God Himself, which I by no means scoff at the possibility of. “Send Us Thine Asteroid, O Lord… 🎶 “
Full crosspost with permission from The Catholic Esquire. NonVeni Mark will be crossposting this too. And I must point out that it was NonVeni Mark who discovered the Miller Dissertation in a footnote as we were poring over texts in ARSH 2018. I remember reading Chapter 8 for the first time, vividly. This text, also over my transom via NonVeni Mark, is just outstanding and may God reward the author for his work in writing this up. -AB
The reason most Catholics and the rest of the world incorrectly assume Pope Benedict XVI resigned the Papacy in February 2013 is because they do not view his attempted resignation through the prism of theNouvelle théologie, which is necessary to understand what really was going on.
What’s becoming more and more clear to me every single day is that this debacle that Pope Benedict XVI caused in February 2013 when he erroneously attempted to resign only his “active” role in the Papacy, while remaining in a “passive” or “contemplative” role, is 100% a product of the Modernist theological errors and the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II).
One of the most important keys, almost a Rosetta Stone so to speak, to understanding both the mind and text of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation in February 2013, and why he remains the current Pope to this day, can be found in Archbishop J. Michael Miller’s 1980 dissertation penned for the Gregorian University in Rome. He is now the Archbishop of Vancouver. If you want to read the dissertation in its entiretyyou need to buy a copy here.
Ann Barnhardt originally turned me on to this academic exercise in post-Vatican II ecumenism and piqued my interest enough to purchase a copy. After I read it, my mind was blown away. Because this is so important to understanding why Benedict and not Antipope Bergoglio (Francis) is Pope to this day, I will summarize the contents of the Miller dissertation for the reader but with sufficient detail so you understand the full context to what can best be described as a summary of Modernist thought concerning the Papacy.
I will do my best to objectively summarize the material and refrain from making personal comments throughout the summary. However, I will tie Miller’s conclusions back to Benedict’s actions in February 2013 after the summary so you can see why this is so relevant and important. Before I begin the summary, keep the following in mind:
When Pope Benedict attempted to resign a portion of the Papacy, he made an effort to distinguish between a Papal office (Munus) and ministry (Ministerium). While some commentators said this is not a big deal because of the multiple/ambiguous meanings associated with these Latin terms Benedict used, after you understand the Miller dissertation, it becomes obvious that Benedict was not just being lazy and sloppy with his terminology in his resignation speech. He actually chose his words very carefully.
When he could have just said “I hereby resign the Office of the Papacy in its entirety with all its rights and privileges effective immediately,” he chose not to do that. The Miller dissertation explains the WHAT and the WHY behind what Benedict was doing in February 2013, at least theologically.
SUMMARY OF THE MILLER DISSERTATION
Title: The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology
Author: J. Michael Miller
Date: November 21, 1980
PART I: Historical and Theological Background
In this Part, Miller summarizes the history of what he refers to as the “classical” presentation. The history he is referring to is the historical justification for the Papacy. And this justification was based on the notion of “divine right” orius divinum. For the remainder of this summary, I will just refer to this concept as divine right.
In this first Part, Miller mentions Pope Leo the Great noting that Leo based his theory on Papal Primacy on evidence from Holy Scripture. Papal Primacy refers to the concept of primacy of jurisdiction, which means the possession of full and supreme teaching, legislative and sacerdotal powers in the Catholic Church. Other later Popes and general Councils agreed with Leo. With some minor differences, the history of the Church’s teaching reinforced the notion that the Papacy was instituted by Christ as found in Holy Scripture. The Papacy, according to this “classical” line of thought says Miller, did not originate from a Council, the Apostles or other types of synods.
Fast forward in time to the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). Here, Miller concedes that the Council inPastor Aeternuscondemned those who denied that Christ gave Peter alone a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction. Vatican I also confirmed that Peter received authority immediately and directly from Christ and not through the Church. Vatican I accepted what had always been taught previously that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built His Church, the power of the keys was given to Peteralone, and Peter was directly vested with jurisdiction (authority). In other words, Peter was given his unique authority by divine right.
Vatican I also taught that there are perpetual successors to Peter’s primacy, also by divine right. Although Miller notes the that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter, that is not itself by divine right. Miller says, “Before Vatican II, nearly every twentieth century treatise on the papacy adopted the structure ofPastor Aeternus: Petrine primacy promised and conferred by Christ, the perpetuity of succession in the primacy, and the legitimacy of the Roman bishop’s claim to be successor of Peter.” Miller says that the Vatican I fathers “paid no attention to the difference between that which the historical Jesus instituted and that which originated from the Risen Christ.”
And because the Papacy was instituted by divine right, the classic view was that the papacy itself was unchangeable. This classic view began to be challenged after Vatican I, according to Miller. Some theologians began to suggest that if thestructureof the papacy came to exist over the course of time due to historical circumstances, then the structure of the papacy was not by divine right, even if the Papacy itself was.
Miller explains that after Vatican I, there was a shift in how theologians perceived the concept of divine right. Rather than being directly instituted by Christ, the meaning began to expand to include more generally the notion of “God’s will.” This becomes important as we shall see.
PART II: Lutheran and Anglican Thought
Because the purpose of this dissertation is to promote ecumenical dialogue, presumably in the spirit of Vatican II, Miller summarizes the modern position of the Lutherans and Anglicans with respect to the Papacy. I will not dive into this too deeply in the summary, but just enough to allow the reader to see why changing the idea of the Papacy is needed for ecumenical dialogue in Miller’s mind.
The Lutherans, according to Miller, believe that if a concept has no salvific importance than it cannot be of divine right. However, if a concept is of divine right, then it is going to be found in Holy Scripture. Man-made law is going to be developed over time in history. Lutherans admit there is a need for a “Petrine function” that serves Christian unity. Lutherans have seen this “Petrine function” carried out in different ways such as councils, theology schools and even the Pope. They just don’t believe any particular structure is of divine right.
Therefore, Lutherans will agree that Christ established a “Petrine function” or “ministry” that can be fulfilled in different forms. The Papacy could be one of those options, but not necessarily the only one.
The Anglicans also agree that something like the Papacy would be beneficial to the universal Church to help unite all Christians. However, it is not absolutely necessary. They agree a Petrine “function” was established in the New Testament and that the development of this concept has been divinely guided since the time of Christ in history.
PART III: Modern Catholic Thought
Here, Miller looks at the opinion of modern Catholic theologians. This is important because these ideas form the basis for Miller’s conclusions. Many of the names are familiar ones because they played a very important role in Vatican II. They are part of theNouvelle théologie. They focused on changing the meaning and/or just removing from ecumenical discussion the concept of “divine right” when it comes to the Papacy.
Gotthold Hasenhüttl and Hans Küng argued that if something was not instituted by Christ directly then it was not of divine right and anything else that developed afterwards over the course of time in history was man-made and therefore reversible. They deny that many institutions Catholics used to think were of divine right were actually instituted by Christ. Rather, they were man-made institutions developed over time, and therefore are changeable.
Other modern theologians take the position that an institution could still be of divine right, even if not instituted directly by Christ, because they developed over time under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Karl Rahner, for example, argued that “if historical circumstances call for it, as in the case for a pastoral synod, an institution of human right shares in the Church’s constitutional structure of divine right; as such it is not simply dispensable.”
According to these theologians, “the Church is constantly led to create new structures to which respond to its needs.” These developments have “as much right to be considered the work of the Spirit as those of the past…[w]hen new structures are needed to fulfill this [missionary] role, and if former ones no longer serve, the Spirit is there to provide the necessary organization.”
Miller says that Catholics are divided as to whether divine right means an institution within the Church needed to be established during the apostolic age or could have been developed over time. This matters because some theologians hold that only those of divine right are irreversible and not subject to change or being abolished.
Unless, of course, Christ intended those divine institutional structures to be only temporary. This was the argument of Cardinal Avery Dulles. Dulles argued that even if institutions were established by divine right that does not mean they could not be changed over time.
Another theologian who believed that what Christ instituted could be changed if historical circumstances called for it was Edward Schillebeeckx. He argued that even though it was divinely instituted, the Church must reorganize the Church’s tripartite apostolic ministry structure. According to Miller, Schillebeeckx argued “the present-day Church cannot limit itself to only the hierarchical form of ministerial structure, even those it is based onius divinum.”
If the notion of divine right applies to institutions that have changed over the years, the meaning of Papal Primacy must also be reexamined. What matters, according to Küng, are not papal rights or the chain of succession, but how the Petrine ministry is carried out.
Theologians such as Küng use the distinction between Petrine ministry and the papacy in their explanations as to why the Papacy can be abolished or changed. The Petrine ministry is a permanent function of the Church given to it by Christ. “Someone, or some institution, must be entrusted with assuring the unity of the universal Church.” While admitting most theologians associate this Petrine ministry with the papacy as we know it today, referring to these theologians like Küng, Miller notes
“this small group does not insist on a necessary continuity between the primacy in its papal form and all future forms of the Petrine function. For them it is at least conceivable that the Petrine function be fulfilled in the episcopal college, a synod, or any other number of structures designed for that purpose.”
In a footnote to this discussion on the distinction between the Petrine ministry and the Papacy, Miller quotes from Rahner:
“In this case the Petrine function would existiure divino, but it need not be exercised by a single individual.”
In the same footnote, Miller notes Cardinal Dulles makes the same point as Rahner:
“In theory, the Petrine function could be performed either by a single individual presiding over the whole Church or by some kind of committee, board, synod or parliament—possibly with a ‘division of powers’ into judicial, legislative, administrative, and the like.”
Miller, then, takes an interesting turn to discuss the notion of “Church as sacrament,” a teaching resulting from Vatican II. With respect to the Papacy, the idea is that the Papacy should be considered “quasi-sacramental.” The reason for doing this, according to the theologians that Miller refers to, is that it avoids juridical terminology—it is more ecclesiological than canonical. This, in turn, provides a “new context” for the discussion of the theological justification for papal primacy. This concept of “quasi-sacrament” attached to the Papacy actually aids in ecumenical dialogue with protestants because they accept the idea of an invisible grace from Christ made available to man through outward visible forms such as the Papacy. The Papacy could symbolically represent Christ’s unifying action in this sense.
PART IV: ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE
In this Part, Miller summarized various proposals that ecumenical commissions among Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans put together. The point of these commissions, and indeed the point of Miller’s dissertation, is to find ways that the Papacy can be considered that harmonizes the teaching of the Church with various protestant “communities”. I will avoid summarizing all these proposals and discussions in effort to move on to Miller’s final conclusions.
PART V: EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this final part, Miller puts all of these strains of thought together with the purpose of opening the door for further “dialogue” with protestants on the Papacy. Miller’s ultimate thesis seems to be that if you replace the use of the term “divine right” with regard to the institution of the Papacy, then this opens the door of dialogue with protestants (especially Lutherans and Anglicans).
Moving away from classical notions of divine right (of which the Papacy was traditionally considered at Vatican I), Miller sees an opening for ecumenical dialogue with protestants because modern Catholic theologians have broadened the notion of what divine right actually means. While the Petrine ministry or function was established by Christ, it’s form (structure) is really a product of the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with human factors over time, which means the structure of the Papacy is subject to change.
The key is the use of the term “Petrine function”, which refers to the “Petrine Ministry” given to Peter by Christ. When viewed in a broader way, this provides an opportunity to Catholics for “considering changes in the way the Pope fulfills the Petrine function.”
Miller proposed to stop using the term “divine right” when referring to the Petrine function and instead use divine institution (institutio divina) and divine design (ordinatio divina). Using these terms permits emphasizing the elements of human decision and historical factors in the development of the Papacy as we know it today. These terms affirm that the Petrine function is of divine origin (divine institution). But the structure of the papacy involves human decision making with the Holy Spirit (divine design). These terms avoid misunderstandings when Catholics use the term “divine right” because that term implies that the form (or structure) of the Papacy cannot be changed since Christ instituted it.
In conclusion, Miller recommends avoiding the term “divine right” because of its “association with past polemics” and that it should be replaced so that the Petrine function can be distinguished “from its realization in the historic papacy.”
Second, Miller argues the action of the Holy Spirit must always be taken into account when describing the emergence of the Papacy rather than focusing on the Christological origins that cause so much conflict in ecumenical dialogue. “New perspectives” are opened when considering the Spirit’s guidance in continuing the work of the Church.
Third, the use of the term “Petrine function” allows non-Catholics “to reconsider their present experience of a need for a ministry of unity directed to the universal Church, without limiting their reflections to the present form of papacy.” In turn, Catholics must ask themselves, says Miller “What really belongs to the Petrine function of the Pope?”
Finally, distinguish between the Petrine function as a divine institution and its realization in the historic papacy as divine design. “Contemporary discussion can benefit from making this distinction between the dominical institution of Petrine primacy and the divine design of its concrete realization in the papacy.”
[END OF SUMMARY]
Implication of Miller’s Dissertation
After reading this summary of Miller’s dissertation, I hope the reader is able to see why the distinction between themunusandministeriumis so important to understanding Benedict’s actions in February 2013.
Benedict, along with theNouvelle théologie, do not look at the Papacy the same way most Catholics do. Most of us look at it the way Vatican I taught us to look at it—consistent with what the Church always taught. He doesn’t, which is why this is so confusing to others and Benedict is given a pass for his drawn-out resignation speech and needless use of confusing terminology. No one bothered to look at the ecclesiology behind what Benedict was doing. If you understand the Papacy like Benedict, it wasn’t needlessly confusing at all, it actually makes perfect sense if you happen to be well versed in Catholic “new” theology.
Viewing the Papacy as a broadquasi-sacramentalPetrine ministry instituted by Christ subject to ongoing guidance from the Holy Spirit over the course of history, as opposed to a rigidly defined juridical office, opens the door for many changes. It makes possible the notion that Christ did entrust St. Peter with a special ministry but that the structure or form that this ministry takes remains changeable over time. For Miller, this was very important for purposes of ecumenical dialogue with protestants who rejected the idea that the Bible teaches Christ instituted an office to be held by one man, the successor of Peter with supreme juridical authority over the Church.
For Benedict in 2013, this is important because while he believed the Petrine ministry was “forever” in the nature of a sacrament (essentially precluding his ability to give up that ministry entirely)(this is the “munus“), the Petrine ministry is not so limited to preclude the possibility of dividing up the particular functions of the ministry among others (this is the“ministerii”). Benedict could still, therefore, resign the administrative duties or active component of this Petrine ministry, while still retaining a more passive role or function.
Now, this notion of an expanding Petrine ministry to allow for potentially two or more different participants serving different functions at the same time may all seem contrary to what the Vatican I fathers taught inPastor Aeternus. And it is, which is why Benedict was insubstantial errorwhen he attempted to pull this off. But, you see, this is what Miller’s dissertation was all about.
Miller was trying to find a way to square the “classical” teaching of the Church concerning the Papacy (set forth in Vatican I) with the Modernist ecumenical ideas taught by theNouvelle théologie. Almost like he was engaging in a hermeneutic of continuity!
Because Vatican I kept using this phrase “divine right,” which implied that Christ instituted a papal office with one man (the successor of Peter) holding supreme juridical authority that could never change, Miller saw an opening and honed in on the use of that term and concluded the best thing to do is to just stop using it.
You see, according to Miller and other Modernists, if you just stop using phrases like “divine right” that they used in Vatican I (and Council of Trent and what all Catholics used to use for that matter) then it makes it easier to split hairs and justify new concepts of the Papacy without doing violence to the teachings of Vatican I. Changing terminology and redefining accepted concepts is a key weapon for the Modernist. It’s just another sleight of hand.
Avoiding the use of “divine right” and replacing it with other terms that recognize a Petrine ministry (themunus) instituted by Christ while at the same time recognizing smaller changeable components (the ministerii) that make up the structure of that larger Petrine ministry opens the door to changing how the Papacy is exercised withoutreallychanging the Papacy.
When viewed in this way, it is possible to associate the “office” of the Papacy with the Modernist notion of the “Petrine Ministry” (the overarching, quasi-sacramental concept instituted by Christ) and then distinguish it from its component and changeable parts or structure. Such components while not strictly defined could, just for example, include an administrative function, spiritual function or suffering function not limited to one person. These components could properly be described as “ministries” within the Papal office or overarching Petrine ministry.
Application to Benedict’s Resignation
With this background from Miller in mind, now let’s go back and review the text of Benedict’sresignation letter on February 10, 2013with my comments inBOLD RED:
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry [here he is talking about the “munus” or enlarged Petrine ministry instituted by Christ.]I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature [he sees this as a spirtual office or quasi-sacramental duty, not just a juridical one], must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern [that’s a juridical term] the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. 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,[he uses “ministerio” here to make it clear he is resigning the smaller administrative or “active” component of the larger “munus” he was talking about above. It’s interesting he connects the Bishop of Rome with this administrative function of the Papacy, which implies he does not believe the Bishop of Rome and Papacy are inseparable. This was touched on in the Miller dissertation]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 [that is the administrative component], will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.[It makes sense that a conclave would be needed because remember he is trying to expand the Petrine ministry/office. If he is appointing a delegate to handle administrative functions, it would not be an expansion of the Petrine ministry or change of structure.]
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry[he uses “ministerii” here because he is still talking about this smaller administrative/active component not the Petrine ministry/office]and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
And then be sure to check out a portion of hisPapal audience on February 27, 2013. I will not add additional commentary. It speaks for itself.
“The “always” is also a “forever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.”
Conclusion
Miller’s dissertation was written for ecumenical purposes with the goal of rethinking the Papacy in such a way that protestants would find acceptable. In normal times, this would just fly under the radar as another post-Vatican II attempt to water down the Church’s perennial and unchanging dogmas–in this case the Papacy.
However, these are not normal times. This dissertation contains the theological keys for making sense of what Benedict attempted to do in February 2013. Of course, these ideas are all erroneous and contrary to the teachings of Vatican I. And as a result, Benedict was insubstantial erroraccording to Canon 188 when he attempted to resign only a portion of the Papal office, leaving an administrative/juridical function to be filled by someone else after a “conclave” was called.
All of this information is in the public sphere and available to those who actually care to look into it. I invite all those who insist Jorge Bergolgio is the Pope right now to do just do a little work and read the documents for themselves and use a basic level of logic to piece two and two together.
but today I’m wearing white.
