Was there a good point made during the sermon you heard for your Mass of Obligation this Sunday?
Let us know!
Was there a good point made during the sermon you heard for your Mass of Obligation this Sunday?
Let us know!
In The Advocate (a homosexual publication) [As it turns out, no. This is a local paper with the same name as the homosexual publication. But it shouldn’t surprise us to see this paper carrying their water.] there is an article which serves up examples of common errors and sloppy thinking about reception of the Eucharist.
Two points. The article is manipulative, but that is to be expected from something called “The Advocate”. You can be sure that the article doesn’t tell us everything.
So, keeping in mind that we are flying partially blind… my emphases and comments.
[NOT] Married gay man describes denial of communion at mother’s funeral Mass [Obergefell v. Hodges changes nothing regarding the Church’s understanding of marriage. Two men can’t be married.]
Tim Ardillo said he was standing next to his mother’s coffin leading his young son to receive a blessing when the priest presiding over the funeral Mass denied him communion.
The longtime Catholic [At this point in the article he is a “long time Catholic” while later he is described as being fallen away… I guess anyone is a “long time” Catholic if he was baptized and had a child’s exposure. Let’s go on…] said the priest told him it was because he married outside the church, but Ardillo doesn’t think that’s the whole story. [Umm… he attempted to marry a man, which I would say is “outside”.]
He believes he was denied the sacrament because, as is stated in his mother’s obituary, he is married to a man.
The priest in question, the Rev. Mark Beard, of St. Helena Catholic Church in Amite, did not return multiple calls seeking comment in the week following the July 10 funeral.
[…]
Ardillo said he has since received an apology from the Diocese of Baton Rouge, which directly oversees the Amite church, and a personal apology from New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond, though Aymond’s office declined to comment on the matter for this story. [Apologies indicate that the priest did something wrong. But there’s more to the story.]
The standing of gays and lesbians within the Catholic Church is complicated, with the church opposing same-sex marriage but counseling respect for LGBT people. [NO. The standing of homosexual people in the Church is NOT complicated. They are sinners in need of salvation just like everyone else. They, like all sinners, are called to reject sin and seek holiness while fostering virtues, just like everyone else.]
According to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, “homosexual inclination” is not a sin itself, [According to the Church’s teach homosexual inclinations are also objectively disordered. HERE] but “homosexual acts” are immoral and “always objectively sinful.” The conference also says people with a homosexual inclination should not be encouraged to speak openly about the matter [ummm….] and may be denied roles in the church. [Not all discrimination is unjust. For example, if I am a father of a sons 17 and 10, I might let the 17 yr old stay out till 11 but tell the 10 yr old that he must stay and and even go to bed. That’s discrimination, but it isn’t unjust. It is appropriate. Some discriminatory decisions are founded on what is best for person as well as for the community. No one will deny that there is also unjust discrimination. However, denial of Communion to a person who is publicly in such a persisting irregular state does not seem to be unjust discrimination.]
However, the bishops also say, “Church policies should explicitly reject unjust discrimination and harassment of any persons, including those with a homosexual inclination.” [Again, not all discrimination is unjust. Also, if it is a matter of public knowledge, even to the point that it is published in the local newspaper, that a person has simulated marriage with a person of the same sex, then applying the consequences of that act to the person involved does not constitute harassment. Repeatedly denouncing him from the pulpit would, but denial of Communion would not, so long as public scandal was still present.]
As for communion, Catholics should not receive communion if they have committed a “grave sin” to which they have not confessed and performed an act of contrition, according to the conference. [That’s right. However, there is another element. If the sin is public then there should be some kind of public act on the part of the penitent. This is a matter of justice. A private act of penance isn’t proportioned to the public damage that has been done. This is also the case for, for example, pro-abortion politicians.]
When asked about Ardillo’s case, the Diocese of Baton Rouge emphasized that the responsibility to comport with church teachings is on the person receiving the communion. [On the other hand, priests also have responsibilities regarding the Eucharist!]
“With respect to the specific matter raised, the Catholic Church expects that any individual Catholic who is in a marital situation which is not in conformity with its doctrines will not come forward to receive the body and blood of the Lord at Mass. [As far as the Church is concerned, two men cannot be in a marital situation. In this case we can only use “marital” very loosely. The divorced and civilly “remarried” are also not really married. We describe their situations only loosely as “marital” situations. ] For Catholics, reception of Holy Communion among other things is an expression of unity with the church’s teachings, including those about marriage,” the diocese wrote in a statement.
Diocese spokeswoman Donna Carville, a Eucharistic minister, [No. She might, however, be an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”.] said the diocese does not condone denial of communion to Catholics just because they are gay. [This is irrelevant. In this situation, he wasn’t denied Communion because he is homosexual!]
“That’s very surprising that he was denied communion. That just doesn’t happen. … We don’t deny people communion,” she said. [Ummm … “excommunication” means something. What do you want to bet she would be at peace with the denial of Communion to, say, Bp. Williamson, formerly of the SSPX?] “Who are we to judge whether they believe (the church’s teachings on the communion) or not? It’s between you and God.” [ARGH! “Belief” has nothing to do with this! “Belief” doesn’t entitle a person to receive Communion. The Orthodox “believe” in the validity of our Eucharist. Many who are still Protestant have come to believe. They are not admitted to the Eucharist. People who are in the state of mortal sin often still “believe” what the Church teaches, even everything the Church teaches! And, no, it isn’t just between a person and God: there’s this entity called The Church which has the authority from Christ to regulate all matters concerning administration of the sacraments.]
Being married outside the church should not be used to deny someone the Eucharist, said the Rev. Roger Keeler, executive coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America. [Ummm… if you are truly married outside the Church, then you should not be receiving Communion until your marriage is regularized. Of course that is impossible in the case of two men.]
As a practical matter, Keeler noted that a priest or Eucharistic minister can’t possibly know the marital standing of everybody in line. [Okay. Fine. But in this case the “marital status” of the man in question was a matter of public knowledge and had been published in the obituary in the newspaper.] He also raised more philosophical concerns.
“This is not a weapon. Communion is not a reward for good behavior,” he said. “It’s the food for weary souls.” [It’s a lot of other things too! And these are not mutually exclusive. And just what does that mean… “it isn’t a reward for good behavior”? If I am openly misbehaving in a grave and scandalous way, should I be admitted to the “pledge of future glory” without some sort of reconciliation with the community I have harmed by my actions? Sin harms not only the individual’s relationship with God, but also his relationship with the whole Church. In the case of private or “occult” sins, private penance and reconciliation through the Sacrament of Penance is enough, along with restitution if there are matters of justice involved. In the case of public offenses against God and His Church, then there are public consequences for the sake of repairing the harm that one has done. There is not only mercy involved in reconciliation, but also justice.]
He used an example of a priest who has read in the newspaper that a parishioner has embezzled millions of dollars. The woman may have atoned for her transgression, and even she should receive the sacrament if she puts out her hand, Keeler said. [This is not a good example. If she has atoned, that is “made amends, provided reparation”, and has been reconciled with God and the Church, there is no problem with Communion. In fact, it is a matter of joy that she has returned to the fold after straying so badly. A person who has not atoned for what she did has not been reconciled.]
“How am I to know that she is not in a state of grace?” he asked. [There is still the PUBLIC dimension, the damage of the scandal.]
A priest would find a few reasons to withhold a communion, Keeler said. It may be appropriate if the person is known to be of a different faith or has been excommunicated or formally left the church, he said. [Or is, as a matter of public knowledge, openly “married” to a person of the same sex! And, by the way, if you have “informally” left the Church you are probably in the state of mortal sin and need to be reconciled with the Church before you can receive Communion.]
He and the Baton Rouge Diocese agreed that, ideally, those issues should be resolved in private, rather than the communion line. [Sure… ideally… yes… not at the very moment of Holy Communion. But priests are often denied the chance to work things out ahead of time because the people involved have not been forthright about their situation. Thus, if the priest learns before the funeral, by reading the obit, that a child of the deceased is homosexually “married”, what is he supposed to do? Hopefully, he would have the time and the means to contact the person ahead of time and explain the situation. Sometimes there is a lack of time. Take for example, the case of Fr. Guarnizo who was confronted in the sacristy before a funeral. The priest also has a responsibility before God! He has to think also of his own soul and state before God when it comes to administration of the sacraments. Sacraments are not simply moments of affirmation.]
Ardillo said he would have stayed out of line if the matter had been broached before his mother’s funeral Mass. [There it is. I would then ask: Did he seek out the priest to inform him of his “marital” status? Or did he expect the priest to be psychic? Did he assume that everybody knew and if he weren’t contacted then everything was okay? Here we get into matters behind the scenes that this article doesn’t help us with. However, I assume that the priest had no idea until he read the obit and he didn’t have time or means to contact anyone in a timely fashion. Thus, he made the call as best he could with short time.]
He expected that receiving communion would be an “intimate, intimate experience” because his mother is with the Holy Spirit, and he could connect with her through participation in the Eucharist. [A few things here. First, we know that people grieve for their loved ones. However, funerals are not the moment to assume that your deceased loved one is in heaven, though we can hope so. Funerals are principally for prayers for the deceased, asking God’s mercy so that, if the person died in the state of grace, she can swiftly enter into God’s presence after as short a period of purification as possible, if necessary. Also, the purpose of Holy Communion is not to “connect” with your mother. Sure, reception of Communion is also a sign and means of unity with all who have gone before us and who live in the joy of the Beatific Vision, the Church Triumphant. We are in Communion with the Communion of saints. Moreover, one does not honor one’s dead by receiving Communion improperly.]
After the incident, he grabbed his husband’s hand and stormed out of the church, but a relative who is a lesbian coaxed him back in, saying the family needed him to be a leader. [A leader for… what?] Ardillo said he was also concerned about the message the denial would send to a younger gay family member who was at the Mass. [How about this: If you openly “marry” another man, there are consequences for your reception of the sacraments.]
Ardillo himself has drifted away from the church. [And yet an earlier statement in this piece suggested that he was more involved.] Though he now lives in Indiana, he said that as a boy he was an altar server at the very church where the funeral was held, and priests would frequently come over to his house for Christmas Eve supper.
He said he still believes in the Catholic faith but isn’t sure of his “place” in the church. [I can believe that! It must be terribly hard to face the Church when your appetites and passions are pulling you in a direction that you know, by the Church’s teachings and the image of God in us, are out of keeping with the way things are. It must be painful and confusing. However, ad astra per aspera. I would say, fight these inclinations and seek to live a virtuous life just like everyone else is called! It can be done. God offers the graces to shoulder the burden. The greater the challenge, the more help will be given. The greater the suffering, the greater the victory.]
Toward the end of his mother’s life, the two would pray together; she signed the cross on her leg when she couldn’t lift her hands higher. They prayed the rosary together the last time they saw each other, Ardillo said. [Beautiful.]
He had thought the funeral would serve as a reintroduction into the Catholic community, but not anymore. [This is manipulative reporting.]
“I can’t,” he said. “I don’t have it in me.”
I am always sorry to read of these incidents.
It could be that some things might have been handled in a different way. Sure. We don’t know all the details and probably never will. But when stories like this circulate, some sobriety needs to be injected.
I hope that this shock in the man’s life will, down the road, produce fruits. We are all in this together, so I suggest that you stop and say a prayer for him.
Moderation queue is ON.
In the Extraordinary Form, Sunday’s Collect is from the ancient Veronese Sacramentary and the Gelasian and the so-called Gregorian. It survived the liturgical tailors with their scissors and thread to live on in the post-Conciliar Missale Romanum on Thursday of the 1st week of Lent. However, there is a minor adjustment in the Novus Ordo version which we can look at in a moment. Let’s drill into what our prayer really says.
COLLECT (1962MR)
Largire nobis, quaesumus, Domine, semper spiritum cogitandi quae recta sunt, propitius et agendi: ut, qui sine te esse non possumus, secundum te vivere valeamus.
In the Novus Ordo version propitius (“propitiously”) is replaced by promptius (“more readily/openly”). In the critical edition of the ancient Veronese Sacramentary, you find promptius. The reformers preferred the version that pre-dated the “Tridentine” editio princeps of 1570. What happened? Probably some ancient copyist made a mistake in reading an old manuscript’s ink squiggles in – mpt – and – pit -. Easy to do.
One meaning of secundum in the prestigious Lewis & Short Dictionary is “agreeably to, in accordance with, according to”. Remember that largire is an imperative of a deponent verb, not an infinitive. The famous verb cogito is more than simply “to think”. It reflects deeper reflection, true pursuit in the mind: “to consider thoroughly, to ponder, to weigh, reflect upon, think”.
LITERAL RENDERING:
We beg you, O Lord, bestow upon us propitiously the spirit of thinking always things which are correct, and of carrying them out, so that we who are not able to exist without You may be able to live according to Your will.
In my peregrinations though the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) I found a text which harks to at least part of the content of this prayer (In io. eu. tr. 51, 3):
“For Christ, who humbled Himself, made obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, is the teacher of humility. When He teaches us humility He doesn’t thus let go of His divinity: for in it (His divinity) He is the equal of the Father, while in this (His humility) He is like unto us; and in that He is the Father’s equal He created us in order that we might exist; and in that He is like to us, He redeemed us so that we would not perish.”
In Acts 17:28, we read about our God, “in whom we live and move and have our being”, a concept perhaps influenced by the legendary Epimenides of Knossos (6th c?).
We are made to act as God acts: to know, will and love.
When we cleave to God, seeking what is good and true and beautiful through the tangle of our wounded intellect, we are really seeking God.
Once we know what is good, true and beautiful, either because we reasoned to it or perhaps an authority helped us, then we must act in accordance with the good, truth and beauty we found.
Today we pray to God in our Collect to give us the actual graces we need in order to live properly according to His image within us.
We are even more ourselves, even freer when, eschewing our own errant wills, we embrace the One who is Goodness, Truth and Beauty.
Yet there are times when we purposely (and thereafter habitually) choose to go against what reason and authority point to as the Good, True and Beautiful. We make the choice to stray and to sin. In doing so we diminish ourselves. After all, we have our very existence from the One whom we choose to defy. We must return to the correct path, as Dante did in his Divine Comedy. His fictional self strayed into the dark woods after leaving the path of the right reason.
We could so often avoid sin if we would just act readily on those impulses of our minds and consciences toward what is good and true and beautiful. In a way, the phrase of the Nike commercial (níke means “victory” in ancient Greek) sums it up: Just Do It.
We have many helps in discerning the good, especially in the authoritative teachings of the Church. Over time we build up good habits of acting at the right time and in the right measure, so that we build the habits that are virtues.
A problem rises when circumstances and our passions confuse us and we must ponder to discern the correct path. Most of the time we get ourselves into trouble by hesitating about doing what we know is right. We mull, dawdle, pick and get ourselves into a hornet nest of predicaments.
Strive, in accord with a conscience formed by the Church’s teachings and according to common sense, after the good, true and beautiful, which are ultimately reflections of God.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Just last weekend, I attended the marriage of the oldest daughter of family friends (all of whom Catholics) to a Protestant man. The wedding occurred in the local Catholic Church, but both the local priest and the groom’s pastor officiated the marriage service. There was no Mass, nor any Eucharistic Service, but I wonder if this is technically a valid or licit wedding.
Weddings between a Catholic and a non-Catholic ordinarily should not take place within the context of a Mass.
Many Catholics have a misunderstanding of this and think that, for it to be a “real” wedding, there has to be a Mass.
Since the non-Catholic party cannot receive the Holy Eucharist, it can be awkward to celebrate the covenant between two people and then have only one receive.
Also, before weighing in on the validity or not of the wedding, clarification is needed about what you mean by “both the local priest and the groom’s pastor officiated.”
In interfaith weddings, the Ecumenical Directory, which governs these sorts of things states:
158. Upon request of the couple, the local Ordinary may permit the Catholic priest to invite the minister of the party of the other Church or ecclesial Community to participate in the celebration of the marriage, to read from the Scriptures, give a brief exhortation and bless the couple.
What is not permitted is mixing up the roles for administering the vows.
Only one minister should do that.
If the priest (or deacon) asks both parties for their “I do’s” we’re in the clear.
If the Protestant minister did it, we can presume that the Catholic party obtained a dispensation from canonical form, and we’re still in the clear.
If the Catholic priest asked the Catholic bride for her “I do” and the Protestant minister asked the Protestant groom for his “I do”,then, Houston, we have a problem.
Day 2 was marvelous. It was sunny and not too hot, with a good breeze

I went back to the Met and throughly explored the John Singer Sargent exhibit. Th day before I had walked through quickly, tailing a curator (curatrix) of the exhibit explaining some of the pieces and the theory behind the exhibit. So, on the second, careful visit, I had a head start.
If you are anywhere near Manhattan, go to this one!
A couple samples (photos were permitted, except for one piece).
In the first room, you find this stupendous double portrait, JSS’s first. The boy seems an afterthought, though he also has a highly developed personality, bordering on indifference. The real star is the little girl. She was very difficult with work with, didn’t like the process, and gave JSS a seriously hard time. This took 83 sittings!
Her intense gaze conveys the moment, and her will.
Notice her hand position. Hands are really important in JSS’s paintings.
Here’s a crazy piece. This is writer Robert Louis Stevenson and his wife, who is on the edge. I asked the curator if the painting had been cut down. No.
He is striding, energetic, playing with his mustache, in the act of speaking. She, languidly and exotically dressed, is on the edge, looking neither at the painter nor her husband. The door conveys something of the mystery of who people really are. I don’t think it implies separation, as you might find in some paintings by Bonnard. She, Fanny, loved this painting. It is one of three that JSS did of RLS. JSS travelled in literary and artistic and performance circles and had many friends among artists. In fact, this exhibit emphasizes the performance aspect of painting. When JSS paints painter friends who are in the act of painting, you have a painter painting a painter who is painting. The painting then becomes something of a self-portrait, even though the painter is behind the point of view.

I thoroughly enjoyed this portrait of Henry James, who was a great friend of JSS. James said of it, “Sargent at his best, and poor old Henry James not at his worst”. This was for his 70th birthday.
Exhibits often peter out in the last room or so, sometimes because the artist is in decline. This exhibit was strong to the end. JSS gave up doing lots of formal portraits at a certain point and began to work more in watercolors etc. The final room of the exhibit was simply lush. It was great to see how his technique was so deftly used to create the effect of the light through leaves… thin paint at the bottom and thicker near the top to achieve the intensity of light and color.

Click HERE for larger. (A shocking image in its day!)
A detail from the “logo” piece for the exhibit. I love how the man’s thumbs are hooked into his pants as he reclines. And there is that incredible JSS white.. that is never white.
Click HERE for larger.
Lunch at the nearby Neue Galerie.. one of the only Hungarian places left in Manhattan, alas. Avocado salad.

Ungarisches Rindgulasch mit Spätzel. A little pricey but remarkably good.
We decided, rightly to forego the Guggenheim and, instead, go our separate ways for some rest and regrouping.
Later, I passed some time at Bryant Park before meeting my peeps for supper. A company is playing Shakespeare in Bryant Park. I caught a little of their Romeo and Juliet. I came in during the balcony scene.
I left at the time Tybalt killed Mercutio.
Mercutio was female, and screechy.
Normally, I’m sad when Mercutio buys it. Not this time.
On either side of the stage where signs with Capulet corporate logos.
During the show, some of the cast on the Montague side passed out these propaganda sheets. You can see what they were doing.
My peeps and I were originally going to have sushi nearby but that fell through when it was discovered that the wait was over an hour. Thus, we had to – unfortunately – tramp through Times Square to get to our next location.
Times Square is rather like the 8th Circle, each corner a different Bolgia.
I won’t trouble you with the the whole meal, but dessert was an endless chocolate mousse… for the table, not for me.
And thus we fended off death by starvation in the company of a canonist, an entrepreneur, the famous nurse, a lawyer and an industrial psychologist… or psychological industrialist. I get them mixed up.
Who can forget this?
16 July 1969.
Very cool slo mo. Imagine what this would have been like with today’s tech?
Still.. it is simply awesome.
Saturn V!
I’m happy ensconced in New York City for a few days. First on the list of things to do: go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
I was heading toward the small Van Gogh exhibit of Irises and Roses and stopped for a moment to admire some lovely Marian images.
First, all members of the Church Militant will enjoy this one.
This is an ivory plaque, one of the only of its kind to survive from the Caroligian period, 800-825.
This is the Virgin Mary, dressed in military garb, as personification of the Church. She is seated on her curule chair, holding a scepter and two spindles, which refer to the Annunciation and Incarnation of the Lord. Mary is often depicted as spinning or with a wheel in the background as the angel of the Annunciation comes to her.
Next, because there is a transcendent quality to it, this plaque, cloisonné, from S. France, 1050-1100. You see the A and ? (which resembles a curvy W).
Christ in Majesty.
I think I have posted on this before. Mary is seated with Child, in limestone, polychrome and gilding, c. 1415-17, Poligny, Burgundy.
The inscription is from Ecclesiastes 24: Ab initio et ante saecula creata sum, et usque ad futurum saeculum non desinam: et in habitatione sancta coram ipso ministravi….From the beginning, and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling place I have ministered before him.
Mary is associated with Wisdom. She is Wisdom’s vessel and throne.
Christ, divine Wisdom itself, is seated upon Mary, holding a book (an indication of “wisdom”), thus, Mary is Sedes Sapientiae, Seat of Wisdom.
There is a beautiful, tender exchange here between Mary and Christ.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, Seat of Wisdom was a common theme. Nearby we find this one, which is also a reliquary.
French, 1157-1200. Wood, paint.
Mary’s large hands draw attention to the Child, who would be holding a book. Christ is depicted as a small adult.
Also nearby, gilded copper, with champlevé, gems.
Mary, crowned, is also Queen of Heaven. Christ, Wisdom, King, holds the book. The figures here are full on, static.
This survived probably because it was in Spain and not France!

Another nearby, gilded copper, champlevé, Limoges, 1270-1300.
There is an inscription on the base: Ave, Gratia Plena.
Here is Mary, Queen of Heaven, enthroned, who is triumphant over two nasty serpent dragon critters. Think Ps 90/91: 3: “Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis, et conculcabis leonem et draconem.”
Another, N. France, 1210-20, Mary and Christ are enthroned.
There is an evil snake beneath her feet, reminiscent of Genesis 3:15.

Then… after visiting the interesting, small, Van Gogh exhibit, I decided I would walk through the John Singer Sargent exhibit. I really like his stuff. I figured I would walk through and then come back later for a slow, systematic digestion.
I was in luck! One of the curators of the exhibit was just bringing in two people for private tour and they didn’t mind if I tagged along to listen! So, I got the skinny on many of the paintings, what they were trying to do with the exhibit, how they obtained some of the pieces, anecdotes, etc. I am now determined to be back there at opening to explore more fully. The exhibit is fine and extensive, but not overwhelming, probably about 120 pieces, including watercolors and sketches and, of course, the infamous Madame X!
Then it was off to meet friends at my favorite pastrami place in the world. In the background, homemade potato chips.

Finally, check out something really funny we spotted on the Uber app.
(Uber is the shared-ride enterprise that gives the taxi monopoly a little – over due – competition. Cheaper, cleaner, faster, courteous… )
With Uber you can choose the type of vehicle you want. The available cars appear on your map. You can even follow their movement, like an ant farm! Fun.
Take note of the type of vehicle all the way to the faaaar left!
Mayor DeBlasio, pretty much a socialist, when not persecuting the Police Department, has been unfriendly to Uber.
When you click the far left option, you get…
I would have thought that there might pop up an image of a horseless horse carriage dragged by a participants in the “gay” parade….
UPDATE:
Tonight, supper with an entrepreneur, a nurse, an Italian opera singer, an Italian clothing designer, and a distinguished canonist.
We opened with a tower of seafood. Jaws dropped. The English couple next door wanted photos.
The oysters were good despite the fact that the month doesn’t have an R.
Cold tomato soup with fennel, pesto and saffron. That’s grated Parmigiano. I would have used a little more saffron.
The wine, if you are curious, is a Sancerre. Hints of grapefruit, good for seafood.
I had Coq au vin. I like to compare how I do it with other presentations. This had a multiplicity of mushrooms, including a Chinese black that really popped out in a good way. I like a bit more gravy with it, but it was good with the rice and pearl onions.
The singer had a risotto of peas and pear and little shrimps. It was glorious, from the small taste I had. I would leave out the shrimp and, instead of the sprout garnish, use summer sorrel or watercress.
One end of the table spoke mainly Italian and the other English, with lots of cross over. At one point our singer burst full voice into an aria, which drew a little fascination. The English couple next to us agreed, on their departure, that we had the cool kids table.
The next time I host a Supper for the Promotion of Clericalism, I may have to make either that tomato soup or that risotto. I regularly make a risotto with pear and Taleggio, which could form a good bis with this one. And, if I make Coq au vin – on the basis of Julia’s recipe – I think I’ll modify it slightly.
So, thus endeth Day 1. Time for some Office!
BTW… today Card. Arinze said Mass at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel here in Manhattan. Not bad.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
What constitutes a custom? My friend appealed to custom when saying that we are allowed to use glass chalices, but I don’t think that applies here. So when can argue for something from a custom?
Using glass chalices at Mass is an abuse, not a custom.
That said…
For a custom to have the force of law, there are several requirements.
1) The custom cannot be contrary to divine law (can. 24, 1).
2) It must be reasonable (can. 24, 2).
3) It must be introduced by a community capable of receiving a law (can. 25).
4) The community must have the intent of introducing a law (can. 25).
5) If it contradicts the current law, it must be observed for thirty continuous and uninterrupted years (can. 26).
The use of glass chalices at Mass does not seem to be contrary to divine law.
When we get to the second requirement, that it is reasonable to use glass chalices, we hesitate and ask: Is it truly reasonable to use glass? Glass is fragile. Glass is an exceedingly common material. It is reasonable to use glass to hold the Precious Blood of Our Savior? Hmmmm.
Concerning the next three requirements, this supposed “custom” falls entirely flat.
Who is introducing this “custom”? The parish community, or the priest and parish leadership? A litmus test of whether a practice fits the bill as a legitimate custom is to ask, “How would the community react if this were taken away?” The more disturbed the community would be, the more likely we are that we’re dealing with a custom introduced by the community with the intention of introducing a customary law. Would the parish be up in arms if, next Sunday, the glass chalices were replaced with dignified gold chalices? I suspect not.
Moreover, has this practice gone on for thirty years? What has the local bishop said about it? The universal Church, through the Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship, clearly condemned the use of glass chalices at Mass. That seems to be a clear vote in the “no” category for the supposed reasonableness of this alleged custom.
Again, using glass chalices at Mass is an abuse, not a custom.
I’m a convert to the Church, so I have a large span of my life with sins that I’m not entirely sure of. I confessed a series of sins (all of the same kind) as doubtful, but then a while later remembered extra details that made me realize that I probably did consent to the sin at least once. Do I need to mention this in my next confession? I know that the sin is forgiven for now because the confession was honest and sincere, but I am unsure if I am strictly obliged to reconfess this sin as certain next time, or if it is all ready covered.
QUAERITUR:
It’s a helpful thing to add, at the end of one’s confession, a short statement like, “for these and for all the sins I cannot now remember, I am truly sorry and I beg the Lord’s forgiveness.”
Firstly, this helps the confessor know that your confession of sins has ended and it’s time for him to weigh in with counsel. Otherwise, if you simply stop, he may be thinking that you are summoning the courage to reveal The Big One™.
Second, it can help to ease your own conscience if, later you recall sins or details which you should have confessed.
Be clear about something. Not remembering one’s sins is one thing. Deliberately concealing them from your confessor is another (really bad) thing.
Do not omit sins. Do not lump them into the “all the sins I cannot now remember” category if you truly do remember them. God is not mocked. He cannot be deceived and He knows you better than you know yourself.
Whether or not a statement like this is made, if, at the time of your confession, you truly and sincerely did not recall certain sins, or certain details, relax. They have been forgiven. You have been absolved and your soul is as fresh and clean as the day of your baptism. God’s mercy is indeed great!
After you’ve confessed, if there are sins you forgot which later come to mind, especially if they are serious sins, the next time you go to confession, you can mention to the confessor:
“Father, it’s been two weeks since my last confession. I failed to remember and confess that, in the time prior to my last confession, I did with willful intent, take up arms against the Sovereign Pontiff on two occasions; I consecrated five bishops without a pontifical mandate; and I stole three pennies from my mother’s purse; I used air conditioning…. Since my last confession, I have committed the following sins:…”
While you are not strictly required to confess sins that have already been forgiven, it can be beneficial to your confessor to help to know and understand any habits or patterns of sin that you’ve fallen into. There’s no need to be obsessive about details. If you confessed that you stole a car, and later remember that it was actually a minivan and not a car, you’re probably in the clear. But if you confessed you stole a car and later remember you actually stole a fleet of cars, you should bring that up.
In your particular case (and the case of other converts who make a general confession before being received into the Church, or the case of those who’ve been absent from the sacraments for some time and are making a general confession covering a long period of time) rest easy.
If you made a good, thorough examination of conscience (as it seems you did), and freely and openly confessed your sins to the priest including everything you recall at that time, you are forgiven.
It’s not necessary constantly review to your past life to remember every details or the possible motives you may have had. Instead, turn toward the new life you’ve been given through the grace of the sacraments and the ministry of the Church. Thank God for the gift of forgiveness he lavishes upon you.
Thank God for the gift of the priesthood through which your sins have been forgiven.
Try not to dwell on past sins. Satan wants us to wallow in our sins rather than rejoice in the mercy of God.
Keep up your resolve to avoid sin and occasions of sin, and enjoy the freedom you’ve been given!
I’m heading off to meet friends for a few days of, hopefully, fun and to catch up with some folks I haven’t seen for awhile in a great city.
We the hardened-travelers get the perk of a little bottle of water.
Wowie!
How they lavish attention on us.
UPDATE
Next leg. Arrival and next gate next to each other, saves a dash across the airport.
Last leg.
UPDATE
Ground delay. Grrrr.