ASK FATHER: Poured Precious Blood down sacrarium. Go to a Missionary of Mercy?

Posted on 17 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

blood-of-jesusFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I know an EMHC who once was instructed after Mass to pour, and did pour, the remaining (there was a lot) Precious Blood in the sacrarium.
This EMHC will be attending a pilgrimage this weekend at which a missionary of mercy (MoM) will be hearing confessions. At the time, this EMHC was distraught but did not know what she did was wrong. [There’s a disconnect here.  Why be distraught if she didn’t think it was wrong?] I understand this was confessed later, but should I encourage this person to visit the MoM?

You cannot pour the Precious Blood down a drain or sacrarium.  You cannot “throw away” a Host.   Someone who “throws away” the Eucharist, either by, for example, simply tossing a consecrated Host in the garbage, or putting it down the sacrarium, or pouring the Precious Blood down a sink or sacrarium, knowing that it is wrong to do, runs the risk of incurring a latae sententiae excommunication, the lifting of which is reserved to the Holy See alone.  The sin is forgiven in confession (since there are no more reserved sins).  The censure of excommunication, however, is under normal circumstances reserved to the Holy See. In the Year of Mercy, certain priest confessors (“Missionaries of Mercy”) have been given the faculty to lift this censure without recourse to the Holy See.

In the Latin Code of Canon Law we find:

can. 1367: Qui species consecratas abicit aut in sacrilegum finem abducit vel retinet in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrit; clericus praeterea alia poena, non exclusa dimissione e statu clericali, puniri potest … A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state..

The word abicit, abicere, means here “throw away”, and this was clarified by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, at their plenary session on 4 June 1999, as not … not… being restricted to “throw away” in a spirit of contempt, or intent to do dishonor.  It really does mean “throw away”, which is what happens when you put a consecrated Host or the Precious Blood down a sacrarium without first making sure that the substance of the same is first broken down (by dissolving).  Precious Blood, of course, should be consumed.

That said, in the case of any objectively sinful act which incurs an excommunication (e.g. throwing away the Eucharist), there are always the circumstances to be considered (e.g., the person’s will and knowledge, external compulsion, fear, etc.).

Redemptionis Sacramentum distinguished different levels of liturgical abuses.  The worst are in the category graviora delicata (graver crimes).  Among the graviora delicta is throwing away the Eucharist (cf. RS 172).   This grave crime is reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

From what you wrote I would say that, probably, No, she did not incur the penalty. She was following the direction of another person whom she deemed had authority.  You say she was “distraught”.  To incur such a penalty, one must commit a mortal sin in the act.  She did not have the obligation to know the truth about throwing away the Sacrament. The sacristan and the priests do!  She was acting, probably, in innocent ignorance.  The sacristan and priests, if they don’t know the law and theology of this matter, are in a state of culpable ignorance.  They are obliged to know this stuff.

I suspect that someone has incurred a censure, but not her.

Also, if there is risk of profanation of the Precious Blood – and it sounds as if there is at that parish – then Communion under both species should be stopped.

But, for a moment let’s assume that she did incur the censure, which is automatic excommunication.  Another result would be, if committed by a male, that man would be irregular to receive Holy Orders licitly.

She could go to Rome, to the offices of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, which has competence in this and the authority to lift the censure.  Otherwise, she could explain the situation to a savvy priest confessor who knows how to write to the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary.  He would write a letter to describe the situation – using total anonymity in her regard – and then receive back from them the faculty to lift the censure the next time she came back to him as a confessor.

If a cleric did this horrid thing, and you incurred the censure of excommunication, he would be suspended instantly by the very fact of doing it if, in doing it, he committed the mortal sin in full knowledge and will.  He could function as a cleric, for example say Mass and hear confessions if a priest, only if he had started the process of getting that censure lifted.

BUT… if other people saw you do it, saw you doing it all the time, and they knew she knew it was wrong because she was told or she had read it, etc., then it would be possible that someone could denounce her to the CDF.  A canonical process could started in her regard, under the new norms for graviora delicta.

Enough said.

Bottom line…. DO NOT pour the Precious Blood down a sacrarium or drain or anywhere else.  It ought to be consumed.

If she has contact with one of these Missionaries of Mercy, she could bring this up in confession, explaining the necessary circumstances (i.e., being told to do it, being distraught, etc.).  The confessor would them be able to make a judgment and, if necessary, lift any censure she might have incurred.

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

It’s no joke. The Devil hates Latin.

Posted on 16 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have attended a couple workshops on exorcism.  I have spoken with exorcists.   Again and again I have heard – and said – how the Devil hates Latin.  This is more than a witticism.

Over at NLM I found yet another confirmation that the Devil hates Latin.    There is a piece about a talk given by the priest who was the inspiration for the movie The Rite.  Read the whole thing, but this is the part that most interested me:

However, he did explain that the Rite of Exorcism is only said in Latin. One reason is practical – there is no approved translation in English as yet. He gave another reason why he was so strongly in favor of the use of Latin in the Rite of Exorcism: “The Devil hates Latin, it is the universal language of the Church.” I asked him about this afterwards, and he repeated it, saying that his personal experiences as an exorcist who has performed many, many exorcisms have convinced him of this. He told me he had heard from exorcists who did exorcisms in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese (the only approved vernaculars for this Rite) that Latin was the most effective language.

And there are a lot of people out there, liberals mostly, who hate Latin.

What does it mean for the identity of Catholics in the Latin Church when they almost never hear any Latin and have even been led to disdain it?

Let’s all recite together the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel just to irritate the Enemy, and throw some Holy Water around while you’re at it:

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio.
Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur.
Tuque princeps militiae caelestis,
Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo
divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests | Tagged ,
71 Comments

ASK FATHER: Neglect of the Precepts of the Church and Mortal Sin. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Posted on 16 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a priest…

QUAERITUR:

I am trying to clarify whether or not the precepts of the church bind under mortal sin? According to the catechism of St. Pius X they do, however the current CCC gives no clear indication.

I have read it a dozen commentaries on the issue and some say they do, others say they don’t. This question is specifically in regards to “confessing our sins once per year.” Does a person need to confess even venial sin once a year under pain of mortal sin?

The Precepts involve grave matter. Neglecting them can be a matter of mortal sin, under the usual conditions (that is, you have to know that neglecting confession is wrong, etc.).  Of course the Precepts reflect the low bar for our conduct as Catholics, not a high bar.

The Precepts or Commandments, which are for the most part also reflected in the Church’s Canon Law, are strong guidelines which point a Catholic to a bare minimum of conduct of Catholic life.  They are not comprehensive.  They are the “At Least Do These Things” List.  They also concern outward, concrete actions and not interior thoughts or attitudes.  You either go to Mass for your Sunday obligation when possible or you don’t.  You receive the Eucharist once a year or you don’t.  Etc.

These days, however, there is a bit of confusion over the Precepts or Commandments of the Church.  Lists differ.

First, the Commandments or Precepts can change.  The Church determines what they are.  They are not doctrinal, though they are rooted in doctrine.  They concern discipline, our outward conduct.

The online article in the Catholic encyclopedia has a fascinating review of the history of the Commandments and show how their number changed according to time and place.  HERE  I can’t improve on the last part of that article.  Perpend:

The Church in her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church. The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the “Catechismus ad parochos” published by order of the council and known as the “Catechism of the Council of Trent” or “Roman Catechism”. We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to one’s pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter. Owing undoubtedly to the influence of Canisius, the catechisms generally used at present throughout Germany and Austria-Hungary have adopted the above enumeration. The fourth precept has, however, been amended so as to allow of confession being made to any duly authorized priest.

In Spanish America the number of church precepts is also five; this being the number as we have seen, set down by Aspilcueta in the sixteenth century. Here, however, the First and Second commandment in the table of Canisius are combined into one, and the precept to pay tithes appears. It is to be noted, also, that the precept of annual confession is more specific; it enjoins that this confession be made in Lent, or before, if there be danger of death. (Synod of Mexico, 1585, Lib. I, tit. i, in Hardouin, Conc., X, 1596.) French and Italian catechists reckon six precepts of the church, the enumeration given by Bellarmine. According to this writer the Commandments of the Church are: To hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days; to fast during Lent, on prescribed vigils, and the ember-days; to abstain from meat on Fridays and Saturdays; to go to confession once a year; to receive Holy Communion at Easter; to pay tithes; and finally not to solemnize marriage during the prohibited times.

The French catechisms, following that of Bossuet, omit the last two precepts, but retain the same number as that given by Bellarmine. This they do by making two Commandments cover the obligations to observe Sunday and the Holy Days, and two also regarding the obligations of fast and abstinence. It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a “Catechism of Christian Doctrine” approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:

  • to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;
  • to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;
  • to go to confession at least once a year;
  • to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;
  • to contribute to the support of our pastors;
  • not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.

This list is the same as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States.

Fascinating, no?

That said… the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this:

II. The Precepts of the Church

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. [NB] The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the indispensable minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:  [If you knowingly and willingly break these precepts, you commit a mortal sin.]

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.”) requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year.”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness. [Cf. ? CIC, can. 989; CCEO, can. 719.]

The third precept (“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall keep holy the holy days of obligation.”) completes the Sunday observance by participation in the principal liturgical feasts which honor the mysteries of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, and the saints.

The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.

The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities.

Note that the Precept about marriage is not listed.  Issues concerning marriage are spelled out in Canon Law (Cf. can. 1091).

To your question, I say, and the Church seems to say, that if you don’t make a sacramental confession of mortal at least once a year, you are – objectively, at least – sinning either by omission (because you are being generally negligent about your soul) or – if you consciously refuse to go – you are sinning by commission (because you know and will the neglect for your soul).  Culpability for the sinful omission or commission might vary.

So, I say yes. More than likely if a Catholic doesn’t confess her sins at least once a year (which also means she probably can’t receive Communion once a year), she commits an additional sin.  She is neglecting her immortal soul and needlessly endangering her salvation.  She might also be committing a sin of scandal, by giving a bad example to her family and friends.

We all have an obligation to see to, to tend our immortal souls.

Some people are so far gone for one reason or another that they never think about their eternal fate.  Others are in a pattern of neglect that could eventually lead to total heedlessness.

Back in the day, I think that most Catholics, even lazy ones, knew that they ought to go to confession.  These days, after decades of horrid, negligent, bizarre or empty “catechism” and vapid, feckless, incompetent preaching in pulpits and teaching in classrooms… who knows?

The Precepts are a simple list of the bare minimum that are easy to communicate and remember.

“But Father! But Father!”, some of you victims of the feckless, and feckless perps are warbling, “Francis says you are a legalistic sour-puss!  You cling to laws?  We are an Easter people now!  You obviously hate…”.

This time I respond, “SHUT THE HELL UP!  Souls are risk!”

Obey Holy Church!  She is the greatest expert on humanity that ever was.  Laws, divine or ecclesiastical, are not given to spoil what otherwise might be a good time.  They are given, from love, to help us to avoid pitfalls on the way salvation.  They tell us, “Don’t hurt yourself!”

Dear readers… disregard the Precepts at your peril!  Hell is real and you can go there.

GO TO CONFESSION!

 

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Our Catholic Identity, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , ,
23 Comments

Justice Scalia spoke at Acton Institute

Posted on 16 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Back in 1997 Justice Scalia addressed Acton Institute’s 7th Anniversary Dinner in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He titled his remarks “On Interpreting the Constitution”.  He explained his originalist approach to Constitutional law, and the severe drawbacks that he saw with any alternative method of interpretation.

You can get the audio HERE.

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
6 Comments

ASK FATHER: How long after death can Last Rites be given?

Posted on 15 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

last rites extreme unction anointing viaticum 02In the last few hours some of you have sent similar questions.

QUAERITUR:

How long after death can the Sacrament of Anointing be administered?

Sometimes we say “Last Rites”, though technically Last Rites includes Penance, Anointing and Viaticum (Eucharist), and hopefully the Apostolic Pardon. We can loosely use “Last Rites” sometimes to describe simple anointing.

It seems that these questions today are prompted by a new report that the late Justice Antonin Scalia (how great was his loss!) was anointed by a priest some hours after he was discovered to have died.

The question is: Should anointing be administered several hours after death or is that too late?

Keeping in mind that sacraments can only be received by people who are alive, there are two groups of sacraments, sacraments of the living and sacraments of the dead. In this case “dead” means dead in mortal sin even though the person is drawing breath. Thus, the sacraments of the dead are Baptism and Penance. The sacraments of the living are to be received by the living, thus, Confirmation, Matrimony, Orders… Anointing. Anointing is special in that when the recipient is incapable of making a confession of sins, the sacrament can also forgive sins. However, Anointing is normally to be received in the state of grace. That generally means that the recipient has recently been absolved in sacramental confession.

So, to whom and when is the Sacrament of Anointing to be given?

The law about who receives the sacrament is clear:

Can. 1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.

And there is the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1514 “The anointing of the sick is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Hence, as soon as anyone of the faithful begins to be in danger of death from sickness or old age, the fitting time for him to receive this sacrament has certainly already arrived.”

Common points? Danger of death… sick and old age.

And… you have to be alive!

I have written extensively on the issue of sickness and danger of death elsewhere on this blog. For example HERE.  I’ll leave those aside as not pertinent.  We are dealing here with someone who is apparently dead.

That leads us back to the question of anointing people who seem already to have died. A person who is dead cannot receive a sacrament, therefore a sacrament should not be attempted to be administered.

Some might interject here that Our Lord raised Lazarus from death after three days. That is a special instance, He being GOD and all. And, the Lord’s purposeful three days delay made it clear that Lazarus was truly dead.  Corruption had set in.  Lazarus would clearly not have been a candidate for anointing.

The problem is that the Church hasn’t defined exactly when a person is dead because, frankly, we just don’t know.

We know that death occurs when the soul separates from the body definitively.

It may be that the separation occurs suddenly. It may be that the separation occurs gradually. It may be that it occurs swiftly. It may be that it occurs slowly. It could be different for one person than for another. We all have heard stories of the resuscitation of those who have died, even apparently for some length of time. It would seem that, in those cases, the soul had not left the body in a definitive way.

ASK FATHER: How long after death can Last Rites be given?

Click to buy!

Since we are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists around here, we must consult the wisdom of our forebears!

Back in the day before many medical developments, moral theologians in their manuals wrote that in the case of apparent death, anointing could be administered conditionally. The form for the anointing is changed slightly to introduce the condition of life, that is, by adding the words, “Si vivis… if you are now living (then…)”. In this way, the integrity of the sacrament is preserved and, if it is possible that the person is alive, then hopefully she receives the effects.

Also, in the old manuals of theology, there was discussion of the point made before, about the way the soul separates from the body.

In Sabetti-Barrett I found:

“Quid sacerdoti agendum sit, si an aegrotum accedat, eumque modo mortuum, ut vulgo dicitur, inveniat?

Jam age ex sententia plurimorum medicorum doctissimorum probabile est homines in omnibus ferme casibus post instans mortis, ut vulgo dicitur, seu post ultimam respirationem intus aliquandiu vivere, brevius vel diutius, juxta naturam causae quae mortem induxit. In casibus mortis ex morbis lenti progressus probabile est vitam interne perdurare aliquot momenta, sex circiter, vel, juxta quosdam peritos, unam dimidiam horam: in casibus vero mortis repentinae vita interna perdurat longuis, forte non improbabiliter, usque ad putrefactionem. Ideo si sacerdos advenerit moraliter eodem tempore, quo mors sive ex morbo ordinario sive ex accidente aliquo repentino communiter censetur ingressa, potest et, ut nobis videtur, debet sacerdos praedicta duo sacramenta conditionate conferre. Et idem censemus tenendum si in casibus aegritudinis ante dimidiam horam, et in casibus accidentis repentini ante horam ab ingressu mortis apparentis sacerdos advenerit. Quod si tamen respirationem sed ante corruptionem advenerit potest sacramenta administrare: quod autem debeat, sapientioribus relinquo decernedum.”

In a nutshell, this says that if in most cases a person dies suddenly of natural causes then there is probably still some life remaining after the last breath.  In the case of a slow death from illness it may remain for a few minutes maybe six or, according to some experts 30 minutes.  (See how the authors are divided… auctores scinduntur.)   In the case of a sudden death some life might remain longer, even perhaps to the point of putrefaction.  If a priest finds the person and he is morally certain that he is there in the time that life could still be present to some extent he can and indeed ought to anoint, but conditionally.  In the case of illness the author thinks that a half hour is the length of time that the priest has to get there after apparent death from illness and one hour in the case of sudden death.  If, after that time but before corruption sets in, he can anoint.  Whether or not he ought to the author leaves to those wiser than he.

Some of you might be saying,

“But Father! But Father! Vatican II did away with rules. Pope Francis said so! All sacraments should be given to everyone all the time. You are very mean and you have made me sad. I need to be anointed now because of you. Francis says you’re a … a… moralistic quibbler!  And you hate Vatican II!”

Thanks.  Not to nit-pick, but I prefer moralistic doryphore.

Even though there have been scientific advances since these old manuals came out, they contain good theological principles and common sense.  For centuries, and often now, priests don’t find the moribund or deceased in rooms with machines pumping artificial life around the place and taking measurements of brain activity that none of us can perceive without sophisticated thing-bobs. In most cases we have to deal with situations without the help of fantastic gadgets.  We have to determine our course by foundational principles, keen observation of facts, and common sense.

Also, let’s not forget, we must always treat all sacraments with reverential awe.  They are sacred moments of encounter with the living God, wreathed in mystery, simultaneously terrifying and alluring.

Sacraments aren’t lollipops that you get from the nice doctor because the shot made you sad.

Based on our reading, above, a priest has latitude in the administration of the sacrament of anointing of a person who is apparently dead.

I think the distinction of death after long illness and sudden death is helpful.  The idea in the manual I consulted is, I think, that long illness means that the person has been dying for a long time, so the separation of the soul and body will be swifter after the last breath.  In the case of sudden death, the body hasn’t been dying, so the life principle remains longer.

Thus, it seems to me that if a priest arrives after death from a long illness within a short time, a half hour or so, he can and probably should anoint conditionally.  If it is a case of sudden death, such as from an accident, a sudden heart attack when otherwise seemingly healthy, violence, etc., then the priest can and should anoint up to an hour after, but he can, conditionally, until corruption starts to set in.  That might mean rigor mortis, I don’t know.

ASK FATHER: How long after death can Last Rites be given? How important it is for us to be mindful of our death and the death of loved ones?  We don’t know the minute or the day.  Having a plan when there is serious illness or need, having phone numbers handy, even having a card with the Apostolic Pardon on it for a priest to use… these are important.  You should have a proper sick call set in your homes.  You should make frequent use of the Sacrament of Penance and, each day during the day, say your prayers.  Ask God, perhaps through the intercession of your Guardian Angel and St. Joseph, to preserve you from a sudden and unprovided death.

Remember: Once you are dead, that’s it.  We’ve looked at issues of how long that takes, but at the moment you are truly dead… that’s it.  You immediately go to your Particular Judgment.  There is no turning back.  A hundred bishops could stand over you pouring any amount of oil and chanting the words repeatedly in every language known to man.  Nada.  Nichts.  Nothing. Niente. Nichevo.  Nihil.  Too late.

At the moment of your Particular Judgment your eternal destiny will be irrevocably determined at the throne of the Just Judge, the King of Fearful Majesty.  You will stand before God and every thought, word, act, and omission during your entire life will be laid bare and put into the scales of justice.  It will be determined if you died in God’s friendship or not.  If in his friendship, is there yet a need for purification and expiation of temporal punishment due to sins?  Do you still have attachments to sin or hadn’t taken care of your obligations in justice yet?  All your deeds and, indeed, all your intentions will be weighed.

After your judgment there are only three options, two are eternal: heaven, purgatory, or hell.

“For the hope of the wicked is as dust, which is blown away with the wind, and as a thin froth which is dispersed by the storm: and a smoke that is scattered abroad by the wind: and as the remembrance of a guest of one day that passeth by” (Wis. 5:15).

By mortal sin your cut yourself off from God. You send yourself to hell.

So… pray, do penance, perform good works, examine your consciences, make good plans for spiritual discipline, fulfill your vocations, learn and practice your Faith, make good Communions, use sacramentals and partake in good devotions and…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Four Last Things, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests | Tagged , , , ,
31 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Posted on 15 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Was there a good point or two in the sermon you heard for your Mass of Sunday obligation?

Let us know.

I spoke about frequent examination of conscience, principle faults, confession of sins in kind and number, and making plans to deal with them.  I explained that temptations and struggles are not sins.  You sin when you give in to the temptation.  Temptations can be moments of grace.  We have to have a plan for when we are struck by our temptations towards principle faults.  We have to be willing to suffer during the temptation.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
19 Comments

End of The World – 14 February 2016

Posted on 14 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Apparently today is to be the End of the World.

Play video

Hey! That’s… today!

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in Lighter fare |
14 Comments

Justice Antonin Scalia – RIP

Posted on 13 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

This is a day for serious mourning for our country.

Justice Antonin Scalia died, at age 79.

Pray for the Scalia family, remembering in a particular way our friend Fr. Paul Scalia.

Pray for these United States.

Antonin_Scalia_Official_SCOTUS_Portrait

Posted in PRAYER REQUEST, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices, Urgent Prayer Requests | Tagged
57 Comments

Astonishing new church in Russia

Posted on 13 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Church architecture reflects the faith of the people who build churches.

These days many of the modern Catholic churches I have seen look more like municipal airport buildings than structures to house the most sacred thing humans can undertake, the place where heaven and earth meet.

I was recently sent a link to a site about a new church in Moscow.  The church was recently completed and consecrated by Patriarch Kirill in December 2015.

Astonishing new church in Russia

A Miracle of Liturgical Art: The Church of the Protection of the Mother of God at Yasenevo

[…]

But most astonishing by far was the project to decorate the interior of the main church. It is ornamented in the style of the Sicilian Cathedrals of the 12th century – without doubt the most sumptuous and refined style that ever emerged in the Byzantine-influenced world. Virtually the entire inside of the Yasenevo church is mosaic iconography in glittering glass and gold. There have been but a handful of churches decorated like this in all of history, and this church ranks fifth among them in area of mosaics. The lower walls of the church are revetted in white marble and the floor is finished in splendid Cosmatesque marble and mosaic interlace. The church is lit with a great brass choros and a constellation of glittering chandeliers. The marble iconostasis bears jewel-like icons with a powerful Romanesque gravity. It is a vision of medieval splendor the likes of which have never before been seen in Russia, and only rarely in all the world.

The white-marble revetment in Norman-Sicilian style.

The Pantocrator apse mosaic, modelled upon that of the Palatine Chapel in Palermo.

The splendid marble floor.

The true miracle of the Yasenevo church, though, lies not in its richness, but its poverty. Astonishingly, this church, constructed in just seven years, had no major individual donors. There was no great oligarch or wealthy institution footing the bill. Rather, the money came in small donations from ordinary people and pious organizations – 80,000 donors in total.

[…]

Go there… really, go… to see the rest, astonishing pictures.

Posted in Just Too Cool, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
53 Comments

ASK FATHER: Difference between male and female?

Posted on 13 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a seminarian…

QUAERITUR:

I’m a seminarian at __ in ___ and I was wondering what’s the reason for why women should not be in the sanctuary for things such as lecturing and EMHC? I’m totally on board with this teaching, I just don’t know any deep theology or doctrine behind the practice. It’s been around since ancient times in the Jewish and even Catholic Tradition until recently. So, if you have an answer or books or articles that can explain this practice more thoroughly that’d be great! God Bless!

These days people don’t like to hear the following phrase:

There is a difference between male and female.

The difference goes to the very core of our being.

We are alike in our humanity and, as baptized Christians, we are alike in our sacramentally changed and elevated state.

But men and women are different. Sexes are not interchangeable.

For centuries the Church has operated mostly in cultures that accepted and respected this obvious fact. In many places and times, the Church has had to insist on the similarity of men and women with respect to our human dignity and baptized status. Against societies that preached that women were mere property of their menfolk, the Church has held aloft the Blessed Virgin to show that women not only have the same dignity as men, but a woman could rise to the highest pinnacle of the created order and outshine even the angels in purity and grace.

These days we move in a world wherein few societies, particularly in the West, denigrate women as they had been in the past.  Compare how they are treated where Islam has risen! The world now seeks to erase all differences between men and women, and to make sex (“gender”) a matter of personal choice and feelings, something fluid, something shifting back and forth depending on the base tug of concupiscence. Men pretend to be women, women men. To support this fiction, doctors perpetrate mutilation on apparently willing subjects. Devious psychologists affirm the deluded souls that their psychoses are normal and that their feelings trump reality.

So, how does that affect the long-standing, traditional prohibition against women in the sanctuary?

That said…

The current liturgical legislation is mute on the issue. There is, currently, no law in the Latin Rite that prohibits women from entering the sanctuaries of our churches (as there still is in the liturgical laws of some of the Eastern Rites of the Church).

Those who wish to retain the traditional practice do so not on the basis of the ius vigens, but rather on appealing to the maintenance of the long-standing practice of the Church.

The reasons for this long-standing practice is to emphasize the properly priestly role of service in the sanctuary.  There are probably also roots in the Old Testament distinctions of ritual purity.  However, they were overwhelmed by other, theological and symbolic meanings.

The sacred space of the sanctuary is usually separated from the nave of the church is by steps and ideally by a communion rail.

The priest is – must be – a male.

Priesthood is as masculine a thing as motherhood is feminine.

A female Christian priest is as illogical a construct as a male mother would be – were our world a sane one.

A man enters the sanctuary as and in service to The Priest, alter Christus. As the priest is configured to Christ, the High Priest, those who serve him are similarly configured.

In an era when squires served knights and knights served lords, maids served ladies and ladies-in-waiting served princesses and queens, this made sense.  Today however, when so many have rejected the norms of Christian society, not so much.

Posted in Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood | Tagged
49 Comments