Anglican Communion suspends US Episcopal Church over same-sex “marriage”

Before anything else let me say: Anglicanorum coetibus!

Here’s something slightly interesting.

From USA Today:

Anglicans suspend Episcopal Church over stance on same-sex marriage

The Anglican Communion suspended the Episcopal Church, it’s American branch, from voting and decision-making for three years on Thursday over its acceptance of same-sex marriage.

“The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union,” the Anglican Communion said in a statement. “The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.”

The dramatic demotion follows a string of Episcopal Church decisions stretching back to 2003 when it elected Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as a bishop of New Hampshire. That decision led dozens of U.S. churches to break away from the Episcopal Church and declare their allegiance to a series of rival groups including The Anglican Church in North America.

In July, the Episcopal Church voted to allow its clergy to perform same-sex marriages, a move not taken by the majority of churches in the Anglican Communion.

Details of the suspension were first reported by Anglican Ink, which said they came from a leaked communique. The vote passed by a two-thirds margin, the publication reported, and included prominent voices among African bishops who have loudly condemned the American church for its liberal stance on gays.

[…]

Read the rest there.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , , ,
15 Comments

Concerning the death of David Bowie

At Crisis my friend Fr. Rutler reacts to the cloths-tearing grief provoked in some, including some in Rome, by the death of David Bowie.

Here are a few of my favorite lines from Rutler:

“…the Vatican, just wiping up from its Climate Change light show on the façade of the Basilica of St. Peter’s…”

“L’Osservatore Romano, aching to be the Church of What’s Happening Now…”

“Young people are embarrassed when their mothers try to be ‘cool.'”

And the best line of all…

“Christ was a carpenter and his apostles were mostly fishermen and none of them was what is called today a ‘metrosexual.’”

Read the whole thing there.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS | Tagged ,
30 Comments

Giving Catholic children the gift of music

Yesterday I read in the newest issue of Sacred Music an article about the Ward Method of teaching Gregorian chant to the young.

Today I received a note from a priest friend in Texas, Fr. Reynolds, about the music program for the young at the parish school where he was pastor for many years, St. Theresa in Sugar Land.  He was recently moved to a new parish, but what Father built there is still rolling along.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
9 Comments

ASK FATHER: People “dunked” the Host in the chalice

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

During Holy Communion at Mass on Sunday I observed two individuals who took (not received) the blessed sacrament in hand then proceeded to an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion an we’re allowed to “dunk”.

the host into the cup. The two men eventually consumed the saturated host as they walked back to their pew. I intend to talk to my parish pastor, who was distributing Communion at the Mass in question. I know self-intinction is wrong. I don’t know why nor the grounds by which it is wrong.

Self-intinction is wrong because the Church does not permit it. That should be sufficient argument, but we can go a bit deeper.

Self-intinction contradicts the Church’s understanding of what is being done at Holy Communion. We are being fed by Our Lord with His Sacred Body and Precious Blood. We receive Holy Communion. Reception is a passive thing, not an active thing. In a position of humility (best exemplified by kneeling, in my opinion), we allow the Lord to feed us. Holy Communion is given to us, we do not take it. We do not take the host from the ciborium. We do not take the Precious Blood from the chalice.

If there is to be intinction (and it is one of the acceptable forms of distributing Holy Communion according to the General Instruction), the minister takes the host, dips it in the chalice, and places the dipped host directly on the tongue of the recipient.  That’s it.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
17 Comments

Card. Rodriguez: Pope Francis v. the homosexual lobby

UPDATE 15 Jan:

In the combox, below, someone brought up a piece by John Allen at Crux about this.  HERE I don’t look at Crux much anymore, so I was happy for the heads up.   In his piece Allen tries to parse what “gay lobby” might mean in its Italian context.  The words might mean something different to an American and to an Italian.

I already wrote about this very thing in 2013.  HERE

Back then… with some emphases and comments:

One of the words flung around in the blogosphere and opinion items is the word “lobby” as in “gay lobby”. Because this story is driven by Italian sources we need to be clear about what this “lobby” means.

In Italian, “lobby” has a different connotation than it does in English. To get a good description of the different impact, I asked my old friend the great Roman Fabrizio, whose facility in English is amazing. Here is what he sent:

Although increasingly used in a more Anglo-Saxon political sense, the term “lobby” has a decidedly more negative and at times conspiratorial flavor to it in Italian. We otherwise use “gruppi di pressione” [pressure groups] o “gruppi di interesse” [interest groups] when referred to organized and official entities. Another negative term would be “poteri forti” [like “powerful forces”]. In short, it means sinister people who maneuver in the dark and who have leverage enough to make things happen or to prevent them from happening.

In other words, there is nothing benign about “lobby” in this context. When you see it in this context, know that this is nasty business with lots of passive-aggression, villainous-smiling, lying-in-wait, and backstabbing.

I may not write much on this blog about the whole “Vatican gay lobby” thing. It makes me pretty mad. [During my years in Rome I saw its ugliness and had a nasty brush with it a few times.] But it is time for me to say this:

For decades our society has been slowly but surely and purposely shifted by those in control of the mainstream media and entertainment industry. At first, because of the rise of AIDS, active homosexuals were constantly portrayed as innocent, though perhaps quirky, victims. Once the notion of homosexuality was shifted from its moorings and a new status was created in the minds of the public, another shift took place in the media. Now, TV shows and movies are saturated with homosexuals who are far more sophisticated, with it, intelligent, good looking than their more dysfunctional heterosexual counterparts. Victim time is over. It is cool to be “gay”.

For years an artificial sub-culture was carefully crafted and now it is busting out into a “new normal”. [How much more so now after a couple more years of infiltration?]

But – contrary to popular opinion – human nature and God’s revealed truths have not changed. Homosexuality is not normal. Christ’s priesthood and homosexuality converging is like pushing misaligned magnets together. It can be done, but it requires force. [Brute force.] It is no wonder that some of these misaligned clerics do gawdawful things, especially to other clerics. They are out of sorts with themselves at their deepest core. How they must suffer! That suffering will sometimes come out sideways. Homosexual violent crime is often the most brutal and bloody that the police see. [Ask them.] Homosexual clerics usually won’t be physically violent. Their conflicts manifest in other ways.

There is an old macaronic-Latin phrase in clerical circles in Rome: homo homini lupus… sacerdos sacerdoti lupissimus.

That’s what I wrote in 2013.

Allen pretty much gets it.  However, I think he tries to separate homosexuality from “gay” too much and loses the thread in the maze.

___ ORIGINAL Published on: Jan 13, 2016 ___

Some on the catholic Left, such as Michael Sean Winters of the Fishwrap, give virtual submission of mind and will to the insights of His Eminence Oscar Card. Rodriguez Maradiaga, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa and a member of Pope Francis Gang of 9 Cardinals.

From the National Catholic Register by Ed Pentin:

Cardinal Rodriguez: Homosexual Lobby Exists in the Vatican
Honduran cardinal also rules out the Pope ever supporting same-sex ‘marriage’, saying the “natural law cannot be reformed”.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has confirmed the presence of a homosexual “lobby” in the Vatican and revealed that Pope Francis is trying “little by little to purify it.”
The Honduran Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, who coordinates the Council of Nine cardinals advising the Pope on reform of the Roman Curia and Church governance, was responding to a question from a Honduran newspaper reporter who asked him whether there had been “an attempt to infiltrate the gay community in the Vatican, or a moment when that had actually happened?”
Cardinal Rodriguez replied: “Not only that, also the Pope has said there is even a ‘lobby’ in this sense. Little by little the Pope is trying to purify it. [That means it is undesirable.] He added: “One can understand them [members of the lobby] and there is pastoral legislation to attend to them, but what is wrong cannot be truth.” [It’s wrong to promote what they promote.]
The Pope acknowledged the presence of a homosexual network of priests at the Vatican during a private conversation with leaders of a Latin American confederation of religious in June 2013. In the context of saying he found reform of the Roman Curia difficult, the Pope said: “The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there … We need to see what we can do.”
He alluded to it again a month later, telling reporters on the plane back from Rio de Janeiro that “you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good.”  [The Fishwrap promotes homsexuality.]
A homosexual lobby was also suspected to have been influential on both Synods on the Family when controversial passages relating to homosexuals made their way into the interim report during the 2014 meeting despite being hardly discussed, and external lobby groups sought to pressure the participants.
There was also a common perception that the Communion for remarried divorcees issue, which dominated both synods, was a “Trojan horse” to allow Church recognition of same-sex relationships and other extra-marital unions.
During last year’s synod, statements on homosexuality “seemed to come out of nowhere” at press briefings when the issue was hardly raised by synod fathers during the three week meeting.
The comments from the Pope and now Cardinal Rodriguez contradict those made by Father Krzysztof Charamsa, a homosexual Polish priest who was dismissed as an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after publicly announcing his homosexuality just ahead of the Synod on the Family last October. He told Italian television he had “never met a gay lobby in the Vatican”.
Also in the interview with Heraldo de Honduras, Cardinal Rodriguez was asked whether the Pope would ever support same-sex “marriage.”
“No,” he replied. “We must understand that there are things that can be reformed and others cannot. The natural law cannot be reformed. We can see how God has designed the human body, the body of the man and the body of a woman to complement each other and transmit life. The contrary is not the plan of creation. There are things that cannot be changed.”
The cardinal also tried to reassure readers there would be “no major” changes to doctrine as part of the Pope’s reforms. “We should not expect there will be major reforms in the doctrine of the Church. The reform is the organization of the curia.”
He also said there has not been much resistance to curial reform. “There is resistance of course, there are people who, precisely because they do not know the life of the Church, resist any changes.
“These, of course, are wrong attitudes,” he continued. “As I’ve said, to be able to understand the Church, we must see that it is not merely a human institution, it is humane-divine, it is natural and supernatural and, by consequence, there are things that do not really depend on what is human.”

I am sure that this will cause some consternation in some quarters.  But, Card. Rodriguez has said it.

Moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Liberals, Linking Back, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
18 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can a bishop forbid open carry of guns in states where it is legal?

UPDATE 14 Jan:

At A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics there is an interesting reaction to the Diocese of Dallas’ new policy about guns.  A couple of the posts there touch on this topic, as a matter of fact.

One Catholic was irritated by the policy. Here is a photo of the envelope from the Dallas’ Bishops Annual Appeal:

UPDATE 13 Jan:

Another Texas diocese gets into it. There is something odd about this piece, however.

From KFOX 14:

Catholic Diocese says no to Open Carry

EL PASO, Texas – It’s been 10 days since open carry went into effect. Now the Catholic Diocese of El Paso has made its decision on the new Texas law.
Chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of El Paso Patricia Fierro says the organization hopes to have the decision go into effect by next week.

She says, “Those will not be allowed in our parishes. However, we don’t have the proper signage right now but we are working on that.”

KFOX14 wanted to find out how people felt about the diocese’s decision not to allow open carry.

Harry Sorensen, of West El Paso, says, “I think it’s a good idea on the church’s behalf. That’s their prerogative that they want to do. If they feel comfortable with people having weapons in the church that (is) their business.”

Daniel Fraire, of West El Paso, says, “I don’t think there’s any reason why we need guns in a church.  [I sure hope he’s right.]

Although, there have been attacks in a church so I can see why people would want to take their gun in a church in a way.”

The Texas Tribune recently conducted a social media poll about open carry policies. Based on their polling data, 72 percent of people say open carry policies would influence where they shop. [Interesting.]

Fierro doesn’t think their policy will impact whether people still go to their church. [Really?]

“I’m thinking we might lose members if we allow them to bring guns into the church,” she says. [This is a guess… based on… what?]

“But I think they’ll feel more secure if we keep the guns away.”

People have their own theories about the impact the decision could have on churchgoers.

Sorensen says, “They probably won’t go to church if they aren’t allowed to carry but that just depends on the person I suppose.”

“Why not see it both ways?” says Fraire.

He says, “Allow two separate Masses. [Interesting.] Have one where guns are allowed and one where guns aren’t allowed. At least you can divide the people based on that.”

[NB] Some people in the past have told KFOX14 they think people should be able to leave their weapons in their cars before going into church. The diocese tells KFOX14 that will not be allowed. [Ummm… leaving their weapons in their cars will “not be allowed”?  I suppose this might depend on whether a car is on a city street or there is a church owned parking lot but… “not be allowed”?]

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t El Paso an area where illegals (- who knows who) are flooding across the border?

This is an interesting topic, to be sure.  I find especially interesting the rhetoric chosen by the dioceses in their statements.

UPDATE 6 Jan 1519 UTC:

After a cordial exchange I received this from the Director of Communications for the Diocese of Tyler, which he sent for posting with attribution:

“While we may see a wide range of policies for churches in Texas in response to the open carry law, Bishop Strickland did not feel like the “no guns” approach was the best or practical for the Diocese of Tyler. His desire is to balance the right of law-abiding individuals to defend themselves and their families, with the decorum that is appropriate for the Sacred Liturgy.  Naturally, Bishop Strickland’s statement wasn’t intended to be of a juridical nature, but rather a common sense request from the Bishop to his flock as Texans acclimate themselves to the new law.”

Peyton Low
Director of Communications
Diocese of Tyler
http://www.dioceseoftyler.org

Thanks and kudos to Mr. Low who took the high road and engaged in a helpful way.

UPDATE 6 Jan 0238 UTC:

There are some good comments in the combox, below, which clarify Texas law.  It is becoming a little clearer now what the situation is there.  It is a good, useful, and instructive, discussion.

Also, the Diocese of Dallas issued a statement. HERE  It is far more legalistic and restrictive.  They have gone the way of the lawyers.  It is as if they don’t want some people ever to cross the threshold of their churches… sorry… thresholds of “Entity”.
_____

Original Published on: Jan 5, 2016 @ 14:53 CST

POTUS shedding a tear while announcing his latest overreach.

Today we heard the First Gay President, as Newsweek dubbed him, again trample on the Constitution of these United States of America through a violation of the separation of powers.  POTUS will attempt to impose unconstitutional “laws” through executive fiat.  The Executive Branch is not empowered to make laws. Congress has the sole power to legislate.

On the issue of gun rights and gun control, a reader sent a question about whether, in the state where it is legal openly to carry guns, a bishop has the authority to ban open carry of guns in churches.

This was brought up at a different blog.  HERE

In some states you can openly carry a gun without a permit, but a permit is required to carry a concealed weapon.  In other states you can open carry with a concealed carry permit.  Each state has variations in laws.

His Excellency Most Rev. Joseph Strickland, Bishop of Tyler (in Texas), has issued a letter on the website of the Diocese of Tyler. HERE  He doesn’t want people to carry openly in church.

Note that the first paragraph explains that the laws in Texas changed concerning open carry.  It says that those with concealed carry licenses will also be able to open carry in public places not prohibited by law.  In Texas it is not prohibited by law to carry in a church. [UPDATE: check the combox for clarifications on this point.]

 

On January 1, 2016, new legislation will go into effect in Texas which allows those with licenses issued by the State to openly carry handguns in places not prohibited by law. We will see our fellow citizens openly carrying weapons in stores, restaurants, theaters, parks, and other public places. [churches] This law revises the current “concealed carry” law but continues the requirements that those with licenses to carry handguns must be at least 21, have passed a criminal background check and have received classroom and shooting range instruction.

I respect and support the right that we have as Texans to defend ourselves and our families. As Catholics, we believe the legitimate defense of persons can be not only a right, but also a grave duty.

In the Diocese of Tyler, I strongly encourage those who choose to exercise this right to continue to do so in a prudent and responsible manner. [However… watch the language…] With respect to our communal worship, I believe that openly carrying a weapon is not appropriate during the Sacred Liturgy and may understandably cause great discomfort to some gathered to worship alongside us.

Accordingly, as Bishop, I ask the faithful of the Diocese of Tyler and guests of our churches to observe my instruction that weapons are not to be openly carried during Holy Mass or other times of public worship. Peace Officers commissioned by local, state or federal agencies are exempt from this instruction. [NB: He doesn’t say anything about concealed carry.  Only open carry.]

As Texans adjust to this new law, I would also encourage the clergy and faithful of the Diocese to address any questions that may arise with calmness, kindness and respect, taking into consideration both the legitimate feelings and the rights of all involved.

Please direct any questions that may come up regarding this instruction or the position of the Diocese of Tyler to Mr. Peyton Low at the Chancery Office.

Also, this is to be inserted into parish bulletins or read from pulpits in the Diocese of Tyler.

For the churches of the Diocese, the following statement should be inserted into Sunday bulletins and/or read during the announcements:

OPEN CARRY & HOLY MASS
Respecting the right of Texans to defend themselves and their families while at the same time being considerate of those who may be uncomfortable around weapons in the context of our sacred liturgies, Bishop Joseph E. Strickland has instructed that weapons are not to be openly carried during Holy Mass or other times of public worship.  Peace Officers commissioned by local, state or federal agencies are exempt from this instruction.  For more information, visit www.dioceseoftyler.org.

If a person who is lawfully carrying a weapon in an open manner enters a church, ushers, greeters and clergy are asked to refer the person to this statement.

As always, if someone is acting suspiciously or if an individual perceives danger to himself or others, call 9-1-1 and follow local security procedures.

Okay… that’s the situation now in Tyler, Texas, where the laws have changed and where new decisions have to be made.

A reader asked me…

QUAERITUR:

Does a diocesan bishop have the authority to ban open carrying of guns in churches (which are public places not prohibited by law)?

I asked a few canonists about this.   The general view is, no, not really.   One thought that he might be able to.  I don’t think so.

He can ask but he can’t require.  A bishop seems not to be able to enforce such a thing.  The wording of the Bishop of Tyler, for example, expresses a request.   He would really like it to be the way he asks.   He is asking.  He can’t “command” under pain of censure.  One could pay close attention to his request and decide on a course of action. People are free to follow his request, or not.

In a diocese, the bishop is the legislator.  However, he can legislate only concerning what pertains to his office.  He can legislate about indulgence and what to preach and many other things concerning the life of faith.  He can’t legislate about things determined by a higher authority (e.g., the Pope) or about things that don’t concern him (e.g, your neckties, the style of your shoes, your gun and its caliber).

There are also questions of how property ownership is set up in the Texas.  Is the bishop merely one member of a corporate board of the parish?  Is it corporation sole?  That might impact this, but I’ll stick to the bishop’s ecclesiastical role.  [UPDATE: Be sure to look at the comments in the combox.  There is a lot more about this and the Texas law is clarified.]

Mind you, when a bishop says something about comportment in church Catholics should respectfully listen.  We are not Sedevacantists or SSPXers who set aside what bishops say or who do not recognize their authority.  However, we have to consider also the limits of the authority of bishops and of pastors as well.  And ushers.

If people in the Diocese of Tyler do not conform to the wishes of the Bishop in this matter, they may incur the displeasure of the bishop (which is not nothing), but they can’t be canonically censured by him.  Or by ushers.

He can excommunicate you for joining the Masons, but not for open carrying in church.

That said, if someone determines to “stick it” to the bishop and, therefore, chooses to open carry in church, because it would annoy the bishop … I’d ask that person to examine her conscience.

Open carry to “stick it to the bishop” might be legal, [UPDATE: Again, check the comments, below.] and the bishop might not be able to do anything about it, but it could be a petty, disrespectful and even sinful thing to do on account of the motive and the sacred character of the person of the bishop, whom you intend to offend.

On the other hand, after carefully weighing the bishop’s words, a decision to open carry for other motives (self-defense, defense of loved ones, etc.), need not be disrespectful.

In any event, no one – NO ONE – should either open carry or concealed carry without understanding the consequences of that decision.  Training – lots of training – is the prudent path before carrying.  Instruction about all the legal ramifications is a must.  Even then, even after training and instruction, not everyone is cut out for carrying a weapon beyond the confines of one’s castle.  And you have to be in control of that weapon all the times and alert within your surroundings.  This isn’t a game or a matter of frivolous motives.  It’s deadly serious.

Moderation queue is ON.

 

Posted in Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , ,
86 Comments

ASK FATHER: House cassocks

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

What is a house cassock and what is the general etiquette regarding their use?

Clerical decorum has nearly completely broken down. All you have to do is look at a group of concelebrants. There are hardly two vested similarly when it comes to alb, cincture. Let’s not even talk about proper choir dress. What a disaster that is. They enter and exit in their white gunny sacks looking like the end of the shift at the Tasty Bakery.

Most priests and bishops of a certain age haven’t a clue about how to dress.

Furthermore, they would say, “Oh, I don’t go in for all that stuff!”, as if they are somehow to be thought humble. Ironic.. no?   They are above all that, and so they are supposed to be humble. I don’t see any virtue in adopting a stance of contempt for your proper dress or vestments or uniform. Humility submits to decorum. Putting on the gear, and putting it on correctly, shows respect for the office and role you hold. It shows respect for the people you encounter.

People don’t want to see their bishops and priests slouching about in shapeless white bags.

House cassocks are worn, well, around the house and also out on the street and in other settings, such as classrooms, most of the time in church, confessional, etc.

Choir dress when participating more formally in solemn liturgical rites.

For garden variety priests, there is no difference between the house cassock and choir cassock. They wear black cassocks with black buttons and trim, black stockings and shoes. They have a black sash or fascia, though once its use and if it could have fringe was more closely regulated.   That’s out the window now: they can all wear the fascia with fringe and even poms, for that matter.  Why not.  In choir the garden variety put on the surplice and use a biretta with a black pom, if there is a pom. There doesn’t have to be a pom.  That seems to be a French use.  Roman birettas don’t one, which is why cardinals don’t have one. Out on the street, the garden variety can use a ferraiolone, or ferraioletto, or not, the shash, or not, and a practical hat, more secular or the flat, Roman hat lovingly called a “saturno” or even a “padella (frying pan)”. A priest’s cassock can, these days, have a shoulder cape.  Also, in hot climbs, priests can have a white cassock with black trim and buttons.  Maybe I’ll get one for my jubilee.  Hmmm.

Leaving aside the issue of the shoulder cape, for prelates, monsignors and the like, there are different trims and buttons for choir cassocks and house cassocks. The lowest kind of monsignor, a chaplain, has a black cassock, purple buttons and trim, black socks, black biretta with black pom, and the magenta or paonazza sash. This is both his house cassock and his choir cassock. The next rung up, prelate of honor, has for his house cassock a black cassock with red trim and buttons. He can use this as a choir cassock, but more properly his choir cassock is magenta, with red trim and buttons and red cuffs. He has a black biretta and black pom, though sometimes you see him (rightly I think) with a purple pom. Next up is the protonotary apostolic. He has even more gear that he can wear. They are pretty rare now, so I’ll skip them. There are also a few special even rarer monsignors in Rome who can wear the manteletta.

Also, as a curiosity, the Master of Ceremonies for Pontifical Masses in the older form, if a cleric, even if a regular priest, use the magneta, paonazza, cassock with magenta buttons and cuffs with the magenta sash.  You can see me in this image in the same:

There are also questions of a priest’s formal wear.

In social occasions lay people dress formally in black tie and the rarer white tie or special ethnic dress. Happily, clerics don’t have to worry about the distinctions of tails, waistcoats, tuxedos, etc. For formal occasion, where dress truly is prescribed, the house cassock is used and, over it, a ferraiolone of the proper color cardinal’s scarlet, paonazza, or black, or silk or wool. Your outwear would be a cappa… not the cappa magna and the flat hat, or plush hat. Alas, in this pedestrian era, often formal wear is the black suit with double-fold cuffs and links, perhaps a clerical vest with the usual Roman or military collar, and… that’s about it.

This is problematic, however.  These days it is nearly impossible to prescribe dress.  You can put the indications on the invitations and people show up wearing whatever the hell they want.   For clerics… that just doesn’t work.

Just as I have Suppers for the Promotion of Clericalism™ from time to time, perhaps I should hold some evenings with truly formal dress.  Hmmmm.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged ,
11 Comments

Powerball: 1.5 Billion – POLL

The Powerball lottery is up to $1.5 Billion.  That’s not what you get, but… what you get ain’t nothing.

Sooo… how many chances/tickets did you buy?

I suspect this might prompt some interesting discussions about statistics.

For the 1.5 Billion Powerball Lottery, I bought...

View Results

The combox is also open for your dreams about what you would do with the money (after subscribing to a monthly donation at Fr. Z’s Blog).

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged ,
37 Comments

Weigel on improvising priests. Fr. Z rants.

We had an honorable mention in a piece by George Weigel today, not by name, but pretty much everyone knows what’s what.

In First Things, Weigel is rightly worked up about priests who, contrary to law and good sense, impose their own changes (preferences) on the texts of Holy Mass (and therefore on the innocent, helpless congregation).

He must have had a experience recently which set him off.

DEAR FATHER: PLEASE STOP IT [Dear Father: Shut up and pray]
In all the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council, is there any prescription more regularly violated than General Norm 22.3 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy? Which, in case you’ve forgotten, teaches that “no . . . person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.”

If you’re a daily Mass attendant, the odds are that you hear that norm violated a dozen times a week. Sunday Mass people typically hear it violated two or three times a week, at least. Auto-editing or flat-out rewriting the prescribed text of the Mass is virtually epidemic among priests who attended seminary in the late Sixties, Seventies, or early Eighties; it’s less obvious among the younger clergy. But whether indulged by old, middle-aged, or young, it’s obnoxious and it’s an obstacle to prayer.

Especially now, I might note, given the restoration of the more formal rhythms of liturgical language in the English translations we’ve used since Advent 2011. Those translations are not faultless. But they’re a massive improvement on what we used to have (as a comparison with what’s still, alas, in the breviary will attest). [Liturgy of the Hours… you can always use Latin.] And by restoring sacral language that was peremptorily discarded in the previous translation, [after preemptorily discarding Latin] the current translation reminds us that Mass is far more than a social gathering; it’s an act of worship, the majesty of which should be reflected in the language of the liturgy—which is not the language of the shopping mall or the Super Bowl party. [Or even of everyday discourse.  If only the Latin Church had a sacral language for worship which could unite us across borders and with past generations, which could elevate and provide a challenging dimension of worship which could prepare us for what is entirely lacking in the Novus Ordo: an apophatic encounter with mystery.]

In one sense, though, the new translation has made things worse. For when Father Freelance scratches his itch to show just how congregation-friendly he is [or how sophisticated] by making what he imagines are nifty changes [it’s the “nifty” that really does it there] to the Mass text, he instantly sets up sonic dissonance for anyone with a reasonably well-tuned ear. And sonic dissonance makes it hard to pray.

So with a civil new year upon us, may I suggest to our fathers in Christ that they cease and desist from making it up, juicing it up, or otherwise tinkering with the Missal? [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] As an old liturgical saw has it, referring to the difference in color that distinguishes prayers from instructions in the Missal, “Read the black and do the red.” Just that, Father. Read the black and do the red. Or, better, pray the black and do the red.

[…]

Read the rest there.

I have an antidote.  Weigel won’t like it, but it works.

The Extraordinary Form.

First, it is harder to improvise in Latin.  Harder, not impossible.  I and a few others I know could probably do it, but… why?

The older form of Holy Mass keeps priests under control, helps them to become more transparent, suppress temptations to customize, allows them more easily to decrease.

Learning the older form of Mass changes a way that the priest sees himself at the altar, what his role is.  It gives him a new (old) view of his priesthood (hint = it’s not about him).

When a priest learns how to say the older, traditional form of Mass, he doesn’t say the Novus Ordo in the same way afterwards.  His use of the Novus Ordo is informed by a continuity with our tradition and his priesthood at the altar is transformed.  This can produce a knock-on effect with the congregation.

It revives or even initiates a respect for the Latin texts and could help bring the use of Latin back into the Novus Ordo.  Does it have to be said again that the Novus Ordo should also be in Latin?

At least juridically speaking, since the Roman Rite has two forms, a Roman, Latin Church priest who doesn’t know the Extraordinary Form is not truly knowledgeable about the rites of his own Church.

With its ethos of options, the Novus Ordo, in the vernacular and especially versus populum, is inherently open to these kinds of abuses.   It needs the corrective of the traditional form.

Sapienti pauca.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged , ,
29 Comments

YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Registered or not, will you in your charity please take a moment look at the requests and to pray for the people about whom you read?

Continued from THESE.

I get many requests by email asking for prayers. Many requests are heart-achingly grave and urgent.

As long as my blog reaches so many readers in so many places, let’s give each other a hand. We should support each other in works of mercy.

If you have some prayer requests, feel free to post them below.

You have to be registered here to be able to post.

I still have a pressing personal petition.  Really.  And I would appreciate prayers for a swift, complete, and lasting recovery from a present illness.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
18 Comments