It is about 90°F and high humidity. Sooooo…. thirstyyyyy…..
It’s time for a glass of iced tea!
PENJING APPROVES THIS MESSAGE
Refresh your Mystic Monk Tea or Coffee supply HERE.
In the meantime, I made new editions of the Catholic and Faithful – American and Free mugs. In talking with a friend about it, I decided to offer a version that allows the viewer to see the whole thing easily on one side. I made a right-handed and a left-handed version of each as well. Go HERE.
From a priest:
I need help from an ossified unreconstructed manualist!
This morning I was a concelebrant at Mass with two other priests.After the consecration I was astounded to see a chalice with previously consecrated Precious Blood brought from the tabernacle. [?!?]
The Principal Celebrant proceded to effect the commingling with a particle in the chalice consecrated at a previous Mass, [?!?] and both he and the other priest concelebrant communicated from that chalice. I was very careful to ensure I drank from the newly consecrated chalice.
So, Father, was a valid Mass offered? Did it make any difference that one of the concelebrants drank from the newly-consecrated chalice?
It’s a practice the parish priest seems to have adopted when there is a significant over-consecration of the Precious Blood!
In my humble opinion it is a grave delict, but I think it is a matter of simple ignorance.
Ought the Ordinary be informed of this practice?
What a strange question.
Yes, I believe Mass was celebrated. The elements were consecrated, the elements were consumed. The co-mingling does not affect the validly. Consuming the Precious Blood not consecrated at that Mass sure does confuse the issue, though.
Our symbols and signs are important. They point to a greater reality. Signa point to the res. We must be careful not to confuse them.
Second, it is forbidden to reserve the Precious Blood except for an extremely narrow range of circumstances (as when a sick person cannot receive any other way).
Should the diocesan bishop be informed? I would talk first with the parish priest and show him. These references:
John Paul II’s 1980 Inestimabile donum 14:
On the other hand, the consecrated wine is to be consumed immediately after Communion and may not be kept. Care must be taken to consecrate only the amount of wine needed for Communion.
And Redemptionis Sacramentum 107:
Furthermore all will remember that once the distribution of Holy Communion during the celebration of Mass has been completed, the prescriptions of the Roman Missal are to be observed [cf GIRM 163, 249, 279, 284, 285a], and in particular, whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ must be entirely and immediately consumed by the Priest or by another minister, according to the norms, while the consecrated hosts that are left are to be consumed by the Priest at the altar or carried to the place for the reservation of the Eucharist.
Surely the reason for this strict prohibition is that a) there is far greater possibility for profanation and b) the accidents of wine can swiftly change and become corrupted, far more quickly and the accidents of bread of the Hosts that are reserved.
Furthermore, in the case of consecrating too much, the Precious Blood must never be simply poured out anywhere, not even the ground or sacrarium. That skates close to the “throwing away” of the Eucharist which incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, the lifting of which is reserved to the Holy See (not the local bishop). Priests know this or ought to know this. Since it is their duty to know this, they cannot easily plead ignorance, for their ignorance would be culpable ignorance. Lay people, once they know this, must refuse to do it if asked. Remember, excommunications can only be incurred if a person commits a mortal sin in doing the bad thing. Therefore, all the requirements for a mortal sin must apply.
CLICK TO BUY STUFF
But, back to the point, if the priest insists that there must be Communion under both kinds, the solution here is NOT to consecrate too much. Better to consecrate to little and then explain the reason for the prudent caution rather than consecrate so much that it cannot be consumed even by proper ministers who are present.
If the parish priest who is reserving the Precious Blood will not stop doing so even after he has been informed, then I would inform the local bishop with a copy to the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.
And thanks for mentioning Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists! Get your ORM swag HERE!
On the November ballot in Minnesota is an amendment to the state constitution which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Minnesota is, right now, ground zero in the issue of same-sex marriage.
From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:
In marriage amendment vote, a focus on the future
By Doug Belden
dbelden@pioneerpress.comMinnesotans are not deciding this November whether same-sex couples can marry.
They can’t, under state law, and the outcome of the vote will do nothing to change that.
[QUAERITUR:] So, what’s the point?
What’s at stake, say advocates on both sides, is how Minnesota will be set up to grapple with gay marriage in the future.
To Jason Adkins, vice chairman of the campaign supporting the proposed amendment, the vote is the public’s chance to weigh in before the “elites” get a chance to redefine marriage through the courts or Legislature. [You mean, people still have rights? I thought everything these says was decided by activist judges!]
To Richard Carlbom, who’s leading the opposition effort, voting the amendment down allows the debate about same-sex marriage to continue. [Voting for the amendment allows it to continue also.]
Amending the state’s constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual union would bring “a hard stop to the conversation,” said Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families. “It ties the hands of future generations.” [Even if we accept that premise, I say “GOOD!”]
Carlbom said his group’s goal is not to secure gay-marriage rights but to preserve an environment [HA! Surrrrrre it is!] in which the state can figure it out without a conclusion having been locked in to the constitution.
But Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and vice chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, says the amendment would not be a permanent ban on gay marriage. “It’s not irreversible,” he said. “It’s pretty easy to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.”
What it would do is allow Minnesotans to affirm the definition of marriage that exists in state law in advance of action by “powerful legal and cultural forces seeking to redefine marriage,” Adkins said.
[…]
The article is longish, but well-worth your time.
SUPPORT TRUE AND NATURAL MARRIAGE!
I get quite a few email asking for advice/help from people who want to enter religious life, but cannot yet be accepted into a community because they have debts, usually student loans, etc.
Do you readers know of any group, organization, institution, etc., which can help people with this problem?
From WaPo:
Israel’s national Holocaust memorial softens portrayal of wartime Pope Pius
JERUSALEM — Israel’s national Holocaust memorial has toned down its account of Pope Pius XII’s conduct toward the massacre of Jews during of World War II, following a long diplomatic dispute with the Vatican. [WaPo’s description is still distorted, isn’t it?]
Critics have long contended that Pius, who was pope from 1939 to 1958, could have done more to stop the Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were killed. Before his election as pope, he also served as the Vatican’s No. 2 and before that as the papal envoy to Germany. [And… so?]
Given his deep involvement in the Vatican’s diplomatic affairs with the Nazis, what Pius did or didn’t do during the war has become the single most divisive issue in Vatican-Jewish relations.
A wall panel at the Yad Vashem memorial installed on Sunday still lists occasions when the wartime pontiff did not protest the slaughter of Europe’s Jews. But it also offers the views of defenders who say the church’s “neutrality” helped to save lives.
“This is an update to reflect research that has been done in the recent years and presents a more complex picture than previously presented,” Yad Vashem said in a statement.
[…]
Pius XII ought to have been declared a “Righteous Gentile” long ago.
The Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate could survive as a tax. The penalties imposed are viewed, in the decision, as taxes.
But through the edict of non-elected HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Pres. Obama would force religious institutions against conscience to pay for some services… or face penalties (i.e. taxes).
Question:
Isn’t it now the case that if the Obama Administration punishes St. Ipsidipsy Catholic Hospital in Black Duck for refusing to provide employees their abortifacient pills, then the Federal Government is taxing the exercise of religion?
Thus, the First Gay President is another step closer to another deeply desired goal: the segregation of religion away from the public square … the shifting of religion to the private sphere alone.
The Obama Administration has already tried to move discussion from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship“.
Thus, when you are in church for an hour, the government will allow you – at no charge- to be a Catholic. If you want to be Catholic and faithful in the workplace – even a Catholic institution – you will pay for the privilege through a tax.
We must stand up to this, especially in the voting booth while we still can.
I want to be…
Catholic and Faithful!
American and Free!
I am catching a few minutes of the rebroadcast of the Holy Father’s Mass for Sts. Peter and Paul on EWTN. I only have a few fleeting minutes.
The Choir of Westminster Abbey is there.
Is it my imagination or are the Westminster Abbey (Anglican) crew signing Palestrina in front of the Sistine Chapel Choir? Missae Papae Marcelli, I think.
Okay, they might be singing with them.
Rich irony.
And this in front of the Orthodox Patriarch.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
From a reader:
I have been now to a couple excellent confessions where as a
suggestion or a penance the priest has asked me to say a particular
prayer, “found in my prayer book”. Sorry to say, I do not have a
prayer book and have resorted to looking up the prayers online. I
would like to obtain a good prayer book. What would be a good one to
get?
I will leave this open to suggestions from readers.
The other day I posted a video about confused liberal feminist protesters challenging a good young priest, after Mass, outside the Cathedral of Kalamazoo, MI. HERE. The video was made by the protesters.
Fr. Ted Martin did a video response. Nuthin’ fancy. Just straight at ya’.
[wp_youtube]J3PRRTIE-L8[/wp_youtube]
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
