History & Doctrinal Development (long & complicated)

[AmbroseSJ]

Praedicare:

I’m not saying the bad actions of one Pope can invalidate the Faith; I’m asking whether the consistent, concerted actions of a political sort can influence the way the Faith is seen, and thus practiced, and thus taught, and thus is.

I am not sure I fully understand your question. But it would be natural for a consistent, concerted action of a political sort (on the part of the clergy or even the Magisterium) to influence the way a Church (not Faith) is seen, and thus how the Faith is practiced, and taught etc.

However, the Magisterium is protected by the gift of Infallibility when teaching on Faith and Morals (when in union with the Pope.) Therefore while misunderstandings and scandals will inevitably abound (as Jesus predicted) Woe, to that man by whom scandal comes.

 

[Praedicare]

I’m beginning to think it’s hopeless to convey my actual point or question. It’s just too specific and not very well nuanced. Gut instinct. Intuition. Sorry to waste everybody’s time, I guess…

 

[steve_b]

**Developments: how far are they legitimate, and how far is too far? **

Here’s what I mean: when Theodosius made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380, the Church seems to have gone from Persecuted to Persecutor. It started destroying temples, defacing art, chopping off the hands of those who copied pagan manuscripts. Burning came later. Augustine theorized that it’s okay to imprison, torture, or potentially kill heretics. By the time of Justinian, heretics had no civil rights.

Could you provide your source for this? Please be specific

BTW, if you’d like a quick snapshot of the 1st 400 years of the Church, open up this link.All the internal links to the Early Church Fathers, are operational. #34
P:

**So, how far is too far? How many centuries does it take to declare something infallibly as to Morals? Can even universal bad practice be infallible?
**

What specific behavior surrounds your real question?
P:

Secondly, as far as I can tell, as the Western Roman Empire died away, the Popes – who already held the primacy and canonical authority – gradually assumed to themselves what remained of the imagery of the Empire, and extending claimed political power into theological claims. See* the forged* “Donation of Constantine”.

Donation of Constantine

Why make your points on something that is recognized as false.?
P:

Surrounded by Arian Goths in Italy & Spain, pagans in Britain, and a single Catholic Kingdom far away in France, there was chaos. Popes were chosen by Byzantine Emperors for 200 years, from 535 to 740, and seem to have had little “supremacy” rhetoric during that time. But I see a gradual elevation of the Papacy’s spiritual authority based on secular politics. When Charlemagne’s father granted conquered Italian territory to Rome in 752, the Popes shifted their full spiritual weight to Western politics, and within 100 years, the supremacy theology of Pope Nicholas I was in high gear.

**So, was this a legitimate way for papal episcopal supremacy to become worked out, or was the resulting supremacy illegitimate because it originated in politics?
**

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

from 535 - 752, I count 32 popes, 15 of which are declared saints. And 2 antipopes who aren’t popes.

Jesus Church is still here in 2016, and Pope Francis is 266th pope from St Peter.
P:

But it used to be different, didn’t it? Weren’t the first 7 Ecumenical Councils called by the Christian Emperors and nobody else? That was considered the prerequisite, not Papal approval. Even the first synod called by a Pope with the intention of having an ecumenical council (the Lateran Council, 649 AD), failed to attract enough bishops to become an Ecumenical Council

What makes a council ecumenical is the pope declares it ecumenical, namely binding on the entire Church.
P:

Could Charlemagne’s breaking of ecclesiastical practice have created a new faith and morals, more firmly rooted in the Papacy? Even if so, is that necessary illegitimate? How can we trust so deeply political an entity as the early/high/late Medieval Papacy not to warp things in its favour, creating a theological framework lasting to today?

**Again: developments. How far are they legitimate, and how far is too far? **

I have not found answers to these problems. If I could resolve them, I would be even happier than the day I was baptized. I’m hoping my fellow Catholics might have some ideas or thoughts.

Jesus created Peter’s position as leader of the Church. It wasn’t created by vote, nor by council, nor by emperor etc etc etc. It was Jesus who said

"I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of God"

Jesus said that directly to Peter right after He changed Simon’s name to ROCK! Peter’s position then (and his successors) will last in the Church till the end of time. That’s a promise from Jesus that has no expiration date.

Point being, Even the apostles argued over who is greatest among THEM. Yet notice how Jesus answered THEM

This topic is an old one. It goes back to the last Supper. Jesus answered the apostles and this issue, back then, but Satan never stops sifting #812

 

[Praedicare]

Could you provide your source for this? Please be specific.

The Theodosian Decrees of 391 are a good start. St. Ambrose was particularly fixated on destroying pagan art and architecture; see his 17th letter and the whole issue over the Altar Of Victory. The main beginning is Augustine’s famous 185th Epistle, “De Correctione Donatistarum”. I do not have a source for the cutting-off of copyists’ hands who copied pagan writings As for heretics lacking civil rights, it’s in the Pandects (Corpus Iuris Civilis) of Justinian.

However, the persecution of pagans and heretics is a side-issue. The main problems I have are elsewhere.

Thank you for the “snapshot” post. I’ve been studying the Fathers since 2012. It has been a long hard road of many discoveries and questions and answers.

What specific behavior surrounds your real question?

Is papal supremacy over the Church just a residual of now-vanished political power gained in the High Middle Ages, or does it truly extend back to Christ? Was the creation of the Papal States in the 8th century part of a larger process by which papal supremacy developed based on political reality rather than on the command of Christ?

For someone who accepts whatever the Church** currently** teaches, my question really is meaningless. If the Church currently teaches supremacy, then it must’ve come from Christ, period. What I’m worried about is whether current teaching can be wrong.

Take the Syllabus of Errors and its contradiction by modern popes since Vatican II, for an example. A Catholic in 1854 would be sinful for supporting freedom of religion, as it was defined as an error. A Catholic in 2016 is virtuous for supporting this idea, as it is promoted by the Papacy. So, which is right? Was Pius IX’s declaration just his opinion? How can we tell?

Obviously, embedded in my question about secular politics & doctrinal development, is a desire to know whether the Papacy really was given all those graces by Christ, or if it’s a development merely based on the history of growing political power.

Why make your points on something that is recognized as false?

I bring up the *Donation *because it was used for 700 years (until Lorenzo Valla showed it was fake in the 1420s) by the Church to justify its political/temporal power. I wonder whether this extended primarily into *new *theological claims, mixed with the (forged) decrees of the Emperor. So, basically: was the forged Donation used an excuse which naturally led to an increase in spiritual/theological claims about the Papacy?

Jesus Church is still here in 2016, and Pope Francis is 266th pope from St Peter.

Okay? Pope Francis is the 266th Bishop of Rome. He may very well be honored as Pope because of a political-theological synthesis. Just assume for a minute that I’m right, and the theological claims of supremacy come primarily from political expediency: I’m not condemning this. I want to know if that’s an acceptable way for doctrine to develop or not.

To bring this out of the abstract and into reality:

This whole issue of legitimate development, legitimate authority, etc., is important today. It seems to me that Feminism and Womens’ Rights and other modern political beliefs threaten to bring womens’ ordination into the Church based on one pope’s desire for “increased roles of women in the Church”, despite many decades of studies and encyclicals saying it’s impossible. This situation is an almost exact mirror of what I fear happened with Western ecclesiology in the middle ages.

What makes a council ecumenical is the pope declares it ecumenical, namely binding on the entire Church.

Which is** not** how the first 7 ecumenical councils worked. So, there’s a development. I recognize that, having no Christian Roman Empire left, we had to adapt… but not to recognize this adaptation, and to insist that the authority to call ecumenical councils has always lain with the Pope, seems unhistorical to me. As an archivist who deals with history every day of my life, I fear history being twisted because of agendas. That’s all this is about.

Jesus created Peter’s position as leader of the Church. It wasn’t created by vote, nor by council, nor by emperor etc etc etc.

I’ve always wanted to ask: why must Peter’s exact vocation, fitted to his personality, extend to all his episcopal successors? Does that mean everyone who fills the see of Judas Iscariot has to betray Jesus? Does that mean everyone who fills the see of James has to be martyred by stoning?

Do you see what I’m getting at? Or is all this just sounding like the Church History equivalent of Jesus Mythicism and Dan Brown?

This topic is an old one. It goes back to the last Supper. Jesus answered the apostles and this issue, back then, but Satan never stops sifting #812

Thanks for linking me to that. I really like the language study and the things that come out of the text when we really investigate the Greek.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Take the Syllabus of Errors and its contradiction by modern popes since Vatican II, for an example. A Catholic in 1854 would be sinful for supporting freedom of religion, as it was defined as an error. A Catholic in 2016 is virtuous for supporting this idea, as it is promoted by the Papacy. So, which is right? Was Pius IX’s declaration just his opinion? How can we tell?

Newman informs us (contemporary to the syllabus) that there is nothing to alarm us. It must be taken in context. As usual, everyone quote mines for shocking statements and then supposes the Church now does an about face. That is why the syllabus is a non-starter for anyone that appreciates the context in which the syllabus appeared.

1. For instance, take his own 16th (the 77th of the “erroneous Propositions”), that, “It is no longer expedient that the Catholic Religion should be established to the exclusion of all others.” When we turn to the Allocution, which is the ground of its being put into the Syllabus, what do we find there? First, that the Pope was speaking, not of States universally, but of one particular State, Spain, definitely Spain; secondly, that he was not noting the erroneous proposition directly, or categorically, but was protesting against the breach in many ways of the Concordat on the part of the Spanish government; further, that he was not referring to any work containing the said proposition, nor contemplating any proposition at all; nor, on the other hand, using any word of condemnation whatever, nor using any harsher terms of the Government in question than an expression of “his wonder and distress.” And again, taking the Pope’s remonstrance as it stands, is it any great cause of complaint to Englishmen, who so lately were severe in their legislation upon Unitarians, Catholics, unbelievers, and others, that the Pope merely does not think it expedient for every state from this time forth to tolerate every sort of religion on its territory, and to disestablish the Church at once? for this is all that he denies. As in the instance in the foregoing section, he does but deny a universal, which the “erroneous proposition” asserts without any explanation. {286}

 

[steve_b]

The Theodosian Decrees of 391 are a good start. St. Ambrose was particularly fixated on destroying pagan art and architecture; see his 17th letter and the whole issue over the Altar Of Victory. The main beginning is Augustine’s famous 185th Epistle, “De Correctione Donatistarum”. I do not have a source for the cutting-off of copyists’ hands who copied pagan writings As for heretics lacking civil rights, it’s in the Pandects (Corpus Iuris Civilis) of Justinian.

Keep in mind, emperors ruled the empire, NOT the Church. Here’s some additional perspective

• Theodosius I
• Is Baptism Really Necessary?
• Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils *
• Strengthening Brethren
• The 21 Ecumenical Councils *
• Christians R Us*
• An Eastern Voice Crying in the Wilderness *
• The Church of Nicaea and Constantinople *

 

[steve_b]

Is papal supremacy over the Church just a residual of now-vanished political power gained in the High Middle Ages, or does it truly extend back to Christ? Was the creation of the Papal States in the 8th century part of a larger process by which papal supremacy developed based on political reality rather than on the command of Christ?

Politics didn’t give us the papacy

• Refuting Papal Myths — “Peter Was Not a Pope”
• Papal Authority at the Earliest Councils
• Refuting Papal Myths - “The Papacy is Unbiblical and Unhistorical”

P:

If the Church currently teaches supremacy, then it must’ve come from Christ, period. What I’m worried about is whether current teaching can be wrong.

Is your question about infallibility?
P:

Take the Syllabus of Errors and its contradiction by modern popes since Vatican II, for an example. A Catholic in 1854 would be sinful for supporting freedom of religion, as it was defined as an error. A Catholic in 2016 is virtuous for supporting this idea, as it is promoted by the Papacy. So, which is right? Was Pius IX’s declaration just his opinion? How can we tell?

Re: The Syllabus Of Errors

The errors the syllabus addresses are

• Pantheism
• Naturalism
• Rationalism (in the absolute)

I think you can see Absolute rationalism dismisses the divine and the supernatural
P:

Obviously, embedded in my question about secular politics & doctrinal development, is a desire to know whether the Papacy really was given all those graces by Christ, or if it’s a development merely based on the history of growing political power.

When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of God,
P:

I bring up the *Donation *because it was used for 700 years (until Lorenzo Valla showed it was fake in the 1420s) by the Church to justify its political/temporal power. I wonder whether this extended primarily into *new *theological claims, mixed with the (forged) decrees of the Emperor. So, basically: was the forged Donation used an excuse which naturally led to an increase in spiritual/theological claims about the Papacy?

Have all the old heresies been completely eradicated? No. They hang on. Does that make them legitimate? No. Heresy is heresy. Just as the false Decratels are always going to be false and the “Donation” is false no matter who keeps using it or referring to it.
P:

Okay? Pope Francis is the 266th Bishop of Rome. He may very well be honored as Pope because of a political-theological synthesis.

From the info given you so far, you know now, it is NOT politics mixed with theology that gave us the papacy. Jesus established the office Peter holds and in extension, those who follow him in his office

• Power of the Keys
• Stewards of the Kingdom
• Peter’s Primacy

P:

Just assume for a minute that I’m right, and the ***theological ***claims of supremacy come primarily from political expediency: I’m not condemning this. I want to know if that’s an acceptable way for doctrine to develop or not.

That is false.
P:

To bring this out of the abstract and into reality:

This whole issue of legitimate development, legitimate authority, etc., is important today. It seems to me that Feminism and Womens’ Rights and other modern political beliefs threaten to bring womens’ ordination into the Church based on one pope’s desire for “increased roles of women in the Church”, despite many decades of studies and encyclicals saying it’s impossible. This situation is an almost exact mirror of what I fear happened with Western ecclesiology in the middle ages.

Re: women’s ordination, see #[87 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12048115&postcount=87)
P:

Which is** not** how the first 7 ecumenical councils worked. So, there’s a development. I recognize that, having no Christian Roman Empire left, we had to adapt… but not to recognize this adaptation, and to insist that the authority to call ecumenical councils has always lain with the Pope, seems unhistorical to me. As an archivist who deals with history every day of my life, I fear history being twisted because of agendas. That’s all this is about.

I didn’t say emperors didn’t call for a council. They don’t control a council, nor make it ecumenical, nor do they control the Church.

If issues get fuzzy and blurred, THEN we see laws made to clarify the issues.

[snip for space]

 

[catholic1seeks]

Hi!

We all have our own struggles and doubts with particular points of doctrine. For me personally, the papacy is something I am extremely confident in – after my own personal studies. But placing myself in your shoes, I hope to understand your doubts and concerns.

First off, don’t burden yourself with every political event in the history of the church. The church spans 2,000 years. If we worry about every single event as legitimizing or delegitimizing the Church, then I think we have greater foundational issues at stake.

So for starters: Is Peter’s primacy a divine foundation, or not? That is the question you should really dig into. If indeed Peter’s primacy was Christ-mandated, then why should the structure of the church switch from leadership in a prime-minister/royal steward model (Christ giving the keys to Peter directly recalls Isaiah 22, the Davidic Kingdom, and the royal steward over the house) TO A very different, equally dignified structure of bishops (as some Christians believe)?

There may have been corrupt Popes, bad decisions, institutional sins, etc. That the Holy Spirit guides the Church does not mean it is perfect or that it will make the best decision every time. We know the Church needs reformation in every century, even today.

The basic thread of the Papacy throughout time, from Peter onward is this:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2).

I know you have read this many times. But let it sink in. Here in the 2nd century, we have a very explicit statement on Rome’s primacy, and why it has it: doctrinal purity and apostolic foundation in the chief Apostles. That Rome is the “superior,” “greatest” church that “all must agree with” is not situational. The church father here directly relates it to Apostolic foundation. This authority continues, and it forms the basic idea of that Papacy throughout time – no mattter what political developments, poor decisions, sins of the Pope, etc.

 

[Praedicare]

catholic1seeks, that was an amazing reply with a very reasonable premise. Your heart is an open and golden one.

I’ve indeed read St. Irenée’s famous statement many times, but today my eye particularly fell on the phrase “its superior origin”. Thanks for reminding my brain.

One reason I’ve never been 100% able to stick to the Orthodox ecclesiology (the only other ecclesiology that makes sense given what we know about Apostolic Tradition) is that its very claim about its nature seems to contradict itself.

What do I mean? I was listening to an Orthodox archimandrite talk about St. Theophan the Recluse, a hermit who was made a bishop in the 19th century. The archimandrite said a phrase that really stuck with me: “Theophan was elevated to the dignity of the Apostolic ministry”. Along with your quote from St. Irenée, it impressed me that the continuation not only of the Apostles is stressed, but of their ministry – their life, as Apostles. That’s what the episcopate is: the 1. apostolic (of the Twelve) 2. ministry (of Service, which is meant to be a priest’s whole life).

Now, if the episcopacy is truly is the continuation of the Apostles’ ministry and life on Earth, we need not even consider the personal office of Peter to see the apparent necessity of the Papacy; just look at the overall group of the Apostles and how they lived, both before Pentecost and after. Although we do see that Peter is named first in every list, I never noticed that in Matthew 10:2, he explicitly uses the word “first”, saying: “the first [protos], Simon called [legomenos] Peter”, even though Andrew was the first to believe in Christ. Obviously the primacy is not conferred based on chronological dignity.

Also, note that Matthew does not, say “The First, Simon, who is called Peter” as if (at least to me) Peter is not necessarily just a name-change for Simon, but as if Peter is a specific thing that Simon does, has, or is. He is “called [to be] Peter”. Obviously if Peter is something that Simon was called to do, have, or be, then it is a real thing apart from Simon.

So, if the Orthodox (and any other bishops) claim to not only descend from the Apostles, but also to have the Apostolic Ministry in continuance, then to be Apostles, by nature, is to submit to the ordering authority of the First of the Apostles. Their claim that their bishops enter, inherit, and continue the Apostolic Ministry is contradictory because they do not order their apostleship as the very Apostles did, and so it is a different ministry, and not necessarily the Apostolic one.

I guess my original question (did Western political history necessitate the theological claims about the Papacy?) is irrelevant, in this context.

The real question is: do we trust the Commission itself, by Christ, and not necessarily the man who is fulfilling it? The trouble I have is the claim that the Holy Spirit is working even in the desperate situations & dire straits of history. I have great distrust of Man in power, especially when he makes statements that his infallibility is “Ex sese et non ex consensus ecclesiae”, as in Lumen Gentium 25.

When the order of all 7 sacraments was changed in a single year (1967-1968), and the tradition the Popes have been entrusted with seems to be totally ignored, I doubt. As much as the forms of things can change by Church authority, there’s something inherently suspect, to me, in changing so much ancient stuff all at once. Can revolutions happen in the Church, outside the Holy Spirit’s love and guidance? It can’t be anything more than a change of faith, given how central the sacraments are. “But if the Faith changed, then the Popes aren’t infallible!”, and on and on and on…

There’s a lot to work out. But I think the main issue is whether we trust the Holy Spirit to help the Bride do what Bridegroom desires to do in the renovation of the Cosmos.

 

[thistle]

catholic1seeks, that was an amazing reply with a very reasonable premise. Your heart is an open and golden one.

I’ve indeed read St. Irenée’s famous statement many times, but today my eye particularly fell on the phrase “its superior origin”. Thanks for reminding my brain.

One reason I’ve never been 100% able to stick to the Orthodox ecclesiology (the only other ecclesiology that makes sense given what we know about Apostolic Tradition) is that its very claim about its nature seems to contradict itself.

What do I mean? I was listening to an Orthodox archimandrite talk about St. Theophan the Recluse, a hermit who was made a bishop in the 19th century. The archimandrite said a phrase that really stuck with me: “Theophan was elevated to the dignity of the Apostolic ministry”. Along with your quote from St. Irenée, it impressed me that the continuation not only of the Apostles is stressed, but of their ministry – their life, as Apostles. That’s what the episcopate is: the 1. apostolic (of the Twelve) 2. ministry (of Service, which is meant to be a priest’s whole life).

Now, if the episcopacy is truly is the continuation of the Apostles’ ministry and life on Earth, we need not even consider the personal office of Peter to see the apparent necessity of the Papacy; just look at the overall group of the Apostles and how they lived, both before Pentecost and after. Although we do see that Peter is named first in every list, I never noticed that in Matthew 10:2, he explicitly uses the word “first”, saying: “the first [protos], Simon called [legomenos] Peter”, even though Andrew was the first to believe in Christ. Obviously the primacy is not conferred based on chronological dignity.

Also, note that Matthew does not, say “The First, Simon, who is called Peter” as if (at least to me) Peter is not necessarily just a name-change for Simon, but as if Peter is a specific thing that Simon does, has, or is. He is “called [to be] Peter”. Obviously if Peter is something that Simon was called to do, have, or be, then it is a real thing apart from Simon.

So, if the Orthodox (and any other bishops) claim to not only descend from the Apostles, but also to have the Apostolic Ministry in continuance, then to be Apostles, by nature, is to submit to the ordering authority of the First of the Apostles. Their claim that their bishops enter, inherit, and continue the Apostolic Ministry is contradictory because they do not order their apostleship as the very Apostles did, and so it is a different ministry, and not necessarily the Apostolic one.

I guess my original question (did Western political history necessitate the theological claims about the Papacy?) is irrelevant, in this context.

The real question is: do we trust the Commission itself, by Christ, and not necessarily the man who is fulfilling it? The trouble I have is the claim that the Holy Spirit is working even in the desperate situations & dire straits of history. I have great distrust of Man in power, especially when he makes statements that his infallibility is “Ex sese et non ex consensus ecclesiae”, as in Lumen Gentium 25.

When the order of all 7 sacraments was changed in a single year (1967-1968), and the tradition the Popes have been entrusted with seems to be totally ignored, I doubt. As much as the forms of things can change by Church authority, there’s something inherently suspect, to me, in changing so much ancient stuff all at once. Can revolutions happen in the Church, outside the Holy Spirit’s love and guidance? It can’t be anything more than a change of faith, given how central the sacraments are. “But if the Faith changed, then the Popes aren’t infallible!”, and on and on and on…

There’s a lot to work out. But I think the main issue is** whether we trust the Holy Spirit to help the Bride do what Bridegroom desires to do **in the renovation of the Cosmos.

A faithful Catholic does trust the Holy Spirit.

 

[Praedicare]

A faithful Catholic does trust the Holy Spirit.

Indeed. It just makes me sad when I can’t sustain everything from Reason, especially since the Catholic Church has always been so big on “fides et ratio”.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Indeed. It just makes me sad when I can’t sustain everything from Reason, especially since the Catholic Church has always been so big on “fides et ratio”.

But your difficulties are not with unreasonable doctrines, but rather your worry that given the nature of man, can we trust that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the Church.

If I can make an observation: Why not focus more on how the Holy Spirit has indeed guided the Church DESPITE the sins of Popes, bishops and laity. It may help balance your view, and increase your confidence in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Praedicare]

But your difficulties are not with unreasonable doctrines, but rather your worry that given the nature of man, can we trust that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the Church.

If I can make an observation: Why not focus more on how the Holy Spirit has indeed guided the Church DESPITE the sins of Popes, bishops and laity. It may help balance your view, and increase your confidence in the Holy Spirit.

That is a good, charitable, and wise observation. It’s just times like the Pornocracy (early 900s AD) and the dark times that worry me. We always hear about how the Popes upheld the true doctrines of the Faith throughout the Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, and Monothelite controversies, and even Iconoclasm. But in just 150 years after that, it was the “age of iron”. I often wonder what the Lord means to teach the world by all these things.

Anyway, I’d like to say that despite my problems with all these things, I do believe that at least theoretically and logically, there is no system that makes any more sense, based on Christ’s words and teachings, than the primacy and authority of the Bishops of Rome. It is even painful to admit it, because of difficulties, but I say it with joy as one who has great relief after a famine.

Now I can go back to Mass with a bit more calmness of heart.