What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

A reader has offered the following.  Canonists will be interested:

I recently translated Pope Benedict’s revisions to the Code of Canon Law, which he made this past December in the document Omnium in mentem.  It appears that there is still no English translation of this document available online, and so I was wondering if you would be interested in posting it on your blog.  The translation is attached.  If you have any questions, I would love to answer them.

Click HERE for the document in English.

A tip of the biretta o{]:¬)   to American Catholic who got this in turn from IowaHawk.

Enjoy! 

And remember!  Talk Like Shakespeare Day is coming up!

Hmmm…. I had forgotten that under that Talk Like Shakespeare entry I had written a parody of Shakespeare on the ICEL, Bp. Trautman, and "ineffable" issue.

Memories!

From a reader.  You can make your own comments.

I have just returned from Mass.  As usual, during the Mass I was constantly distracted by the consistent ad libbing by the priest celebrant.  Permit me to offer a  sample:

Before the Sign of the Cross:  Father reads a snippet from a "liturgical cheat sheet" that introduces the "theme" of the Mass.

Introduction to the Penitential Rite:  Father gives a introductory monologue that gives the weather report and welcomes our visitors, who we are always happy to have with us.  He then calls us to recall "the times when we have been too much to ourselves and loved each other less." 

The Prayers of the Faithful:  After the banal intercessions from the "liturgical cheat sheet," Father improvises prayers for the suffering in Haiti, announcing how much money was collected and thanking the parishioners for their generosity; for those serving in the military—living and deceased—their "parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and surrogates" (I’m NOT making this up); and on and on and on.  The Prayers of the Faithful went on for 5 minutes!  I realize that, in the great scheme of things, 5 minutes doesn’t seem long, but it is an eternity at Mass.

The "Orate Fratres":  "Let us pray that this our sacrifice and all that we do will become acceptable to God the Almighty Father."

The "Mysterium Fidei":  "In song, let us proclaim this great mystery of our faith."

The "Per ipsum et cum ipso":  "For it is through Him, and with Him and in Him…."

The Invitation to the Our Father:  "Let us with faith and love, in union with God our Father and as one family, we proclaim that prayer which Jesus taught us."

The "Ecce Agnus Dei":  This is Jesus Christ, our hope and our peace, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  How happy and blessed are we to be called to supper."

This said, my question is this:  after over 35 years of priesthood and over 35 years of "doing his own thing" at Mass, will he, all of a sudden with the new translations, actually start to "say the black and do the red"?  Will bishops and those entrusted with implementing the new translations, actually INSIST that priests not do what this man has been doing Sunday after Sunday for years and years since his first Mass?  And who is going to hold them accountable?  Bishops?  The laity?  In fairness to the bishops, bishops can’t be everywhere.  As to the laity, priests often resent, no matter how tactfully, respectfully, and charitably states, any constructive criticism about the way a priest celebrates Mass. 

My great fear is that, despite the new translations, priests will continue to do whatever they wish with their parts in the Mass simply because no one is going to hold them accountable for otherwise. 

Thanks for listening

No… this is not about the offices of the NCR.

It is actually about a rap music song.

I have always thought that rap did for music what S&M did for romance… but I digress.

I came by a rap song by a rapper I had never heard of… which doesn’t mean much … named "Zuhlio".

Rap is sometimes about social issues.  This is about liturgical issues.

What I find odd about this is that the words were attributed to a "T. Ferguson", coincidentally the name of the official WDTPRS parodohymnodist.

UPDATE:

Readers have been asking for the lyrics.  With ZUHLIO’s permission I repost them here.  Many thanks to the lyricist, the official parodohymnist of WDTPRS, Tim Ferguson.

To the tune of Coolio’s "Gangsta’s Paradise"

(Modernist Priest): As I stroll to the altar and I bow at the waist
The choir sings banal lyrics of questionable taste
But I’ve been celebrating Mass like this for so long,
that even Eagle’s Wings sounds like a cool song
and I ain’t never worn a maniple or done an asperges
An amice or a cincture? You know I don’t wear these!
my church walls are bare now, I’ve got long hair now,
Following the rubrics? you know I don’t care!
I really hate to chant, or to genuflect,
I face the congregation, givin’ them respect, fool
I’m the kinda priest I think the kiddies wanna be like
Full of jokes, hugs and smiles,
With very little insight.



(with choir) Been saying Mass this way, though the congregation’s turning grey
Been saying Mass this way, though the congregation’s turning grey
Keep saying Mass this way, ‘til the congregation’s gone away
Keep saying Mass this way, ‘til the congregation’s gone away
 

(Traditional Priest) Here’s the situation, God you’re not facin’
Turn to the altar fool, and follow the book!
Red are the actions, the black words you read,
We’re not here to entertain, but to intercede.
You’re an educated fool, with your Kung and Bultmann
But your people wanna hear Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
You’re an outdated hippie, folk music and sandals,
Ignorant of piety, liturgical vandal, fool
put the hashpipe down, stow the guitars away,
Can the geriatric “teen” choir and the crap that they play
It’s past the millennium, Bob Marley is gone,
Can the rainbow vestments, put a fiddleback on!

(Modernist Priest) Tell me why was I, so blind to see
That the Church just wants reverent liturgy?

(with choir) Been saying Mass that way, while the congregation went away
Been saying Mass that way, while the congregation went away
In a modernistic haze, led the congregation all astray
In a modernistic haze, led the congregation all astray

(Both priests) Sin and absolution, end all the confusion,
More Latin, less ad libbing, that’s the real solution!
Put the veil on the chalice, give the deacon a dalmatic,
Reassemble the communion rail that’s stored up in the attic,
The rubrics can be learned, there are priests out there to teach you,
Send a shout out on the internet and Fr. Z will reach you!
It’s not so hard, just read the cards,
The Missal too, and you’ll say Mass like you’re s’posed to
 
(Modernist Priest) I said Mass Bugnini’s way, but the congregation went away
I said Mass McBrien’s way, but the congregation passed away,
Now I’ve turned the eastward way, and choir chants the Kyrie,
The Sovereign Pontiff I obey, off’ring Mass the Roman way

(choir) Tell me why were we stuck in ’73?
using Broadway tunes, tinged with heresy?
Now we’re celebrating proper liturgy,
Ditching Haugen and Haas, using Pergolesi!
A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-al-le-tu-ia!

Who knows when Zuhlio will strike again?

Over at NLM there is an interesting and serious post about Latin Rite blue vestments in Spain. 

There are some good photos over there (in which they specialize). 

For example:

H.E. Jesús Esteban Catalá Ibáñez, bishop of Málaga, celebrating First Vespers in his cathedral:

Wow!

I look forward to the day when liturgical blue is approved more generally, for Marian feasts.

Until then, in most places blue shouldn’t be used even on Marian feasts, but especially as a substitute for Advent purple.

I posted the annual, inspired parody song by frequent participant T Ferguson about that…. you remember…

Sing this to the tune of O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

Sing along!  Lemme help you out.

 

 Liturgical Blue ("Veni, Veni" parody) [4:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

O come, o come liturgical blue;
out with the old, and in with the new.
Let’s banish purple vestments from here,
the color blue is very HOT this year.

REFRAIN:

Gaudy, gaudy, gaudy chasubles,
in baby, navy, powder-puff and teal.

Since Advent is the Blessed Virgin’s time,
we’ll wear blue, though it’s canonic crime,
and in the third week, we’ll wear white.
Although it’s wrong, we’ll say that it’s alright.

R.

Around the wreath we’ll place blue candlelight,
and in one corner, we will place one white.
We’ll drape blue over our communion rail,
and use blue burses with blue chalice veils.

R.

Yah… we can and should have a little fun with this, for all the seriousness of the role of worship in our lives.

Here is my annual rant on blue vestments for Advent (see the POLL results about that).

"But Father! But Father!", you might be saying.  "Aren’t the confused liberal dinosaurs dying off?  Aren’t blue vestments
cliché?

Yes and yes.

Nevertheless, there are still some liturgical abusers out there.  Therefore, my annual rant.

But first a poll… let’s see what’s going on.

Post comments about what you see in your parish for Advent.

Now for my rant:

Blue is not an approved liturgical color for Advent or any other time.

Sorry, I am not making this up.

Not that I have anything against blue, of course. It is simply liturgically illegal right now.

When the Holy See approves the use of blue I will happily put it on!

Instead of agitating for women priests, I wish the agitators would agitate for blue vestments… without breaking the law, of course.

Imagine! Traditional priests, deacons and subdeacons putting on blue maniples, blue dalmatics and tunics, covering chalices with blue veils and blue burses, hiding patens under blue humeral veils.  I believe some groups use blue for Marian feasts on the justification that in Spain and Spanish territories there was a special indult, etc.  I find that argument a little weak unless you actually in Spain and it is 8 December and you are using the Novus Ordo.  The Spanish bishops conference in its ordo (cf. pp. 21 & 30) lists blue as a possible color for 8 December for the Novus Ordo or in Puerto Rico, etc.   I think in the Basilica at Padua there is a permission to use blue vestments.  I suppose those of the Anglican Use do and will use blue, with permission of the Holy See because that is part of their liturgical tradition.

The point is that Advent has its color: violet/purple.  Let it be, if you want, a shade closer to blue than to red.  But it is purple.  You need a special permission to use blue.  You don’t just decide for yourself as pastor or liturgy director of St. Ipsidipsy in Tall Tree Circle because its so nice.

This whole liturgical blue issue always brings to my mind a parody song made years ago by one of our participants here, the Timothy the Parodist, now the official WDTPRS parody songwriter. 

Sing this to the tune of O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O come, o come liturgical blue;
out with the old, and in with the new.
Let’s banish purple vestments from here,
the color blue is very HOT this year.

REFRAIN:

Gaudy, gaudy, gaudy chasubles,
in baby, navy, powder-puff and teal.

Since Advent is the Blessed Virgin’s time,
we’ll wear blue, though it’s a canonic crime,
and in the third week, we’ll wear white.
Although it’s wrong, we’ll say that it’s alright.

R.

Around the wreath we’ll place blue candlelight,
and in one corner, we will place one white.
We’ll drape blue over our communion rail,
and use blue burses with blue chalice veils.

R.

 

 

A facetious reader sent the following:

"Straight from the pages of Facebook and a group called SLAP (Survivors of Liturgical Abuse in Parishes)"

Gather Us In [...to the tune of, that is!]

Here in this place, our comfortable parish,
All of the statues carried away,
See in each face a vacuous visage,
Brought here by guilt or by R.C.I.A.

Gather us in, by Beemer or Hummer,
Gather us in, so we can feel good,
Come to us now in this barren Zen temple,
With only a shrub and an altar of wood.

We are the young, our morals a mystery,
We are the old, who couldn’t care less,
We have been warned throughout all of history,
But we enjoy this liturgical mess.

Gather us in, our radical pastor,
Gather us in, our unveiled nun,
Call to us now, with guitars and bongos,
Hang up your cellphones and join in the fun!

I am very pleased that Fr. Finelli, aka "iPadre" celebrated his first TLM today and, being tech savvy ustreamed it!

Here is a screenshot.



I captured the stream and put it also on "Father Z TV", the Z-Cam.

 

A change of pace today, between the last Sunday of the liturgical year and the first Sunday of Advent! 

I dissect a hymn in the Liturgy of the Hours for the Solemnity of Christ the King in the newer, post-Conciliar Liturgia Horarum, the Liturgy of the Hours.  Changes were made to the focus of this feast.  The date was changed from the end October to the end of the Church’s liturgical year, the Mass orations were altered and the hymns moved around and edited for content.

What gives?  

I ramble a bit while I drill into what one hymn really says. We look at and listen to Te saeculorum principem, the hymn for Vespers for Christ the King.

I’m not entirely happy with what I found.

Then we hear a proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving from 1789. What a contrast to how people today try to shove god out of the public square!

Finally, we hear a guest, Martin of Scotland, reading a Scot language poetic version of the Roman poet Horace’s Ode 1.11, which contains the famous line "Carpe diem… Seize the day".  This is written by the Scots poet Robert Fergusson (1750-1774).  I posted on this on the blog on 22 November.  Here is the text and some vocabulary.  You can go to that entry for more background.

Buy a Liber Hymnarius!

Don’t Fash Your Thumb

    Ne’er fash your thumb what gods decree
    To be the weird o’ you or me,
    Nor deal in cantrip’s kittle cunning
    To speir how fast your days are running;
    But patient lippen for the best,
    Nor be in dowie thought opprest.
    Whether we see mair winter’s come,
    Than this that spits wi’ canker’d foam.
    Now moisten weel your geyzen’d wa’s
    Wi’ couthy friends and hearty blaws;
    Ne’er let your hope o’ergang your days,
    For eild and thraldom never stays;
    The day looks gash, toot aff your horn,
    Nor care ae strae about the morn.

ae: one, a single
blaws: blows (back-slappings?)
canker’d: gusty, stormy
cantrip: magic
couthy: agreeable, sociable
dowie: sad, melancholy
eild: age, time of life
fash: trouble, bother, fret (fash your thumb = care a rap)
gash: pale, dismal
geyzen’d: dried out
kittle: tricky
lippen: trust, have confidence
morn: tomorrow
speir: ask
strae: straw
wa’s: ? The context requires something like weasand (Scots weason) = throat, but the only definitions I can find for wa’s are walls and ways, from which I can extract no satisfactory sense. Or could it be waes = woes?
weird: fate, destiny

I really enjoy when people call in and participate.  Many thanks to Martin!

 http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_11_26.mp3

Along the way you might hear these tunes:

The Robe – opening credits
Praise to the Lord – Faith of our Fathers II
Spirit of America – US Army Old Guard
Te Deum – Maitrise de Notre Dame de Paris
Hymn to the Muse – Musique de la Grèce Antique
"The Condundrum" (2/4 march) into "Cabar Feidh" (4/4 strathspey) – Jori Chisholm – bagpipe

The iTunes feed is working.  It stops and starts again… mysteriously.  Beats me!

Some of the last offerings (check out the PODCAzT PAGE):

073 08-11-16 Augustine on Ps. 95(96) and Fr. Z on how to avoid going to Hell
072 08-11-11 The death of St. Martin; starlings, cuckolds, bell ringing and a skull
071 08-11-06 "Faith inscribed across your heart": Benedict on Cyril of Jerusalem & Cyril on faith, your treasure
070 08-11-01 Venerable Bede on All Saints; a collage; don Camillo (Part IV)
069 08-10-30 Augustine on Ps 103; Benedictines can sing!
068 08-08-04 Interview – Fr. Tim Finigan on the Oxford TLM conference; don Camillo (Part III)
067 08-07-29 St. Augustine on Martha, active v. contemplative lives; don Camillo (part II)
066 08-07-25 don Camillo (part I): VM - advice on getting TLMs & “pro multis”

About this time of year I start getting questions about advent wreaths.

For example, this came from a a reader today:

Dear Fr. Zuhlsdorf,
 
Is it proper to use scented candles for the advent wreath?

Sure… if you want to deal with the smell.

I am much of a scented candles sort of guy, frankly.   But often it is hard to find unscented candles in the colors you need. 

Those colors are, as everyone ought to know, purple or violet and rose (pink in a pinch).  Some people have white or cream candle in the center for Christmas Day. 

Those are the colors that should be used and other colors are, well, just plain wrong!

"But Father!  But Father!", more than a few of you might be saying.  "You are so judgmental!  Wrong?  How can you say that!  At my parish there is always an advent wreath and the colors are blue and white!  And if they do it that way it must be right!" 

Blue… yah… liturgical blue.  This comes up every year as well.

Remember, folks, that the colors of the candles on the Advent wreath have a purpose.

If people ask you, "Why are there three purple candles and one pink on an Advent wreath?" you can give them the straight and correct answer. 

Despite the claim of some Lutherans that they developed the Advent wreath, the answer I give is, "those are the colors a Catholic priest wears when saying Mass on those Sundays."

But why pink or properly rose on the third Sunday of Advent?

Easy: rose is the color used on the fourth Sunday of Lent!

Perpend:

In Rome for centuries now there are celebrations of Mass during the great seasons of Lent/Easter and Advent/Christmas at "station" churches. In Lent, the fourth Sunday is called "Laetare" (which means in Latin pretty much what "Gaudete" means…"rejoice!"). The station Mass for "Laetare" Sunday was at the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem not far from the Lateran Basilica (the Pope’s cathedral in Rome).

It was the custom on this day, stretching perhaps back to the time of Pope St. Gregory III (740), for the Pope to bless special roses made of gold that were to be sent to the Catholic kings, queens and notables. Thus it was called Dominica de rosa.... Sunday of the Rose.

It doesn’t take much imagination to develop rose vestments from this custom.

Soon the practice of using rose (the technical term for the color to be used is rosacea... from the Latin adjective for "made of roses") spread from that basilica to the rest of the City. As a Roman practice it became part and parcel of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pius V through the world.

The custom is coming back into vogue again, thanks be to God. Once again you see rose vestments in church goods catalogues and shops.

Perhaps your parish needs them? Many churches threw them in the dumpster after Vatican II, along with all their black, all maniples and burses of all colors, and anything that wasn’t polyester, wasn’t finger-painted, and didn’t drape.

But I digress…

Because of the parallel between Advent’s "Gaudete" and "Laetare" of Lent, the use of rose vestments spread to "Gaudete" as well. So now there are two days of the year when rose is permitted.

It is not obligatory to use rose on Gaudete or Laetare, but it is a beautiful custom.

Now for the whole blue thing. 

Blue is not an approved liturgical color for Advent or any other time.

Sorry, I am not making this up.

Not that I have anything against blue, of course. It is simply liturgically illegal right now.

When the Holy See approves the use of blue I will happily put it on!

Instead of agitating for women priests, I wish the agitators would agitate for blue vestments… without breaking the law, of course.

Imagine! Traditional priests, deacons and subdeacons putting on blue maniples, blue dalmatics and tunics, covering chalices with blue veils and blue burses, hiding patens under blue humeral veils.  I believe some traditional groups use blue anyway, even now, on the rather thin excuse, IMO, that in Spain and Spanish territories there was, a zillion years ago, a special indult, etc. etc.  I find that argument a little weak.  But… I guess there are far more serious things to worry about.

This whole liturgical blue issue always brings to my ming a parody song made years ago by one of our participants here, the Timothy the Parodist, now the official WDTPRS parody songwriter. 

Sing this to the tune of O Come, O Come Emmanuel:

O come, o come liturgical blue;
out with the old, and in with the new.
Let’s banish purple vestments from here,
the color blue is very HOT this year.

REFRAIN:

Gaudy, gaudy, gaudy chasubles,
in baby, navy, powderpuff and teal.

Since Advent is the Blessed Virgin’s time,
we’ll wear blue, though it’s a canonic crime,
and in the third week, we’ll wear white.
Although it’s wrong, we’ll say that it’s alright.

R.

Around the wreath we’ll place blue candlelight,
and in one corner, we will place one white.
We’ll drape blue over our communion rail,
and use blue burses with blue chalice veils.

R.

 

I received a piece from a frequent reader/poster here at WDTPRS, Brian Mershon (pronounced MershON).  He asked me to look at it and, if useful post it. 

My emphases and comments.

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

By Brian Mershon

Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) has recently responded with a letter dated May 23, 2008, to questions I invoked regarding the official canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X and those Catholics who attend their chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

This article is certain to generate much commentary both from die-hard SSPXers who can’t bear to believe their marriages and confessions might be invalid to “more Catholic than the Pope” conservatives who will continue to misconstrue the clear teaching of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón and the Catholic Church regarding laity who attend SSPX chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.   [I love the smell of napalm in the morning… and I don’t mean the napalm patristibloggers enjoy!]

Indeed, the repeated public statements of Cardinal Castrillón that the SSPX is not in formal schism certainly rises above the level of a cleric’s private opinion on matters outside of his competence. His statements can be viewed by all Catholics as reflective of the current position of the Catholic Church on these matters. [That is so.] While some canonists, in good faith, might disagree, Cardinal Castrillón and the PCED’s responses to private correspondence certainly rise above the level of authority of a mere canonist’s opinion. [Probably.  Card. Castrillon is not just anyone.  He is President of the Commission which enjoys competence and authority from the Supreme Pontiff is act in all these matters.  He has made certain statements about the statues of the SSPX - repeatedly.  If what he were saying was not appreciated by the Holy Father, he would have been asked not to keep saying it.]

The responses to the letter below can be acted upon with a moral certitude.  [An important point is "moral certitude".  When in the Church we must deal with objective acts that everyone can see, we still cannot perfectly judge what we cannot see clearly.  Therefore, ecclesiastical authority must come to "moral certainty" when issuing a censure, for example.  This is the language Archbp. Burke used recently in his decrees about censures.  Also, when divorced lay people receive back from a tribunal a decree about the nullity of their marriages, they may then have "moral certainly" that they are free to marry.  When the Congregation for Causes of Saints issues a decree about the "heroic virtue" of a person, it does so after coming to a "moral certainty" about the person’s state of soul based on the evidence that was gathered and evaluated.  It is hard to judge perfectly things which cannot be seen or entirely grasped.  ]

His Eminence
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED)
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

Monday of Holy Week
Anno Domini 2008

Your Eminence,

I [Mershon] have compiled as reference numerous public interviews, both print and television, where you were quoted as stating that the case of the Society of St. Pius X “is not a formal schism” and other words to that effect.

Q: Is this your mere private opinion, or the official teaching of the Catholic Church in your official capacity as head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? 

PCED: “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.”  [This means that it might in fact be the case that the SSPX is in schism, but at this point the matter hasn’t been officially decided by the Holy See, or if it has, they have decided not to say.  No official declaration means that, right now, people can act in moral certainty that the SSPX is not in a state of schism, disagree or not.]

Would you please clarify the following for me in this private correspondence so that I can ensure that my family and I are following the current teaching of the Church on this specific matter?  [The writer wants moral certainty.  He doesn’t want to make a mistake that could affect his spiritual life and that of his family.]

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are in formal schism with the Catholic Church? 

PCED: “The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop. [There’s that word again.  Puzzling.]

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. [Invalid.  Marriages and confessions.] It remains true, however, [pay attention] that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)  [What we get into here involves a person’s culpability for ignorance.  If a guy genuinely doesn’t know that the SSPX priests don’t have the faculties from the Church so that marriages and confessions can be valid, then the person himself is simply ignorant and, well, God takes care of him through the Church.  If he has never had the news or information about this at all, or if he has had it inadequately explained so that he doesn’t get it, it doesn’t stick, then he is not at fault for his ignorance – unless ... unless he either a) figured out there was something really important to this he didn’t understand and, either because he was lazy or afraid of learning the truth he therefore purposely avoided more information or b) is in a position of authority or responsibility which by its very nature require him to be adequately well-informed about all those things he must deal with.  In the case of a person who could learn, but doesn’t for whatever reason, we are talking about ignorance that could be overcome.  That person is in a state of vincible ignorance.  That ignorance can then either be innocent or culpable, depending on his own degree of guilt or responsibility for his own ignorance.  Then there are those who, for whatever reason, perhaps they are very stupid or perhaps they have some genuine psychological block, just can’t figure out or learn they truth, this is invincible ignorance, which can’t be overcome. They have far less culpability, or none, for their state.]

“While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism” (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. [It can happen over time, though this would differ with every person.] While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. [Because, to one degree or another, you are weakening your bond wit the local bishop and the Roman Pontiff.] We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.”

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is not one for ecumenical dialogue [Good question.] because the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church?

PCED: “Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue.”

Q: Do lay Catholics who frequent Society of St. Pius X chapels, either more less frequently, incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so, [Well… you don’t "incur" sin or delict, you "commit" them.  You incur a censure.]  if done solely out of devotion to the Church’s Latin liturgical tradition and not to separate one’s self from communion with one’s diocesan Ordinary or local pastor?  [Again we are into matters of conscience.]

PCED: “Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so. [They are quoting his language back to him.] However, we further refer you to what we have already stated in #4 above.”

A: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?

PCED: “As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: “This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty.” [There is the issue of moral certainty.] We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.” [This is important because the PCED has competence in these matters and no other Vatican office should step on their toes.  For example, should the CDW get a question about the old Mass, they should pass it to the PCED.  If the Cong. for Clergy get these questions, they should be forwarded to the PCED.]

Please know that you and your staff and the Holy Father are in my family’s constant prayers as we prepare to celebrate the Holy Week and the season of Easter.

Pax Christi in Regno Christi,

Brian C. Mershon

Commentary on the PCED Responses   [This is by Mershon.]

1. The current language being used by the Catholic Church avoids saying that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.  [They are not saying officially that the SSPX is NOT in schism.  They are avoiding saying officially anything either way.]

2. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained in the Society of St. Pius X directly against the express will of the Holy Father incurred excommunication, as outlined by the Code of Canon Law and confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.  [Remember, that no censure is incurred without the person having sinned.  When enough outward evidence points to the sinful nature of the act, the censure is also officially declared, as happened with the confirmation by the Congregation.  This is why some latae sententiae excommunications are later publicly confirmed.  They go by the evidence, come to a moral certainty about the person’s having incurred the censure automatically (which means they examined the evidence even of the possibility of the sinful nature of the objective act, and then made a decision, declaring the situation for the good of souls.]

3. The Society of St. Pius X priests are suspended from priestly ministry. Therefore, objectively speaking, they are committing sins of grave matter by continuing their active ministry without a specific mandate of the Church. [Of course they may subjectively not be sinning, they may either so convinced of their rectitude or, perhaps, dense, that they are not actually guilty of the objective sins they may be commiting.]  Of course, the Society’s official claim, wrongly or rightly, is that the salvation of souls and the current state of emergency in the Church forces them to continue to offer their ministries without ecclesiastical approval. There has been no indication by the Catholic Church that the priests, as a whole, are excommunicated or in formal schism.  [Remember: it is pretty hard, I would say impossible, to continue a claim of a state of emergency when more than one Pope, over quite a long time, says there isn’t not one that justified their actions.]

4. Therefore, all the sacraments offered by Society of St. Pius X priests, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, [And that is important.] are valid, but illicit, meaning “illegal.” Penance and Matrimony both require faculties from the local bishop, [or other legitimate authority such as a religious superior, etc., but generally also the local bishop if a priest is stable in a place for a long time and working publicly.] which the Society of St. Pius X priests do not have; therefore, they are invalid. Cases of supplied jurisdiction apply to those who are, for example, in danger of death. [That is to say that the Church’s law itself gives the faculty to any priest, even one who has been "laicized" to absolve in danger of death, even if there is present also a priest in good standing.  This is because the highest good of all the law is the salvation of souls.  Thus, law foresees these possibilities.]  Those who read and understand the PCED’s response can no longer claim ignorance regarding the Church’s official teaching on these two sacraments’ invalidity.  [The writer is trying to overcome the ignorance, vinicible and perhaps also culpable ignorance of those who frequent SSPX priests for absolution or who go to them to be married.  This is like saying: at this point you have no excuse.  You have been told.  You can’t claim ignorance anymore.  From now on, if you go to an SSPX priest for absolution, it is probably not going to forgive your sins.]

5. Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it “cannot recommend” attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a “schismatic mentality.”  [And we have seen that mentality among some lay people who frequent their chapels and give them support.] In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED’s recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.

6. The Society of St. Pius X is in an irregular canonical situation and an “internal matter” and therefore is not a case of ecumenical dialogue. [They are, in sense, Catholics on the slippery slope.]

7. Again, the correspondence from the PCED can be accepted and acted upon with “docility and moral certitude” by Catholics. The specific questions I asked were broad enough in nature to constitute an official response for Catholics to use as guidance.  [But they are not more than that.  They are not definitive or official.  They have weight and people can act on them with confidence.]

Catholic priests, bishops or laymen who contradict these specific responses seem to be out of step with the Church’s current official position.

My additional notes: While people can to some extent or reason agree with or disagree with the specific recommendations of the PCED or statements of Card. Castrillon, I would add this caution.

First, not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight.  Joe Bagofdonuts’ opinon is not going to be, probably, as good as mine, who have training and experience in these things at a level Joe doesn’t have.  My opinion is probably not going to be as good as that of a canonist, etc.  Our opinions are not as weighty as that of the President of the Commission which enjoys competence from the Lawgiver, the Vicar of Christ.  When the Cardinal speaks, his opinion has weight.  Joe really doesn’t have strong position to criticize the Cardinal in these matters, so perhaps he ought to pipe down and listen.

Second, some of the things, above, are based on Canon Law and on moral principles.  Those are not the sort of things we can disagree with because they are the general principles applied to the particular cases in question. 

This was interesting.  I hope this was useful for you!

Just when the Catholic Cathedral in Cardiff hits the LMS from the blind side, over in Winchester, at the Anglican Cathedral, something very different is happening.

I got this e-mail from a kind reader:

It is reported that this is how the forthcoming Mass at Winchester Cathedral on Saturday 21st June
at 11 a.m. came about:
 
It seems that some Anglican members of the Choir at Winchester Cathedral are particularly interested in the liturgy and they wanted to have a Mass in thanksgiving for the Motu Proprio. One is an acquaintance of the people who organise Masses for the Latin Mass Society in Canterbury Cathedral.  [Did you get that?  Anglicans are thankful for Summo[]rum Pontificum and want to celebrate it.]

The Dean and Chapter were all in favour and agreed.  So the Cathedral Choir will be singing a Polyphonic Mass with Gregorian Chant. Bishop Hollis was consulted and apparently agreed to the plan as long as it was a one-off.  [Bp. Hollis of Portsmouth is definitely not known as a strong conservative, but my friends in the Portsmouth diocese tell me that even before Summorum Pontificum he never said no to celebrations of the older form of Mass. ] The Celebrant is the former Abbot of Belmont, the Rev Dr laurence Hemming from London will be Deacon and a priest from Marlborough will be Sub Deacon.

This is what I call true ecumenical dialogue!
 

I got a question from a reader.  Perhaps you can chime in with answers.

I believe he is talking about the Novus Ordo.

Should the congregation STAND or SIT for the singing of the Sequence on Easter and Pentecost? At my church the cantor asked for people to remain seated for the Sequence. One of the priests said that was wrong, that the congregation should stand. Which is Correct?

I’ll let you readers get into this.

In the meantime, perhaps our WDTPRS parody song writer can come up with the answer… musically. 

"Should I stand or should I sit", might be just as good a title for someone going to the "Tridentine" Mass for the first time!

Tonight all across the world people will, alas, take note that some priests and bishop have decided to wash the feet of women during the Holy Thursday Mass. 

They do this even though they shouldn’t and, probably, know they shouldn’t.

Pretty frustrating, isn’t it?

And in those times when we are irritated by such disrespect what do traditional, conservative Catholics do? 

They write parody songs, of course!

The official WDTPRS parodohymnologist, Tim Ferguson, has sent me this:

A Holy Thursday Reflection on “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree” by Lew Brown, Sam Stept and Charles Tobias.
(Imagine Ray Eberle and the Modernaires singing this…)

Don’t go washing those women’s feet; the Latin is plain to me:
“selecti” should be “viri.” The rubrics are clear you see. No, no, no,
Don’t go washing those women’s feet at Thursday night’s liturgy,
Thus says the Pope of Rome.

Don’t go altering rubrics now, no matter who you may be,
Or where you got your degree in Scripture and Liturgy. No, no, no,
Don’t go altering rubrics now, this calls for humility:
You’re not the Pope of Rome. 

I just got word that Ranjith has heard,
‘n put the Vicar in a jam,
Seems some priest here, washing feet last year,
Scrubbed a nylon-covered gam.
So, don’t go washing those women’s feet at Thursday night’s liturgy,
Or feel the wrath of Rome.

There… isn’t that better?

Has anyone else noticed that it seems only serious, traditionally minded Catholics tend to have a good sense of humor?  I guess this comes from the fact that when you are right you can’t be wrong.  That gives us the security to be funny.

 

But, getting back to business… I am feeling that old anger rise up inside again, .... and I need an outlet.

And what better outlet than …. another song!

From the Musical: Fiddler on the Apse
(a parody of Matchmaker, Matchmaker, from Fiddler on the Roof)

Yenta: Modernist Liturgist,
Please wash my feet,
I’m not wearing sox,
And I’ll be discrete,
Inculturate the American Way,
And please wash my feet Thursday….

Fr. Lovebeads: I am the Liturgist,
Take off your shoes!
Women and men,
There’s no need to choose!
“Viri selecti,” is just not too clear,
I’ll wash all your feet this year…

Fr. Lovebeads: For me now,
It signals inclusion!

Yenta: For me now,
It’s my chance to shine! 

Congregation: For us, well,
It doesn’t matter,
As long as we’re leaving for home by nine! 

Congregation: Modernist Liturgist,
Give us a break!
Follow the red words
For pity’s sake.
Mass after Mass we feel under attack,
Please, just say the words in black!

The Official WDTPRS Parody Song Writer, the esteemed Tim Ferguson has been at it again.

As he put it,

“I ruminated a bit more … and came to the realization that, while “La Donna e Mobile” might be readily appreciated and understood by those with an interest in the motu proprio, there’s also a need to reach out to those who might not be so appreciative and who, in general, tend to have different musical tastes.”

He continues….

So, reaching back to the halcyon days of folk music and came up with a version of the Pete Seeger classic (made famous by the Byrds in 1965) :

Go to the altar (turn, turn, turn)
look to the East now, (turn, turn, turn)
there’s a time for every Mass now, if it’s valid.
The time for banjos and dancing is gone,
dust off the censer, and toss out the bong.
No need for hugging, we all get along
let’s keep our focus together, on Jesus.

Page through the Missal (turn, turn, turn)
remember the rubrics (turn, turn, turn)
there’s a time and a purpose for those words there Pure,
humble rev’rence is what we now lack,
just do the red words and say those in black.
When we say High Mass, there’s no need for crack,
just let your deacon and subdeacon guide you.

Now weed your library, (turn, turn, turn)
use some discernment (turn, turn, turn)
it is time now to brush up on your Latin.
Farewell to Vosko, McBrien, Hans Keung,
deep down you knew that they just peddled deung,
the 60’s are old and the Church is still young
what still subsists is a thing of great beauty.