What is the difference between the legal and theological definitions of ownership?

English law of course makes a distinction between ownership and possession. In English law, ownership is the right of exclusive use and enjoyment of property. Ownership is the most extensive legal right (proprietary right) one can have. Owners can do with their property what they please: use, sell, gift or lease it, or offer it as security for a loan. Possession on the other hand is the exercise (or power of exercising) physical control over an object.

The theology is very similar. In moral theology, ownership is the juridical faculty freely to dispose of something as one's own unless otherwise hindered. An owner may sell, exchange, give away, destroy, etc., his property without thereby violating commutative justice. And possession is the actual corporeal holding of a thing with the intention of keeping it as one's own. 

One distinction that theology makes though is that ownership may be perfect or imperfect. The former is the right to the possession and the complete use and disposal of a thing. The latter is the right to the mere possession of a thing (direct ownership) or merely to its use (indirect ownership). In other words one may be said to own something but not be able to do with it whatever one feels like.

Reversing this out, of course, it's a good question whether the secular law or the spiritual law is more/less likely to admit the legality (let alone legitimacy) of chattel slavery...

Theology for Trads IV: The "Tridentine" Mass?

For what it's worth, I agree with Cavendish. The "Tridentine" Mass was launched on the world by Pope Pius V in 1570 and then abolished by Clement VIII in 1604.

The point to be made of course is that the liturgy changes all the time, though it ought to go without saying that change is always painful.

So, in 1570 Pius V's missal contains the following rubrical instructions:

• on entering the church the celebrant kneels and recites Introibo in domum tuam; in holocaustis reddam tibi vota mea, quae distinxerunt labia mea. (Psalm 65), then Ne reminiscaris and the five preparatory psalms;
• the Confiteor refers to "all sins" (i.e. Misereatur... omnibus peccatis; Indulgentium... omnium peccatorum);
• at High Mass the Celebrant recites Dirigatur Domine as he incenses the altar before the Introit and during the Offertory;
• at High Mass the Kyrie is said in the middle of the altar;
• the King is still included in the Canon;
• the Haec quotiescumque is said during the elevation of the chalice;
• the sermon is optional;
• the blessing at the end of Mass contained three signs of the cross, as if by a bishop.

In 1604 Clement VIII

• abolished Introibo in domum tuam and the other prayers that the 1570 Missal obliged the priest to say on entering the church;
• shortened the two prayers to be said after the Confiteor;
• directed that the words "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in meam memoriam facietis" ("Do this in memory of me") should not be said while displaying the chalice to the people after the consecration, but before doing so;
• inserted directions at several points of the Canon that the priest was to pronounce the words inaudibly;
• suppressed the rule that, at High Mass, the priest, even if not a bishop, was to give the final blessing with three signs of the cross;
• and rewrote the rubrics, introducing, for instance, the ringing of a small bell.

In 1634 Urban VIII not only introduced his own versions of 80-90 hymns in the Roman Breviary but also

• increased the number of Signs of the Cross during the Mass from 16 to 38; and
• introduced the bowing of the head at the Holy Name, etc. 

In 1884 Leo XIII started a reverse ferret in Urban VIII's hymns, which then became a full rout under Pius X in 1911 (whose changes would eventually go into Benedict XV's 1920 missal) when the latter turned the Sundays green.

In other words, between the birth of the "Tridentine" Mass in 1570 and the Church's supposedly sudden plunge into the Bugniniverse in the 1950s, the Mass had in fact changed quite noticeably no less than four times, and each time according to the motu proprio of the Roman Pontiff.

The liturgy has precious little to do with Ecumenical Councils.

It has to do with the Pope.

Unfinished Papal Business: The Dubia

There were of course two lots of dubia.

First there were the five 2016 dubia about Amoris Laetitia by "the four cardinals"*. The full text is apparently here.

Dubium 1 It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (nn. 300–305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio (in a marital way) without the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio n. 84 having been fulfilled and without the person having made a commitment to live in full continence, that is, in abstinence from acts proper to spouses. (In short: Can divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics receive Communion without living in complete continence?)

Dubium 2 After Amoris Laetitia (n. 304), is it still possible to affirm that those who habitually live in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3–9), find themselves in an objective situation of grave habitual sin?

Dubium 3 After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (n. 301) on “objectively grave” situations, is it still possible to state that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law (e.g., the commandment against adultery) is in an objective situation of grave habitual sin?

Dubium 4 After Amoris Laetitia (n. 302) concerning “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” is it still possible to affirm that circumstances can never change the moral nature of acts that are intrinsically evil because of their object (e.g., adultery, contraception, etc.)?

Dubium 5 After Amoris Laetitia (n. 303) on “the role of conscience,” is it still possible to affirm that conscience can never legitimately judge that, in certain concrete cases, acts intrinsically evil (such as adultery) can become morally good or even commanded by God?

It's worth bearing in mind that as of November 2025 none of these have yet been answered.

Then there were the five new 2023 dubia about the Synod on Synodality put forward by five cardinals, led apparently by Cardinal Burke.

This time, somewhat surprisingly, they got answers.

#	Dubium (reformulated version, August 2023)	Pope Francis’s answer (summary of the official response, July/October 2023)
1	Dubium regarding whether divine Revelation is capable of being interpreted in ways contrary to what the Church has always taught (i.e., can the Church today teach doctrines contrary to those she previously taught as definitive on faith and morals?).	No, the Church cannot contradict what she has previously taught as definitive. However, theological understanding can develop in continuity (a “homogeneous development”). The Pope warns against a rigid, “frozen” view of doctrine and says the Church must respond pastorally to new anthropological situations without betraying the deposit of faith.
2	Dubium on whether it is possible for the Church today to bless same-sex unions (i.e., can the Church give any kind of blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?).	The Church’s doctrine on marriage (exclusive, indissoluble union between man and woman open to life) remains unchanged and cannot be altered. However, pastoral charity requires us not to treat people merely as “sinners.” It is possible, on a case-by-case basis and without any liturgical form that could create confusion with marriage, to impart simple pastoral blessings to persons in irregular situations (including same-sex couples) as a sign of God’s closeness. (This answer directly paved the way for the December 2023 document Fiducia Supplicans.)
3	Dubium on synodality: whether synodality can become a “constitutive dimension” of the Church that would give bishops’ conferences or other synodal assemblies authority superior to or parallel with the authority of the Roman Pontiff and individual bishops.	No. Synodality is an essential dimension of the Church (Vatican II), but it is always exercised in hierarchical communion. The Pope’s authority is unique and cannot be limited or overridden by synodal assemblies or bishops’ conferences. Synodality must always respect the Petrine primacy and the proper authority of each bishop in his diocese.
4	Dubium on the ordination of women: can the Church in the future have the power to confer priestly ordination on women, thereby revoking the definitive judgment of St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?	No. The Church has no power to confer priestly ordination on women. This limitation is grounded in the Lord’s own will and belongs to the deposit of faith. The question of women deacons remains open for further study, but priestly ordination is definitively settled.
5	Dubium on sacramental absolution: is repentance (firm purpose of amendment) still a necessary condition for valid absolution, or can a priest sometimes absolve someone who manifestly has no intention of changing their sinful behavior?	Yes, repentance and the firm purpose of not sinning again remain necessary for valid sacramental absolution. However, in certain extreme or complex situations (e.g., danger of death, grave psychological impediments), God’s mercy can act even when perfect contrition is not fully present, and the minister can impart absolution trusting in divine grace. The ordinary requirement of contrition is not abolished.

One can only hope and pray that the new Pope gets round to answering the five 2016 dubia sooner or later.

* Cardinals Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra, and Meisner
† Cardinals Burke, Brandmüller, Sarah, Zen, and Sandoval Íñiguez

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Catholic Military Association (@catholicmilitaryassociation)

Danny Kruger credits wife and C.S. Lewis for his conversion to Christianity

Thomas Edwards

Danny Kruger has credited both his wife and the writings of C.S. Lewis with inspiring his Christian faith.

In an interview with The Telegraph, the Reform MP said of his faith: “Thanks to meeting Emma and reading Christian literature at her instigation [perhaps most influentially, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis], I concluded it was true.”

The former Tory MP, who defected to Reform UK in September, is one of the most forthright Christian voices in the House of Commons. In July of this year, he delivered a passionate speech to an empty chamber calling for a national renewal rooted in Christianity. In response to the legalisation of abortion up to birth and Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide bill passing through the Commons, he said: “We gave our consent to the greatest crime: the killing of the weak and most defenceless human beings.” He went on to add: “It was a great sin. If, standing here, I have any power to repent on behalf of this House, I hereby repent of what we did.”

In the interview, he also praises Vice President JD Vance, whom he met this summer. Commenting on the problems of contemporary culture and conservatism’s inability to address them, he said: “I’m in agreement with JD about the plight of the West, of the threat from ourselves rather than external sources. And on the need for a substantial revival – a reformation if you will – of governance and culture. We should import Vance, and Trump’s, determination to get this right, if not their style.”

Comparisons between the Farage–Kruger and Trump–Vance duos are easy to make. Farage, like Trump, has created a new brand of right-wing politics based on personality and distinction from the political establishment. Kruger, like Vance, is highly educated, with appropriate professional backgrounds for their office — Kruger as a policymaker and Vance as a lawyer. Both appeal to a new generation of Christians who see their faith as a countercultural vehicle to save Western civilisation rather than an outdated inheritance. Both are converts and both are considerably more vocal about their religious backgrounds than their leaders.

Commenting on the presence of Christianity in public life, Kruger said: “We’re seeing the tide turn in exciting ways now. There’s a resurgence in the Christian faith.” The phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “the quiet revival” has seen church attendance increase in the UK by 50 per cent and Generation Z become the most likely to attend in the US.

Describing Christianity as “both the foundation of our civilisation and the only way to cope satisfactorily”, Kruger added: “It’s through Christianity that we can reconcile our disputes, our social and civil conflicts.”

Kruger’s comments come as Reform UK gains national prominence, almost doubling Labour, the ruling party, in popularity. It is likely that if a Reform government were to take power, Kruger — who has already been tasked with heading the party’s “department for preparing for government” — would be rewarded with a significant role for his early loyalty and commitment, putting a devout Christian at the centre of UK politics.

(Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

[The Catholic Herald]

The above inscription in the entrance hall of Broadcasting House, the headquarters of the BBC, translates

This Temple of Arts and Muses is dedicated to Almighty God by the first Governors of Broadcasting in the year 1931, Sir John Reith being Director General. It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest, that all things hostile to peace or purity may be banished from this house, and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and uprightness.

The King and Queen, accompanied by Pope Leo, have attended a special service in the Sistine Chapel, marking the joining of hands between the Catholic Church and Church of England, in a celebration of ecumenism.

📸 Vatican Media pic.twitter.com/QaxRVNj3B5

— The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) October 23, 2025