Calixtines (G. Bareille)

October 4, 2016

Originally posted 12/19/2015.

This is a very rough translation of the article “Calixtines” by G. Bareille in the 1905 Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 2:1364-1369 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1905), pages 679-681 of the PDF <https://ia800301.us.archive.org/21/items/dictionnairedet02pt1vaca/dictionnairedet02pt1vaca.pdf>. Holy Mother Church teaches in its Catechism, 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But ‘the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.222 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites. 222General Instruction of the Roman Missal 240.”  The Servant of God Fr. John A. S. A. Hardon, S.J. observed, “Not all Calixtines, however, were heretics. They could be Catholics who took advantage of the Church’s concession to receive the chalice but also believed that Holy Communion under both forms was not necessary for salvation.” In that sense, you or I could be considered Calixtines because of our habit of receiving the Most Precious Blood of Christ when we attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

To Bareille, who was Professor of Patrology at the Catholic University of Toulouse, Eternal Memory!

Calixtines

This name, taken from the Latin word calix, used to describe, among supporters of John Huss, who in the fifteenth century, reducing the minimum of their claims to four articles, vindicated especially the use of the chalice or communion under both species for the laity. Communion sub utraque was not unknown in Christian practice, see COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES [Vol. 3, col. ####; PDF ###-###], but the Church had long prohibited it because of its disadvantages. Huss himself, at least in its early days, had not thought to resume this use without the express consent of the Church. But some of his supporters, under the inspiration of Jacobel, vindicated the right to practice it. And the Council of Constance, faithful to the prescriptions of the past sages and suspecting moreover, not without reason, that this innovation masked some dogmatic error on the real presence, condemned in its thirteenth general session, June 15, 1415. [Gian Domenico] Mansi [Catholic], t . XXVII, col. 726-728 [PDF ###]; Hardouin, t. VIII, col. 380-382; [Karl Josef von] Hefele [Catholic], Histoire des conciles, French trans. Paris, 1876, t. X, p. 477-478. But neither the Archbishop of Prague or the king of Bohemia, Wenceslas could enforce the decree of the council. Jacobel composed a violent diatribe against the Fathers of Constance he called “the doctors of the use.” And Huss, changing of attitude that prisoner, hastened to write to his disciple Haulick, who had replaced the flesh in Bethlehem, not oppose the use of the chalice, not to fight Jacobel, and his friend Christian to adjure Bohemian nobility of having to defend a use which the council had to ban contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the primitive tradition. The execution of Huss, which occurred on the following July 6, aroused the indignation of supporters of the chalice and excited a bloody revolt in Bohemia. Despite the intervention of the Bishop of Leitomysl, who was powerless to avert the storm, the nobility sent a protest to the council, notifying its refusal to obey. The use of the chalice was maintained and widespread; it became a rallying sign, the symbol of Calixtines.

Read the rest of this entry »


Tsarevich Dimitry of Uglich Died Accidentally

October 4, 2016

Originally posted 9/9/2015.

 

Tsarevich Dimitry Ivanovich of Uglich (10/19/1582-5/15/1591), the youngest son of Tsar Ivan IV the Terrible, accidentally killed himself by stabbing himself with a knife during an epileptic fit.

Fr. Francis Dvornik says, “The reports on the death of the real Dmitrij were re-examined by G. Vernadsky (see Bibl.). He has rightly shown that the tsarevich’s death was accidental and that Boris Godunov was unjustly accused of his murder. A complete bibliography on this problem is given in his study published in the Oxford Slav. Papers. On the spread of this legend see also A. A. Rudakov’s study in Ist oriceskie Zapiski, 12 (1941), pp. 154-283″ (The Slavs in European History and Civilization, Rutgers University Press, 1962, 486 n. 1).

George Vernadsky points out that the testimony of the people who were in the courtyard at the time of the tsarevich’s death (“Vasilisa Volokhova, Irina Tuchkova, Maria Samoylova, and the four boys, Dimitry’s playmates”) is to be preferred to the testimony of “witnesses” who were not (Tsaritsa Maria Feodorovna Nagaya and Mikhail Nagoy) — see (The Death of the Tsarevich Dimitry: A Reconsideration of the Case, Oxford Slavonic Papers, Vol. V, 1954, 15-17). The Stledstevennoe Delo, the official investigative proceedings, is a more reliable source than the 17th century Russian chronicles (op. cit., 19).

The Catholic tsar False Dmitriy I was not the real Dmitry, nor was he the renegade monk Grigoriy Otrepyev, but he was not strictly an impostor (Thurston, Herbert. “Impostors.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 Sept. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07698b.htm>); due to his upbringing by the boyars he genuinely believed he was the son of Ivan the Terrible (George Vernadsky, A History of Russia, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969, 116-117).

The above account renders unworthy of belief the story related by Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović of Ohrid and Žiča (Prologue from OhridJune 3), who is commemorated by Orthodox Christians on May 3, that Boris Gudonov murdered Dimitry. If Bishop Nikolaj meant that Dimitry posthumously appeared to a monk informing him that he was murdered by Boris, we must reject this alleged vision as unhistorical. I invite the reader to suggest whether a serious investigation by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints would affirm whether any of the alleged posthumous miracles by Dimitry are what Fr. Louis Monden, S.J. would call “major prodigies” with intrinsic apologetic value which would “by [their] context or circumstances suggest or confirm” an interpretation of doctrine opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church; cf. my article “On Miracles Outside the Catholic Church,” n. 7.


Metropolitans of Kiev

March 27, 2011

Originally posted 2/22/2011.

Which Metropolitans of Kiev were Catholic and which ones were Orthodox?

We consult, among other sources, the venerable Bollandist Fr. John Stilting, S.J.’s “Dissertation on the Conversion and Faith of the Russians” in Acta Sanctorum 9:II:i-xxvii (PDF file pages 25-51). Page numbers in parentheses indicate the page of the downloaded PDF document.

St. Michael I of Kiev (988-992): Catholic
-see Bollandists 10:XI:237 (October, tome XI, page 237)
-Pope was John XV (XVI) of Rome (985-996)
-Patriarch of Constantinople was the Catholic St. Nicholas II Chrysoberges (984-996) [AASS 8:I:120F-121D (146-147); 10:XI:310 (346); Siméon Vailhé in 1907 DTC 3.2:1359]
Read the rest of this entry »


Did Photius die in communion with the Holy See?

March 19, 2011

Originally posted 3/19/2011.

Hail Joseph the just, Wisdom is with you; blessed are you among all men and blessed is Jesus, the fruit of Mary, your faithful spouse. Holy Joseph, worthy foster-father of Jesus Christ, pray for us sinners and obtain divine Wisdom for us from God, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. — St. Louis de Montfort

==========

Note: Photius is a saint of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church; see February Menaion (Diocese of Newton: Sophia Press, 2000), 69-84 <https://melkite.org/products-page/menaia/february-menaion>.

Previously I answered with a resounding yes, and I hope this is the case. Yet I can’t really be enthusiastic about Photius anymore, in light of the following observations of Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A. of happy memory in “New Light on the Photian Schism,” Unitas 5 (1953), 147-148.

Did Photius die in communion with the Holy See?
The most striking result of this recent research on the Photian question is the disappearance of the presumed second Photian schism. For many people this conclusion takes the concrete form: Photius died in communion with the Holy See. Is the conclusion justified? To respond we must avoid hasty conclusions, and distinguish between the position in the eyes of the law and the conduct or personal conscience of the deposed patriarch.

We cannot pass over in silence the fact that the Council of 869 was omitted from official lists of ecumenical councils, even in the West, until the second half of the eleventh century. Dvornik has established this with great erudition, and concludes that this silence is equivalent to the annulment of the Council. But we claim that it is more reasonable to suppose that since the Council concerned itself only with a personal issue and not with any question of dogma there was no great reason for emphasizing its importance at the time, and that also it seemed diplomatic in the West to remain silent after the Photian affair was settled in 899.

If it is a question of the position of Photius in the eyes of the law, all that we can say is that Photius died in communion with the Church of Byzantium. If this was in communion with Rome at the time, the former patriarch died in communion with Rome; if it was in schism, he died in schism. We are faced with two uncertainties here—the date of Photius’s death and the situation of the two Churches from the time of Formosus until the reunion council held under John IX in 899. We cannot give a reply to the main question until we can answer these two.

Read the rest of this entry »


Blog Fast

February 23, 2011

Originally posted 2/23/2011.

Dear readers, I am sorry for leaving you with many unfinished posts (e.g., the Fr. Divry posts and the Aurelio Palmieri post), but this blog is taking up way too much of my time, to the detriment of my grades. I am taking a break until I get my priorities straight (i.e., school first) and get my grades back up, and I will probably post no more than a few times between now and mid-May. Sts. Mary, Joseph, Raphael, Augustine the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and Rita of Cascia pray for me, a sinner!

Dear readers, pray the Rosary for me, a sinner. Thank you and God bless you and yours. Happy feast day of Bishop St. Polycarp the Martyr of Smyrna; St. Polycarp, pray to God for us!

The commemoration of Saint Polycarp, bishop and martyr, who is honored as a disciple of the blessed John and the last witness of apostolic times and, under the emperors Mark Anthony and Lucius Aurelius Commodus and in the presence of the proconsul and all the people, was delivered up to fire in the amphitheater at Smyrna when he was nearly ninety years of age, giving thanks to God that he had been deemed worthy to be numbered among the martyrs and receive a share in the cup of Christ. — USCCB website

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.


Post-Schism Orthodox Saints (Dictionnaire de Spiritualité)

February 21, 2011

Originally posted 2/21/2011.

The 1995 Tables Generales of the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité puts (SAINT) or (SAINTE) next to the name of men and women who are recognized as saints by the Catholic Church.

Column numbers are in parentheses.

Read the rest of this entry »


Was Alexander Nevsky Catholic?

February 21, 2011

Originally posted 2/20/2011.

MYTH
Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263), Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Vladimir, was anti-Catholic his whole life

1. Did Alexander Nevsky, canonized by the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and All Russia (1542-1563) in 1547,{1} convert to Catholicism? The conventional wisdom is that he did not; this is the “unanimous” consensus of “Russian writers,”, according to the expert Aurelio Palmieri (1870-1926).{2} His Life asserts that he said in 1248 to visiting papal legates that Russian Orthodox are members of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that they adhere firmly to the Seven Ecumenical Councils: “These we know very well, but we do not accept your teaching.”{3}

Read the rest of this entry »