Brick By Brick: Extraordinary Form training in seminaries – FOLLOW UP

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a seminarian:

I responded before to your inquiry about what training was or was not being offered in seminaries in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form. At the time you inquired there was no training offered for the EF. Therefore, several of the students approached the administration requesting such training to be added. It seems as of now that we should have a EF practicum offered as early as next semester. I would therefore ask for your prayers that this will come to completion, but also offer this as an encouragement to other seminarians to do the same. If your seminary does not offer the training ask them to start.

Of course taking it upon yourself to find a willing and able priest to teach the course would be very helpful. If your seminary refuses, contact Ecclesia Dei.

I would suggest to seminarians that they let someone else contact the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei“.

And the New Evangelization takes another step forward.

All in all, this is encouraging.

We have a lot of rebuilding to do, one brick at a time.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , ,
11 Comments

Democrats reject gift baskets, welcome letters from Christian groups in Charlotte because of their values

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Gee whiz. Maybe Pres. Obama can jump in and change their minds on this one, too!

From FNC:

DNC Rejects Christian Gift Baskets
Todd Starnes

The Democratic National Committee banned dozens of Charlotte churches from distributing gift baskets to delegates because the congregations hold values that are contrary to the party platform, according to local religious leaders.

“They told us our views on women’s rights are contrary to the Democratic party platform,” said David Benham, the lead organizer of the Charlotte714 religious movement.

Charlotte714 is a group of more than 100 churches across the region that mobilized to pray for the Democratic National Convention. More than 9,000 people gathered last Sunday for a time of worship and prayer in advance of the convention.

A gathering of some 200 Muslims praying in Charlotte was given extensive national coverage. The massive Christian received scant coverage.
Benham said the name references an Old Testament passage in 2 Chronicles 7:14 – calling the nation to prayer.
He said 56 churches wanted to “Adopt-a-Delegation.” They put together gift baskets featuring Carolina Pralines and a letter welcoming them to the city and offering assistance in transportation, childcare or spiritual matters.
“We were just trying to display Southern hospitality,” he said. “We wanted them to know we were happy to serve them.”
However, DNC officials conveyed to city leaders that the Christians would not be allowed to present their gift baskets.
“I got a call from the mayor’s office speaking on behalf of the convention and they asked us not to participate,” he said. “They told us our views on women’s rights are contrary to the platform.”
Benham said he was shocked because all the churches involved are mainline denominations ranging from Baptists and Methodists to Assembly of God.
“I was blown away and could not believe it,” he told Fox News.
So instead of gift baskets, Benham asked if they could send welcome letters to the delegates. Again, he said the DNC refused – because the churches hold pro-life values.
“They responded back and said no because our views on women,” he said. “They would not allow it.”
Benham said it is true that all the churches are pro-life – but the baskets did not include a single political or pro-life message. They just wanted to give them regional candies and a welcome letter.

[…]

Read the rest there.

And tell all your friends.

 

 

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, One Man & One Woman, Slubberdegullions, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , ,
23 Comments

Alinsky’s (Obama’s) tactics and a book recommendation

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I have posted on Saul Alinksy‘s “Rules for Radicals” before. However, over at Etheldreda’s Place they were listed, and – at the bottom of that post – an interesting comment was added (go THERE to find it, and yes I am trying to drive some traffic over there, so just click it and get it over with).

In the meantime, here are the “Rules”, which were so well imbibed by Barack Obama as an Alinsky-ite “community organizer.

  • RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
  • RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  • RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  • RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
  • RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  • RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
  • RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  • RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
  • RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  • RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
  • RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
  • RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

And now a book recommendation.

First, this is a KINDLE book, only.  You don’t have to have a Kindle to read it, but you should have a Kindle anyway!  You can read Kindle books using an app on your phone or on your computer.

The book costs only $2.99.  The reading program is free.

Read Jerome Corsi’s

Saul Alinsky: The Evil Genius Behind Obama

Corsi does not want Pres. Obama to be reelected.  Many share that goal.  Corsi has also dug into the “birth certificate” question, and, surprisingly, the Shroud of Turin.  He likes hard questions.  Whatever your view of the birth certificate is – and I am NOT… NOT I repeat… going to allow this to run down that rabbit hole  – this book on Alinksy and Obama is worth your time.

Get your Kindle now and start reading more!

USA HERE (to the version I have)
UK HERE  (there are several choices of models)

CLICK HERE

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liberals, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
4 Comments

Obama first approved ejecting God and Jerusalem from the party platform, and, after heat, got it changed later

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Catholic League has an interesting take on the Democrat Convention (DNC) and the reinsertion of God and Jerusalem into the party platform, and some information I didn’t know when I wrote about the topic HERE.

Goat rodeo.

THE POLITICS OF GOD’S RETURN

September 6, 2012

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the decision by the Democratic National Convention (DNC) to put the word “God” back into the Democratic National Platform:

The Democrats intentionally took the word “God” out of the Platform, took heat for doing so, failed to persuade delegates to put it back in, did so anyway by fiat, and then lied about the entire event.

The White House would have us believe that President Obama intervened to save the day, ordering the delegates to rediscover both God and the capital of Israel. But it was too late. Earlier, the Obama campaign told Politico that Obama had personally approved the Platform, choosing to intervene only after the pushback began.  [Get that?  I’ll be you readers can find that story and post a link.]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, who has been caught in a string of lies this week, said the decision to excise God was “essentially a technical oversight.” [Surrrrre it was.] David Gergen told CNN viewers the exact same thing. But someone, assumedly with the consent of others, threw God out. Moreover, even if the oversight process failed, it does not explain why the word “God” was initially deemed offensive, thus meriting deletion.

Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who is in charge of the Platform committee, explained the revised wording by saying, “I wouldn’t call it an error. It was a clarification.” Michelle Obama called the whole thing “a non-issue; and I think it’s a distraction.” It was nice to know that Obama’s faith-based director—of all people—Rev. Derrick Hawkins, also said the flap about God was “a non-issue.” [and the cock crowed…]

Terri Holland, a New Mexico delegate, disagrees with these assessments. She said the changes were made to “kow-tow to the religious right.” This is revealing: speaking about God in the Platform is not the kind of thing that thoughtful Democrats want to be associated with. Evidently, one has to be a right-wing loon to reference our “God-given potential.” Her honesty is very much appreciated.

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Goat Rodeos, Liberals, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , , ,
18 Comments

QUAERITUR: During Mass can a lay person bring the Eucharist to the altar.

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader in Italy:

Dear Father,

this is the situation I am witnessing in a church:

during the Mass, after the Agnus Dei, a friar serving the Mass (just friar, not deacon, nor priest) goes to the Tabernacle, takes the ciborium and carries it to the altar. Then the priest alone distributes the Communion to the faithful.

In my opinion point 162 of the “Ordinamento Generale del Messale Romano” seems to suggest that only the priest is allowed to get the ciborium from the Tabernacle, but the case described there is slightly different.

I have unsuccessfully searched for an answer in Redemptionis Sacramentum.

I kindly ask you if there is an official answer to this question, maybe some response from the Congregation of Divine Worship regarding who is allowed to remove the reserved Bless Sacrament from the Tabernacle during the Mass.

I do not believe that it is permitted for a lay person, during Mass before Communion, to open the tabernacle and bring a ciborium to the altar.

We know from Eucharistiae Sacramentum 91  that and Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (who must be properly formed and appointed, of course) may – for the purposes of adoration only – open a tabernacle for exposition and reposition of Blessed Sacrament.

Mass is a different situation.

In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, in the section on Mass without a deacon (if there is a deacon, he, obviously, would get the ciborium), we find:

162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. …

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.

163. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself immediately and completely consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist. …

Two things are clear.

First: If a lay person cannot approach the altar before the priest’s Communion, then a lay person cannot bring a ciborium to the altar.

A friar who is not ordained is a layman.  He may be a Extraordinary Minister, but that only allows him to help the priest distribute Communion, not to bring the Eucharist to the altar before the priest’s communion.

Second point: When there is no deacon, the priest takes the Blessed Sacrament back to the tabernacle.  If that is the case after Communion, it should be the case before Communion.

There may be some cases in which the tabernacle is not near the altar and an infirm or crippled priest would have a hard time physically making the trip back and forth.  Rare cases, however, are not the best basis for the law.  Let’s stick to normal situations.

Finally, the particular law in Italy may be different, but I suspect that on this point it would be more strict rather than less.

It may be that we can find greater clarity from directives on diocesan websites.  I would rely more on diocesan sites than on parish sites.  Perhaps some of you good readers can look around a little more on this interesting question.

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

Why won’t Sr. Simone Campbell answer a simple, direct question about abortion?

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Do you remember my post called NUNS GONE WILD?  I will have to add Sr. Simone Campbell to that dismal list.

From The Weekly Standard with my emphases and comments:

Charlotte
Sister Simone Campbell is a Catholic nun and liberal activist who has earned a lot of media coverage this year for criticizing the Paul Ryan budget while riding around the country on a bus. Tonight [5 Sept] at the Democratic National Convention, Campbell will be speaking from the podium against the Ryan budget.

[QUAERITUR…] But how does Campbell, a Catholic who says she believes abortion is the taking of an innocent life, weigh her budget concerns against her opposition to abortion? It turns out there’s not a dilemma because, as Campbell told me this afternoon at the Charlotte Convention Center, [NB] she doesn’t know if she supports laws protecting the lives of unborn children.

TWS: On the legal question, do you think there should be penalties against abortion doctors? I mean, should it be illegal to perform abortions?

CAMPBELL: That’s beyond my pay grade. I don’t know. [This dodge can only mean one thing.  She is pro-abortion.]

“The fact is my vast preference is that all women would have the support to carry their babies to term,” Campbell continued. “One of the things I find so horrifying in the Romney-Ryan budget is that they want to take those supports away. And then they claim they’re pro-life. That just drives me nuts!”  [Indeed.]

So Campbell knows that the Romney-Ryan budget is “horrifying” because it spends less on social welfare programs than Obama, but she’s agnostic about passing laws to stop abortions. According to one study, striking down Roe v. Wade would lead to 180,000 fewer abortions per year in the United States.

But Sr. Campbell doesn’t care about that.

Remember, Sr. Campbell, you cannot fool God.

 

 

Posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Liberals, Linking Back, Magisterium of Nuns, Our Catholic Identity, Women Religious | Tagged , , , , ,
33 Comments

QUAERITUR: Word and Communion services with a deacon permissible?

Posted on 6 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

We have a shortage of priests in our diocese in England, not so short that we can’t have Sunday Mass. but occasionally weekday Mass might not be available in a Parish. When are these services of Word and Communion permissable? Is a deacon allowed to “preside” at them? Is there any way we can stop them?

A group of young people have already been to the parish priest to voice our concern particualarly due to the confusion between the role of priest/laity and the effect we fear it will have on vocations. Thin end of the wedge but who needs a priests mon-sat if the priest can visit on a Sunday and consecrate enough Communion for the week??

Whilst he says it meets a pastoral need, we fear it obscures the immense worth of this Sacrament and also negates the role of the priest doing nothing to promote and encourage vocations. We are deeply concerned and distressed at the damage these services are doing to our beloved church. But we are viewed as just young opinionated so and sos who have no understanding of pastoral care. HELP.

PS the priest in question in every other respect is a wonderful pastor but this is a sticking point.

First, yes, these “services of Word and Communion” are permissible. Second, be happy that a deacon is doing them and not a feminist nun named Sr. Randi.

That said, I agree that these services are not optimal. Over time they can, as you suggest, confuse some people into thinking that there is no huge difference between some service and Holy Mass. There should be great care given to catechesis in the parish, and clarificatory notes in the bulletin and pulpit announcements. There should be constant prayer for vocations to the priesthood, so that people have constantly in their minds that only priests forgive sins and say Mass and that these services are not the same as Mass.

Furthermore, it seems to me that having a “priestless” day could very much “promote and encourage vocations”, if the situation is handled correctly.  It has you asking questions, doesn’t it?

To your question “Is there any way we can stop them?”  Sure!  Find a priest and chip in for the expense of his coming there.  Work to promote vocations.  Pray for more priests.  Have sons and bring them up as good Catholics.

Another point: It strikes me that the parish priest is really trying to provide an opportunity for people to be together in church, hear some Holy Writ, and receive Communion even on a day which is not a day of precept (obligation) even though it would be also understandable not to schedule anything.  It could be that he is hoping to keep people coming to church on weekdays in view of having more priests in the future.   Perhaps as part of your going to church for some service like this, you could remain after and say a Rosary for the intention of more priests for the diocese.

 

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
25 Comments

Is this a cynical move or what? Whatever the Dems did, it was sly.

Posted on 5 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

My understand is that, when the Dems were drafting their platform, they purposely excluded any mention of Jerusalem in regard to Israel and they included any mention of God.

Talk about inept. Talk about leaving a bad impression.

Unless… unless….

I now understand that Pres. Obama – get this – ordered his staff to have the platform language changed to include God and affirm Jerusalem as the proper capital of Israel. A campaign source confirmed this.

That means that Obama gets all the credit without believing any of it. His heroic intervention to drag the platform back from the fringe to the center, will help him with the Jewish vote AND the Catholic left. Impact will be felt in Ohio and Florida.

I suspect the whole thing was a setup. They did this ON PURPOSE so that Obama could intervene.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, The Drill | Tagged , ,
133 Comments

Reason #5 for Summorum Pontificum: vocations to the priesthood

Posted on 5 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Yet another reason to thank Pope Benedict for Summorum Pontificum:

A long-time reader and participant (and donor) sent an alert about the following, with this comment:

Interesting that CNS included a segment on Tradition starting at 2:15, featuring one Michael Hendershott of the Diocese of Knoxville, who in this video credits his vocation to the TLM.

“TLM” is, of course, the “traditional Latin Mass”, the Extraordinary Form, Mass with the 1962 Missale Romanum.

Here is the video:

[wp_youtube]RLX4s8nUkj0[/wp_youtube]

And before people ask what my reasons #1-4 are, I am using this #5 as a rhetorical device as always.   Sometimes I use a number like #57636, meaning that there very many good reasons for the Pope Benedict’s provisions.  When I use a number like #5, it is clearly an important point.

And let us not forget that one of the young men in the video spoke about the impact the Fathers of the Church, and Newman, had on his conversion to Catholicism.

REMINDER: Z-Swag – Newman’s “To be deep in history” Mug

CLICK TO BUY

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Benedict XVI, Just Too Cool, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , ,
23 Comments

Pelosi… can. 915… Pelosi… can. 915… Pelosi… can. 915…

Posted on 5 September 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From CNSNEWS:

Pelosi: GOP ‘May Have a Religious View About Abortion — but Birth Control?’
By Eric Scheiner

(CNSNews.com)- At a breakfast rally for the California Democratic Party earlier this week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she understood the religious views of Republicans on abortion but she described their opposition to government funding of contraception as “extremism”.

“It’s really important to point out the extremism of Republicans. They may have a religious view about abortion — but birth control? Birth control? – that they would shut down the government of the United States rather than fund Planned Parenthood. What more do you need to know about them,” Pelosi asked the gathering in Charlotte, North Carolina. [This catholic, persistently and manifestly pushing abortion and contraception despite her clear obligation as a Catholic to act according to the Church’s teaching in this matter of morals which cannot be fudged.]

Pelosi has been outspoken about her Catholic faith in the past.

Catholic teachings condemn the use of sterilization, contraception and abortion, based in part on the premise that man has no right to veto God’s decision to bring a new life into the world.

In April of last year, Democrats refused to pass any budget bill if it contained a measure to defund Planned Parenthood. Republicans dropped a measure that would have eliminated $363 million in Title X funding for Planned Parenthood in negotiations to avoid a government shutdown.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty | Tagged ,
38 Comments