ACCIPERE, NON FINGERE ~ To Receive, Not to Invent: A Spiritual Conference for Nuntiatoria CXIX
There are three words which might serve not merely as the motto of this edition of Nuntiatoria, but as a rule for understanding much of the present confusion within the Church and much of the confusion of the world beyond her: **Accipere, non fingere — to receive, not to invent.**¹ The distinction is simple, but it reaches extraordinarily deep. Accipere is to receive, to accept, to take what is given. Fingere is to fashion, mould, devise or fabricate. Our English word “fiction” comes from the same root. The contrast, therefore, is not merely between passivity and creativity. It concerns something more fundamental: whether reality possesses a nature and meaning which precede us, or whether reality is material from which we may manufacture whatever meaning we choose.
Christianity begins with reception. We did not invent God. We did not invent Christ. We did not invent the Incarnation, Calvary or the Resurrection. We did not invent the Church, the priesthood, the Scriptures, the Sacraments, the moral law, grace or our supernatural destiny. Before Christianity asks us to do anything, Christianity tells us that something has already been done. God has acted. God has spoken. God has entered history. God has revealed Himself. Our first response therefore cannot be invention. It must be reception.
Even before revelation, creation itself teaches us this disposition. None of us chose to exist. None of us selected the century into which we would be born, the body we inhabit, the parents from whom we came, the nation or culture into which we first opened our eyes. We enter a world already there. Reality precedes our preferences. Modern man increasingly finds this intolerable. Our civilisation teaches that authenticity means self-construction. We must define ourselves, create ourselves, choose our own identity, determine our own meaning and distrust anything inherited until we have personally approved it. Tradition is suspect precisely because we did not choose it. Authority is suspect because it precedes us. Nature itself becomes suspect because it places limits upon our autonomy.
Against that entire mentality stands the profoundly Christian word: receive. Receive existence, receive nature, receive truth, receive the Commandments, receive grace, receive Christ, and then become, through grace, what God intended you to be. This is why Accipere, non fingere is much more than a useful slogan for ecclesiastical controversies. It describes the fundamental humility of the creature before the Creator.
Our Lady gives us its perfect expression. At Nazareth, Gabriel does not arrive asking Mary to devise a plan for the redemption of mankind. He announces something which could never have originated in the human imagination. Her question — “How shall this be done?” — is not negotiation. It is faith seeking understanding. Once the angel has spoken, her answer is Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum: “Be it done to me according to thy word.” According to thy word: not according to my preferences, not according to what I would have chosen, not according to what my contemporaries expect, not according to what appears possible, but according to thy word. There, in one sentence, is Accipere, non fingere.
Saint Paul gives us the same structure when he speaks of the Holy Eucharist: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” And again, concerning the Resurrection: “For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received.” Receive, guard, hand on. That is the grammar of Catholic Tradition. The Apostle does not say, “I received something and subsequently reconstructed it according to the needs of my audience.” He says: I received; therefore I delivered.
Tradition is not principally antiquarianism. It is not a romantic preference for everything old. Traditio means handing over. Something has been entrusted to one generation which that generation did not create and therefore has no authority to falsify before handing it to the next. That does not exclude development. Saint Vincent of Lérins famously distinguished profectus from permutatio: genuine growth from alteration into something else. A child grows into a man, but he does not mature into another species. An acorn becomes an oak; it does not develop organically into a rosebush. Catholic doctrine may be more precisely articulated because new questions arise, but genuine development cannot turn yesterday’s truth into today’s falsehood. Development receives and unfolds. Invention replaces.
Much of what we have considered in this edition of Nuntiatoria can be understood beneath that distinction, and one of the clearest examples is the contemporary discussion of synodality.² There is nothing un-Catholic about bishops meeting. There is nothing wrong with pastors consulting their people. There is nothing wrong with clergy listening, lay people describing their experiences, difficulties being identified or pastoral circumstances being examined. Synods have belonged to the life of the Church from antiquity. Indeed, authority which refuses to listen may become dangerously detached from reality. But consultation is one thing and revelation another; listening is one thing and teaching another; consensus is one thing and the sensus fidelium another. Much depends upon keeping those distinctions intact.³
This week ✠Rob Mutsaerts asked questions about the fruits of the synodal enterprise which deserve to be heard precisely because they move the discussion away from the success of the process and towards the success of the mission. Has faith been strengthened? Has Christ been proclaimed more clearly? Has Catholic identity deepened? Have there been more conversions? Has Sunday Mass attendance increased? Are there more priestly vocations? Has catechesis become more effective? Has reverence for the Eucharist increased? Has Catholic moral teaching become clearer? Has missionary courage grown?² These are penetrating questions because Our Lord Himself gives us the criterion: “By their fruits you shall know them.”
The Church is not judged by the quantity of documentation she produces, by the number of consultation sessions held, by the sophistication of organisational methods, by the breadth of participation or by how many times the words “listening”, “discernment”, “journey” or “dialogue” appear in a report. If a process is genuinely of the Holy Ghost, the eventual fruit should be recognisably of the Holy Ghost: stronger faith, greater holiness, deeper Eucharistic life, clearer proclamation, more courageous evangelisation, conversion from sin and greater fidelity to Christ. The Church exists for the salvation of souls. Every structure must ultimately justify itself before that purpose.
The danger becomes more serious when consultation is quietly elevated into something possessing supernatural authority. A group of participants says something. The report records that “some participants expressed” a particular view. Later this becomes “Catholics are asking”; then “there is a widespread desire”; then “a consensus is emerging”; then “the People of God are discerning”; and eventually “we must listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Church.” Pause there. We began with human beings expressing opinions and ended with words attributed to the Holy Ghost. That is an enormous theological journey, yet it can happen almost unnoticed because every stage is expressed in devout ecclesiastical language.
This is precisely where Accipere, non fingere becomes indispensable. The sensus fidelium is not Catholic opinion polling. It is not whatever the majority of baptised people happen to think. It is not generated by questionnaires, discussion groups or assemblies. The supernatural sense of faith belongs to believers precisely insofar as they receive and adhere to the Faith. The faithful are faithful. That word must recover its weight.
A Catholic can be mistaken. A Catholic can be poorly catechised. A Catholic can imbibe the assumptions of the surrounding culture. A Catholic can reject Catholic moral teaching. A Catholic can remain culturally attached to the Church while scarcely believing her doctrine. Such a person deserves charity. His concerns may deserve to be heard. His confusion may reveal genuine failures of pastoral care. His questions may expose serious deficiencies in catechesis. But his disagreement with revelation does not become revelation because a sufficiently large number of people share it.
The Holy Ghost is not discovered by statistical aggregation. The authentic sensus fidelium is a people recognising what has been received, not a constituency manufacturing what ought now to be believed. That is why Blessed John Henry Newman’s famous teaching on consulting the faithful is so often misunderstood when read through modern democratic assumptions. Newman understood the faithful as witnesses to Tradition. They may preserve what has been received even when theologians become fashionable, clergy become confused or pastors fail in courage. A witness tells you what he has received. An inventor tells you what he would prefer.
Perhaps, then, the simplest test of any authentic synodal process is this: can it say no? Can it listen seriously and compassionately to a demand and then answer, “We have heard you. We understand why you ask. We recognise the suffering or conviction involved. But Christ has already spoken, and the Church has no authority to give the answer you request”? If it cannot, then what is occurring is not discernment. It is negotiation. Discernment seeks the will of God; it does not gradually negotiate God into adopting ours.
And here the questions about fruits return with tremendous force. Suppose people report that they have been heard: good. But have they been converted? Suppose structures have become more participatory: good. But is Christ preached? Suppose language has become more inclusive: but has Catholic moral teaching become clearer? Suppose the Church has become highly accomplished at listening to the world: but is the world hearing the Gospel? Suppose people are invited to speak freely about their experiences: but are they being brought to repentance, Confession, Mass, prayer and sanctification? The question is not whether consultation is good. The question is whether consultation remains the servant of evangelisation, or whether evangelisation has gradually become subordinate to consultation.
This same temptation appears in another form in the sacred liturgy. One of the articles in this edition concerned the attempt to treat the post-conciliar liturgical settlement as though every feature of it were simply the inevitable implementation of Vatican II.⁴ But historical reality is more complicated. The Council called for liturgical reform, yet it did not compose the Missal of Paul VI. It did not command versus populum celebration. It did not require the practical disappearance of Latin. It did not instruct that Gregorian chant should become exceptional. It did not design the three-year lectionary. It did not order the traditional Offertory prayers to be replaced. It did not decree that three new Eucharistic Prayers should be created.
Yet repetition can become so powerful that what happened afterwards is projected backwards into what the Council supposedly mandated. Here we encounter another form of fingere. We do not merely invent futures; we can invent pasts. A narrative is repeated until everybody assumes it is history. That danger exists on all sides. Traditionalists can construct a golden age which never quite existed. Progressives can construct an imaginary Council which legislated everything subsequently done in its name. Both errors are corrected by the same spiritual discipline: receive reality as it is. Read the texts. Examine what actually happened. Do not ask first whether a fact assists my argument. Ask whether it is true. This is profoundly Christian because truthfulness is not divisible. We cannot defend objective truth in doctrine while tolerating convenient falsehood in history.
The liturgy itself teaches something further. It is fundamentally received worship. The priest does not own it. The congregation does not own it. The liturgy is not an empty stage waiting for the creativity of the celebrant. When the priest obeys received ritual, something spiritually important happens: his personality recedes and the prayer of the Church becomes visible. The very discipline of the rite teaches him that he is not the author of worship, but its minister.
The same principle applies to sacred space. This week we reflected upon another “rave in the nave” at Canterbury Cathedral, held even upon the Feast of the Assumption.⁵ It is easy simply to become angry about such things, but the deeper question is this: what is a cathedral? If a sacred building possesses a nature which has been received — if it has been consecrated and ordered towards the worship of God — then that nature places limits upon what may appropriately occur within it. But if meaning itself is constructed according to present convenience, then sacred space becomes simply usable space. A nave becomes a venue, an altar becomes a backdrop, a cathedral becomes an unusual event location. The question is not merely whether dancing is tasteful. The deeper question is whether anything possesses an identity which commands our reverence before we decide what use to make of it.
This is why so many modern controversies are ultimately controversies about meaning. Marriage ceases to be received as a natural and sacramental reality and becomes something society defines. Sex ceases to be received as bodily reality and becomes identity constructed by the self. Human life ceases to possess received dignity and becomes valuable according to circumstances, capacities or desire. Sacred space ceases to possess received purpose and becomes adaptable property. Tradition ceases to be received inheritance and becomes optional source material. Consultation ceases to be information received by authority and becomes a mechanism by which new meanings are manufactured. The crisis is therefore deeper than individual doctrines. It concerns whether reality itself is something given.
This same principle explains several other questions raised in the present edition concerning Catholic identity and Catholic institutions.⁶ What does it mean for something to be Catholic? If the word means merely historical association, then almost anything may be done while the label remains. A Catholic university may be Catholic because its foundation once was; a Catholic organisation may be Catholic because the name remains; a pontifical body may be Catholic simply because Rome created it. But if Catholic identity is something substantive and received, then identity imposes obligations. A Catholic institution exists for Catholic ends. Its membership, leadership and activity should manifest those ends.
This does not mean Catholics cannot work with non-Catholics. Of course they can. It does not mean the Church cannot engage those who disagree with her. She must. But collaboration and identity are not the same thing. Hospitality and self-abandonment are not the same thing. Dialogue and doctrinal indifference are not the same thing. If the Church forgets what she has received, she eventually has nothing distinctive with which to enter dialogue.
This is particularly important in relation to the Church’s public witness. Another article this week considered the strange pattern by which political figures or activists openly opposed to Catholic moral teaching may nevertheless be publicly embraced in settings whose symbolic meaning can easily obscure the contradiction.⁷ Again, the issue is not that the Church must refuse to speak to sinners. If that were the rule, none of us could approach her. Our Lord ate with publicans and sinners. But He never accompanied anyone by pretending that sin had ceased to be sin. He sat with Zacchaeus, and Zacchaeus changed. He saved the woman taken in adultery, and said, “Go, and now sin no more.” He received sinners, but He did not receive their sins as morally neutral.
That distinction is desperately important for Catholic witness. A gesture may be intended as hospitality and be received publicly as endorsement. A photograph may communicate more strongly than a carefully drafted communiqué. A warm audience given to someone actively promoting abortion or euthanasia can easily communicate something quite different from what the Church professes doctrinally. Here, too, reality must be received. Actions possess meaning. Public symbols possess meaning. Offices possess meaning. Friendship does not require falsification. Mercy does not require moral ambiguity. Diplomacy does not require the Church to forget what she has received.
The governing principle for Catholic engagement with the world must therefore be this: we meet the world in charity without permitting the world to determine what Christianity means. Otherwise dialogue becomes assimilation. The world has little need for a Church which repeats what it already believes. If Christianity merely baptises the conclusions of contemporary society, then Christianity becomes redundant. If the Church says exactly what secular culture says about sex, marriage, human autonomy, suffering, death and morality — only some years later and wrapped in religious vocabulary — why should the world bother listening?
The world can manufacture secularism perfectly well by itself. What it cannot give itself is the Gospel. The world cannot forgive sins. It cannot absolve. It cannot consecrate the Eucharist. It cannot raise the dead. It cannot reveal the Trinity. It cannot confer sanctifying grace. It cannot promise eternal life. The Church possesses something the world does not possess because she has received something the world did not give her. Catholic mission therefore begins not with adapting the Faith to the world, but with faithfully carrying into the world what we ourselves have received.
This leads naturally to another controversy treated in this edition: questions of authority, Tradition and resistance. The article concerning ✠Athanasius Schneider and the SSPX raised, beneath its particular circumstances, a much larger ecclesiological question.⁸ What is authority for? Catholic authority is not arbitrary power. A bishop receives an office; he does not invent one. A priest receives Holy Orders; he does not manufacture priesthood. Even the Pope receives the Petrine office; he does not create the papacy afresh upon election. The very greatness of Catholic authority derives from the fact that it comes from Christ — and therefore its limits also come from Christ.
The Pope is not the author of revelation. The bishop is not proprietor of the Faith. The priest is not master of the Sacraments. Authority is stewardship. It is custodianship of something received. That means we must reject two opposite inventions. The first says that authority may make true whatever authority decides. That is not Catholic. The opposite invention says that because authority has sometimes failed, each Catholic may construct for himself an ecclesiology, jurisdiction or standard of obedience according to private judgement. That is not Catholic either. Accipere, non fingere judges both. We receive the divine constitution of the Church. We receive the limits of authority. We receive the duties of obedience. We also receive the truth to which all authority is subject. Catholic fidelity is more difficult than simply choosing between obedience and rebellion. It requires truth, prudence, humility and sometimes suffering.
And that brings us to perhaps the most important point of all. If Accipere, non fingere remains merely a criticism of synodality, liturgical reform, ecclesiastical appointments, public relations, Canterbury Cathedral or contemporary culture, then we will have missed its spiritual meaning entirely. The motto must turn upon us. We invent constantly. We invent excuses for our sins. We call resentment principle, pride discernment, anger zeal, gossip concern, cowardice prudence, laziness exhaustion, attachment necessity. We call our preferences convictions, and sometimes our convictions dogmas. Man is extraordinarily ingenious when escaping grace.
God says, forgive, and we explain why our case is different. God says, pray, and we explain why our circumstances make prayer impossible. God says, repent, and we begin analysing the sins of the hierarchy. God says, “Take up thy cross,” and we submit a proposal for an alternative cross. That is fingere. Holiness begins when we receive again: receive the Commandment as addressed to me; receive correction; receive the duty of my state in life; receive the person God has placed before me; receive the inconvenience, the humiliation, the opportunity to forgive, the sacrifice; receive the grace of this particular moment instead of imagining what great saints we would become if God only arranged our circumstances more conveniently.
There is an enormous amount of wasted spiritual energy in wishing we had received another life: another family, another parish, another bishop, another century, another body, another temperament, another vocation, another set of circumstances. We imagine that under different conditions holiness would be easy. But God has not asked us to sanctify an imaginary life. He has asked us to sanctify this one. Grace comes to us in reality. The saint is not necessarily the man who receives ideal circumstances. He is the man who receives God in the circumstances actually given.
That brings us again to the liturgical setting of this edition, because CXIX is not merely a collection of ecclesiastical controversies. We are living within the octave of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the feast itself gives us the spiritual fulfilment of our motto.⁹ Mary receives. Her whole life is reception perfected by grace. She receives the angelic message. She receives the Word in her womb. She receives poverty at Bethlehem. She receives exile in Egypt. She receives obscurity at Nazareth. She receives Simeon’s prophecy. She receives the mysterious distance of her Son’s public ministry. At Cana she receives His enigmatic words concerning His hour. On Calvary she receives the sword which Simeon foretold. She receives Saint John as her son. At Pentecost she receives the Holy Ghost with the infant Church. And at the end of her earthly life she receives the fulfilment of everything God began in her: she is assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Mary does not construct holiness. She allows God to accomplish it. The world says: create yourself; Mary says: Fiat. The world says: discover your own truth; Mary says: “According to thy word.” The world says: fulfil yourself; Mary says: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord.” The world says: possess; Mary receives. And because she receives perfectly, she becomes full of grace.
Even the feast of St Joachim, which we considered this week, reinforces this truth.¹⁰ Joachim belongs to the hidden preparation of salvation. He does not stand before crowds. He leaves no theological treatise. He founds no movement. He receives a place within the providence of God and fulfils it. Through the fidelity of Joachim and Anne comes Mary; through Mary comes Christ. God often prepares the greatest works through generations of apparently ordinary fidelity.
That should console us, because we live at a time when Catholics can become obsessed with visible results. We want immediate restoration. We want dramatic interventions. We want the crisis solved. We want Rome corrected. We want institutions recovered. We want the wicked defeated and the faithful vindicated. Some of those desires are entirely just, but providence rarely moves according to our timetable. Joachim could not see Calvary. Anne could not see Pentecost. Yet their fidelity belonged to both. Much of our Christian duty may likewise consist in faithfully transmitting something whose eventual fruit we shall never see. Teach the child, preserve the Mass, say the Rosary, teach the catechism, keep the feast, forgive the enemy, speak the truth, feed the poor, visit the sick, hold fast. Receive, and hand on. That is how civilisation is preserved when institutions fail.
The commemoration of the martyr St Agapitus during this octave gives the motto its sharpest edge.¹¹ Sometimes what has been received must be defended at great cost. Martyrdom is the opposite of religious invention. The martyr is given the simplest possible offer: change the Faith and live; invent something more convenient; interpret the confession differently; say the words demanded; make peace with the age. And the martyr refuses. Why? Because the Faith is not his to rewrite. He has received it, and therefore he cannot save his temporal life by betraying what he has received from Christ.
Most of us will not be called to shed blood, but every Christian is called to a lesser martyrdom of fidelity. We will sometimes lose approval. We may lose friendships. We may lose opportunities. We may be mocked as backward, inflexible, intolerant or strange. The temptation will be to invent a more agreeable Christianity. And there again the answer is Accipere, non fingere — not because we enjoy difficulty, not because every inherited custom must remain unchanged, not because Christians must become hostile to the world, but because truth is not ours to negotiate.
Yet truth must be borne in charity. The Catholic who knows he has received the Faith has no grounds for arrogance. Saint Paul asks: “What hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” What do we have that we have not received? Existence, Baptism, Faith, Scripture, the Mass, the priesthood, the Sacraments, absolution, Our Lady as Mother, the promise of Heaven, grace itself: all received. We are beggars who have been shown where bread is found. Therefore orthodoxy should produce gratitude. Tradition should produce humility. Certainty should produce charity. If our defence of Catholicism makes us arrogant, cruel, dishonest or incapable of repentance, then something has gone wrong in the receiving. Truth does not need our sins to defend it.
This should also make us examine the quality of our witness. If we defend Christian marriage, are our homes places of charity? If we defend the Blessed Sacrament, do we approach It reverently? If we condemn falsehood in ecclesiastical documents, are we scrupulously honest ourselves? If we condemn impurity in the world, are we striving after purity? If we speak endlessly about Tradition, can our neighbours see its fruits in patience, generosity, courage, prayer and mercy? A saint is perhaps the most persuasive proof of Tradition. The saint is a man in whom the Faith received has become visible.
Francis is not Dominic. Teresa is not Thomas Aquinas. Philip Neri is not John Vianney. The saints are wonderfully different because grace does not erase created nature. It perfects what God has given. Here again the world says, “Invent yourself.” The Gospel says, “Become what you have received.” Become in fact what Baptism made you sacramentally. Become the adopted son of God you already are. Let grace bring to completion the thing God began.
Now perhaps we can see that the diverse subjects considered in this edition are not so diverse after all. Synodality asks whether revelation is received or manufactured through process. The sensus fidelium asks whether the faithful witness to what is received or whether opinion is transformed into revelation. The liturgical debate asks whether history is received honestly or reconstructed to justify subsequent practice. The traditional liturgy asks whether worship is received as sacred inheritance or endlessly remade according to pastoral fashion. Canterbury asks whether sacred space has an objective identity or whatever identity contemporary use assigns to it. Catholic institutions ask whether their Catholic nature is something substantive which must govern their life or merely a label retained while everything beneath it changes. Public audiences and ecclesiastical diplomacy ask whether gestures must receive the objective moral significance they possess or may be interpreted solely according to intended pastoral messaging. Questions concerning authority ask whether office is stewardship of a received deposit or power to reconstruct the deposit itself. The Assumption shows us perfect reception. St Joachim shows us hidden fidelity to providence. St Agapitus shows us fidelity unto sacrifice.
All of it brings us back to the same fundamental battle: will reality be allowed to tell us what it is? Will revelation be allowed to tell us what God has said? Will Christ be allowed to tell us who He is? Or will we fashion meanings until everything, eventually, resembles ourselves? That is the spiritual danger of fingere. We can invent not only doctrines; we can invent meanings. We can make consultation mean revelation, consensus mean sensus fidelium, reform mean obedience to a Council which never commanded particular reforms, hospitality mean indifference to moral contradiction, sacred space mean multipurpose space, Catholic identity mean whatever an institution presently decides Catholic identity should mean, accompaniment mean never requiring conversion, development mean reversal, obedience mean surrender of reason, resistance mean freedom from authority. Finally, we may make Christianity mean precisely what the surrounding age already believes. At that point the words remain Catholic, but the substance has evaporated.
The remedy is not ingenuity. It is fidelity. Accipere, non fingere. Before the Blessed Sacrament, all our inventions finally fall silent. “This is My Body.” The Catholic does not answer, “Here is what those words mean to me.” He kneels. He adores. He receives. Perhaps that is where every controversy should eventually lead us: into silence before Something we did not create, before Someone whose reality does not depend upon our opinion. The Blessed Sacrament does not require our consensus to become true. Christ is there. That fact judges us, and then He gives Himself to us.
There is the whole Catholic life: reality, revelation, reception, transformation and mission. We receive Christ so that we may carry Christ. We receive the Faith so that we may transmit it. We receive mercy so that we may show mercy. We receive truth so that we may witness to truth. We receive grace so that grace may become fruitful.
So let us ask ourselves before God: where am I receiving, and where am I inventing? Have I invented a Christ who never contradicts me? Have I invented a morality which condemns the sins I dislike while excusing those to which I am attached? Have I invented motives for people with whom I disagree? Have I invented certainty where the evidence does not justify it? Have I invented a golden Church of the past which never quite existed? Have I invented a future Church which conforms to the age and called the invention development? Have I mistaken being consulted for being taught? Have I mistaken widespread opinion for the sensus fidelium? Have I mistaken my voice, or the voice of my faction, for the voice of the Holy Ghost? And have I refused the actual circumstances of my vocation because I prefer an imaginary life in which I imagine holiness would be easier?
Then let us return to Mary: Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Be it done unto me according to Thy word — not according to my preference, not according to fashion, not according to fear, not according to ecclesiastical fashion, not according to an engineered consensus, not according to an imagined past, not according to the demands of my faction, not according to the religion I would have devised, but according to Thy word.
Accipere, non fingere. Receive revelation. Receive reality. Receive Tradition. Receive the limits which truth imposes. Receive the grace of this present moment. Receive Christ. And then faithfully hand on what we have received. The Church will not be renewed because Catholics become more ingenious. She will be renewed when Catholics become more faithful: not by inventing what the Spirit might wish to say in contradiction of what He has already revealed, but by hearing again what the Spirit has spoken; not by constructing Christianity in the image of the age, but by permitting Christ to restore His image in us; not by winning every argument, but by becoming saints.
For ultimately every Christian who enters Heaven will enter by accipere. He will not have invented his own redemption. He will not have fashioned his own eternity. He will open empty hands and receive what no creature could possibly manufacture: the vision of God, the fulfilment of grace, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Everything begins as gift. Everything ends as gift. Our task between the two is fidelity.
Accipere, non fingere — to receive, not to invent.
¹ Nuntiatoria, “16.08.26 Nuntiatoria CXIX: Accipere non Fingere,” 14 August 2026.
² Nuntiatoria, “By Their Fruits: ✠Mutsaerts Puts Synodality to the Test,” 18 August 2026.
³ Nuntiatoria, “Experts in Synodality: Leo XIV and the Rise of the Church of Process,” 14 August 2026.
⁴ Nuntiatoria, “Reverence Cannot Rewrite History — Leo XIV and the Unanswered Question of Liturgical Reform,” 17 August 2026.
⁵ Nuntiatoria, “When the Feast No Longer Matters: Canterbury Raves in the Nave on the Assumption,” 17 August 2026.
⁶ Nuntiatoria, “When ‘Catholic’ Ceases to Qualify: Leo XIV, Freemasonry and the First Jewish President of the Catholic Biblical Association,” 18 August 2026.
⁷ Nuntiatoria, “When Proximity Becomes Compromise: Maura Healey, the Vatican, and the Cost of Blurred Catholic Boundaries,” 18 August 2026.
⁸ Nuntiatoria, “The SSPX Is Not Really on Trial — The Post-Conciliar Settlement Is,” 18 August 2026.
⁹ Nuntiatoria, “ASSUMPTA EST MARIA IN CAELUM: The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15,” 14 August 2026.
¹⁰ Nuntiatoria, “The Hidden Patriarch: St Joachim, Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 16,” 15 August 2026.
¹¹ Nuntiatoria, “Today’s Mass: August 18 Day IV in the Octave of the Assumption,” 18 August 2026.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Omnia autem probate: quod bonum est tenete ~ Prove all things; hold fast that which is good: Spiritual Conference for Nuntiatoria CXXVIThe conference reflects on St Paul’s assertion to “prove all things” in relation to self-judgement and the Church. It explores themes of synodality, ecumenism, and the importance of discernment, emphasising the need for humility in understanding truth and the challenge of maintaining genuine holiness in the midst of contemporary ecclesiastical crises.
- FROM PERMISSION TO PRESUMPTION: Fort Worth and the Chalice Vatican II never made the NormBishop Michael Olson has implemented strict limitations on the distribution of Communion under both species in the Diocese of Fort Worth, prompting a discussion on the historical evolution of liturgical practices following Vatican II. This decision aims to reaffirm the doctrine of the Eucharist, emphasising that Christ is fully present under either species, while addressing misconceptions surrounding modern practices.
- AUGSBURG 2030: Can Rome commemorate a Confession it once confuted?Pope Leo XIV aims to revitalise the ecumenical spirit of the Augsburg Confession for its 2030 anniversary. However, historical responses from Rome highlight significant doctrinal differences between Catholics and Lutherans. True reconciliation must acknowledge these unresolved issues, as merely celebrating commonality risks glossing over critical theological distinctions that led to the Reformation.
- Today’s homily: St BrunoThe text reflects on Saint Bruno’s journey towards a life of solitude, prayer, and contemplation, emphasising the importance of genuine pursuit of God amidst distractions. It highlights that true spiritual growth requires silence and self-examination, urging believers to reclaim quiet moments for reflection, repentance, and devotion in daily life.
- Today’s Mass: October 06 St Bruno, ConfessorSaint Bruno, born in 1030 in Cologne, founded the Carthusian Order, embracing solitude and prayer. After studying theology and serving as a chancellor, he established a hermitage in the Chartreuse Mountains, combining hermitic and monastic lives. Bruno died on October 6, 1101, leaving a legacy of asceticism and contemplation.
CURRENT EDITION
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: October 06 St Bruno, Confessor
Saint Bruno, born in 1030 in Cologne, founded the Carthusian Order, embracing solitude and prayer. After studying theology and serving as a chancellor, he established a hermitage in the Chartreuse Mountains, combining hermitic and monastic lives. Bruno died on October 6, 1101, leaving a legacy of asceticism and contemplation.
Leave a Reply