@Pontifex Tuesday Project: Week 2

I suggested a project using Twitter HERE.  Let’s create a “stack” of tweets during the day.  Concentrate your effort on a day and single theme instead of various scatterings over days when they might not be noticed.

Here is the first collective tweet for TUESDAY, 8 January 2013.  Copy. Paste. Tweet after 00:00 GMT.  Repost. Retweet.

@Pontifex Holy Father, thank you for your Epiphany sermon!

Posted in @Pontifex Tuesday Project, Benedict XVI | Tagged , , ,
16 Comments

QUAERITUR: Concerning the thumb and forefinger

From a priest:

It is now over five years since I learned to say Mass in the Usus Antiquior. [Hooray!] I have tried hard not to import random bits of rubrical practice into my celebration of the Novus Ordo. [That can be tough.]
One thing, however, that I do find myself doing is holding my thumb and forefinger together once the Sacred Host is consecrated. [Good!]

I have recently been challenged by a lay person, who felt that I was exercising private preference rather than conforming to the norms of the Church. Yet not holding my digits together seems disrespectful.

Can you please offer any guidance?

Guidance?  Sure!  Lemme think…

You could just gape at the lay person and say, “Are you serious? And if so, have you seen a doctor for this condition?”

Otherwise you could say, “Yes, you know, you’re absolutely right!   Thank you!  Thank you for helping me see the error of my ways.  I will immediately stop importing these horrible practices into the Ordinary Form.  Hence, because of your comments, from now on every Mass I say at this parish will be according to the 1962 Missal.”

Ignore the lay person.  Continue to do what you are doing.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Puir Slow-Witted Gowk, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged ,
67 Comments

What the National Catholic Reporter is really doing by calling for an “assault weapons” ban. (Hint: It ain’t about guns!)

These are "clips".

The National catholic Reporter always has to be where other liberals are, but they are always a day late and a dollar short.

Now they are calling for a ban on “assault weapons”.  Why?  Because they are running after the wave of gun-ban hysteria, utilizing the horrible deaths of children, to promote a political goal.  Don’t let a crisis go to waste, right?

And they have no idea what they are talking about.

First of all, when they and others talk about “assault weapons” they really mean “scary looking” guns.

And get this:

At the moment polls show a majority of Americans support banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Clips?  I think they mean “magazines”.

These are "magazines"

They haven’t the slightest clue what they are talking about when bringing up “assault weapons”, but that doesn’t matter. Guns are not their real target.

The real reason for this editorial is to shame pro-lifers into silence about abortion. Their weapon du jour is the Sandy Hook massacre.

The editors of the Fishwrap don’t give a damn about “assault weapons”.  They don’t even know what “assault weapons” are.  “Assault weapon” is a pointless catch-all label used by enemies of the Second Amendment to describe guns that are functionally no different, no more lethal, that any other run of the mill firearm.

The real target of the ban on “assault weapons” are the people who want to own guns.

Fishwrap is blathering about “assault weapons” because they don’t like a certain kind of person. They tie people who own guns to people who are against abortion.  You know who I mean, right?  Those red-necks?  Those Tea Party types?  Those knuckle-draggers who “cling to their guns or religion”?

Fishwrap is against anti-abortion pro-lifers. That is what their call for a ban on “assault weapons” is all about.

They are trying to use the “assault weapon” ban as a way to shame pro-lifers into silence about abortion.

Get it?  One more time for the people in Broward County: They are trying to tie “gun control” to the pro-life movement.  They could care less about abortion.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you are going to write, “I’m pro-life but I don’t think people should own these guns either!”

No, friends.  Keep your eye on the target here, right on that center ring.   I’ll explain.

For the Fishwrap and their ilk, abortion is not really a pro-life issue.  For the Fishwrap and their ilk, like the LCWR and the Nuns on the Bus, high taxes and entitlements are pro-life issues.  The unborn can be sacrificed for their higher cause.

Fishwrap has been trying to hijack pro-life language.  Remember how they tied gun control to the pro-life movement (HERE)? Moreover, Fishwrap trumpeted the fact that the LCWR called for an “assault weapons” ban (HERE).

Has the LCWR called for a ban on abortion? Please send me the link to their statement.  Has Fishwrap?

This editorial from Fishwrap about “assault weapons” is not only an example of running after the wave of hysteria and instumentalizing the death of children to promote their ideology.  They are also anticipating the rapidly approaching March for Life.

I ask simply: Will the NCR be represented at the March in Washington DC?  I want to take a photo of their anti-abortion banner.  Perhaps they will be standing next to the LCWR’s delegation with their anti-abortion banner!

UPDATE 10 Jan 21:38 GMT:

What did I hear on Rush today in Hour Two?

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", Blatteroons, Lighter fare, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
54 Comments

The next frontier for homosexualists will be the legal age limit

Remember my post about The 2020 annual LCWR Assembly?  The assembly’s theme would be “Age: The Final Frontier“.

Now I read this in The Guardian: Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light.

The article isn’t calling for laws to allow paedophiles to act on their impulses.  This is about reclassifying paedophilia so that paedophiles are not stigmatized.  This is the first step.  De-stigmatize the “orientation”.  When it becomes an “orientation” like every other “orientation”, then you confer “civil rights” on it.  Then you punish the Catholic Church for being against it.

This is disgusting, but it is something to watch out for.  The next frontier for the homosexualists will be the legal age limit.  Mark my words.

Won’t it be ironic when the last institution on Earth to oppose paedophilia is the Catholic Church?

Posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
49 Comments

Is training in the Extraordinary Form forbidden at St. Mary’s College in Oscott, England?

I have been sitting on this for months, but…

As a preamble, let me repeat something.

The Supreme Pontiff’s 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum established juridically that the Roman Rite has two forms, not one.   Thus, if a man has not been trained in seminary to handle the Extraordinary Form, the Usus Antiquior, then he has not be properly formed before ordination.  A priest or deacon must know his Rite.

With that in mind, when a man is elevated to the diaconate or priesthood, someone must stand up and testify, publicly, during the rite, that the men are properly formed for the order to which they are to be ordained.

Damian Thompson at the Telegraph has now “gone loud” about something I heard about months ago.  I didn’t want to write about this, because I was concerned that some seminarians would be punished.  Now that it is out, let’s get out the whip of cords.

My emphases and comments:

Seminary visited by the Pope bans traditional Latin Mass

I really don’t want to have to go back to writing about how the Catholic Church in England and Wales is ignoring the Pope’s provision for the traditional Latin Mass, but… well, here we go again. [You would have thought this nonsense over by now.]

Seminarians at St Mary’s College, Oscott, in Birmingham recently asked the rector if they could have the Extraordinary Form celebrated there – note, they did not ask to be trained how to say it. [They should have asked to be trained.]
The answer? Essentially, get stuffed, but couched in genial and friendly language. Oscott, which trains priests [see above] from the Midlands and North of England, has decided that Summorum Pontificum – which requires that a group of the faithful have the old Mass celebrated for them if they make an appropriate request – does not apply within its walls. But seminarians are generously told that they can attend the EF elsewhere (like every other Catholic in the world).  [Keep in mind that seminarians, like most priests, have the right to a Christian burial, and that is about it.]
Some of the students are pretty disgusted by this ruling: not only does it go against the letter and spirit of Benedict XVI’s legislation, but the “House Notes” in which the news was broken also seem to play the trick of turning the request for the celebration of the Mass (which should be automatically granted) into one for special training in it (which is easier to turn down). Here’s the relevant section:

One final thing, I know it was raised at Dean’s Coffee about the availability of celebration of Mass in the Extraordinary Form. This was actually discussed in the Bishops/Staff Meeting last February. This is the advisory group of Bishops [Get that?] who meet with Archbishop Bernard and the Formation Staff once each year. The Bishops [Get that?] made it quite clear in February that the priority for Oscott, considering how much there is to fit into the curriculum should be to educate and train seminarians in the Ordinary Form so that they can celebrate it well and be able to draw out its full potential, including the use of the riches of our Latin liturgical tradition in music. They made it clear that the Extraordinary Form was not to be celebrated here but that seminarians were free, within the constraints of our timetable, to experience the Extraordinary Form where it is provided locally, both at home and here in the Archdiocese of Birmingham.

Sorry, but no “advisory group” has the authority to strike a red pen through bits of the Motu Proprio it doesn’t like. Does Mgr Mark Crisp, the rector, support this decision or has he been leant on by the bishops? How poignant that the Pope held his last event at Oscott at the end of his visit to Britain. That seminary has now become a no-go area for the Mass that he restored to the Church. Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham should be ashamed of himself.

PS: I’ve just noticed, re-reading the document, that it says students are free “to experience” the EF – ie, it’s downgraded to “an experience”, like going to the zoo or the Planetarium.

There it is.

Universae Ecclesiae, the Instruction about Summorum Pontificum, says:

21. Ordinaries are asked to offer their clergy the possibility of acquiring adequate preparation for celebrations in the forma extraordinaria. This applies also to Seminaries, where future priests should be given proper formation, including study of Latin and, where pastoral needs suggest it, the opportunity to learn the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says that all seminarians must be very well trained in Latin. I am not making this up. The CIC can. 249 requires… it doesn’t suggest… it requires that all seminarians be very well-versed in Latin and also any other language useful for their ministry: “lingua latina bene calleant“. Not just calleant, but bene calleant. Calleo is “to be practised, to be wise by experience, to be skilful, versed in” or “to know by experience or practice, to know, have the knowledge of, understand”. We get the word “callused” from this verb. We develop calluses when we do something repeatedly. So, bene calleant is “let them be very well versed”. Let is also review Sacrosanctum Concilium 36 and Optatam totius 13!

How often does some fellow stand up in front of a bishop and say that the men to be ordained are properly trained even though they cannot say the Extraordinary Form and they don’t know any Latin?

 

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices, Universae Ecclesiae, Year of Faith | Tagged , , , , ,
38 Comments

Bitcoin?

Bitcoin… discuss.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged
35 Comments

QUAERITUR: What is wrong with women being lectors?

From a readerette:

Thank you for your wonderful blog.

I have been reading lots of comments, and seen some criticism of women lectors. What is wrong with women being lectors?

I will open the floor to readers in a moment.

First, only men are instituted, “official” lectors. Women can only substitute for them in their absence. Thus, they are a permitted exception to the rule.

Second, the very idea of women entering the sanctuary to perform a liturgical role is a historical oddity.

Third, we need a deeper understanding of “active participation”.

Fourth, because the lectorate has always been a step to Holy Orders, women reading in the sanctuary can be seen by some as a step to the ordination of women to the priesthood.

I am sure others will have comments. I will now back out of the room… but not entirely.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged , , ,
185 Comments

In case you were wondering…

… the episcopal motto chosen by the new Prefect of the Papal Household, His Excellency, George Gänswein. Titual Archbishop of Urbs Salvia, is …

Testimonium Perhibere Veritati.

This is from John 18:37:

Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.

The presence of the term, veritas in the motto, harks to the episcopal motto of Joseph Ratzinger, Cooperatores Veritatis, 3 John 8:

We therefore ought to receive such: that we may be fellow helpers of the truth.

You will notice right away that the dexter side (the heraldic “right hand” is on the viewer’s left) of the stemma is the stemma of Benedict XVI, which seems appropriate, given that he was at his right-hand for some years.  Perhaps, given that his name is “Georg”, the other side is a reference to St. George who slew the dragon?  As an interesting aside, my family’s also has a blue background, a star in chief and a pointy weapon.  In my case there are crossed cross-bow bolts, but no critter.  The hat is green, because green is the color for bishops and archbishops.  The number of tassels is ten on each side, as befits an archbishop, as does the cross with two transverse bars.

So… there’s your trivia for the day.

Small gestures and signs have cumulative effects.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged , , , , , , ,
20 Comments

Sunday Supper: More Hot Plate Adventures

For lunch today I thought of something Eastern, in honor of the Magi, but something not Chinese. Since I am working with a hot plate, I wanted to keep it simple.

Chicken Tikka Masala.

Start with boneless, skinless chicken thighs cut into small pieces.

20130106-133732.jpg
I happened to have a packet of simmering sauce.

20130106-133831.jpg

Add basmati rice.

20130106-133901.jpg

Cover and let it cook for a while.

I ate it with yogurt.

20130106-133952.jpg

Posted in Fr. Z's Kitchen | Tagged , ,
16 Comments

“During Pres. Obama’s third term…”

I have sometimes made a passing comment about what was going to happen to us during the third term of Pres. Obama.

The usual sort of person pooh-poohed that.  “But Father! But Father!”, they chortled, “You can’t be serious!  That’s against the the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution and… and… he’s … like, you know… a constitutional scholar!  Besides, how bad would that be?”

Pretty bad.

And truth is stranger than fiction, friends.

On gov.track you will find catholic Rep. Jose Serrano’s (D-NY 15) offering H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

He has done this before, by the way.

Aside from the fact that resolution is abysmally stupid, it is also abysmally evil.

Liberals attain their goals through creeping incrementalism.

They introduce something.  It’s gets shouted down.  But they have bumped the needle a half point in their direction.  They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction. They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction. They introduce it again.  It’s gets shouted down again.  But they have again bumped the needle a half point in their direction…. until… one day it passes.

This is what they have done on a range of issues which you can name all by yourselves.

And catholic quislings collaborate.

 

 

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liberals, Pò sì jiù, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
43 Comments