23 June – St. Æthelthryth – Etheldreda – Audrey (and ACTION ITEM!)

Etheldreda

ACTION ITEM BELOW!

Today is the feast of St. Etheldreda, a 7th c. Angl0-Saxon. In some accounts she is portrayed as a “warrior queen”. I don’t think she’d like modern day feminists one little bit.

A long-time reader and commentatrix here is Supertradmum, who has a blog entitled Etheldreda Place. While she is of these USA, her son is a seminarian in the UK.

I think I am not stepping out of bounds if I ask that you join to your many daily petitions, also one for Supertradmum, who is undergoing a financially rocky time (and is pretty much homeless). I hope she figures out how to get some sort of electronic donation thing going. I really do.  She needs some assistance from us, I think.

UPDATE: ACTION ITEM – She figured it out.  She now has a GoFundMe button!  Please use it?

Click HERE

Also… in the Novus Ordo calendar, it is the feast of Sts. Zacchary and Elizabeth, parents of St. John the Baptist. That makes sense since today is the Vigil of the Baptist! St. Zacchary’s tomb is in Venice. Here is a fairly recent pic.

23 June - St. Æthelthryth - Etheldreda - Audrey (and ACTION ITEM!)

Posted in ACTION ITEM!, Saints: Stories & Symbols | Tagged
6 Comments

The encyclical ‘Laudato si” and “integral ecology”

Yesterday His Excellency Most Reverend Robert C. Morlino, the Extraordinary Ordinary of Madison, was on with a popular radio show host, Vicki McKenna – who really ought to have a national show! – to talk about Laudato si’.

Also, since Rush’s critical remarks about the encyclical were played in the program, you might want to check his first two hours yesterday.  He also took on Card. Wuerl, who had attacked Rush on Fox News Sunday.  HERE

Bp. Morlino had a great hour.  One of this things he mentioned was a troubling phrase in the encyclical, “integral ecology”.  You can listen to the hour for free HERE.

In some spheres, “integral ecology” is troubling.

I found the phrase 9 times in the encyclical.  Chapter 4 is: “Integral Ecology”

I’ll bet some of you know more about this than I do.

Question might be, if the phrase “integral ecology” has some less than acceptable connotations, why use it in an encyclical?

Of course we have to figure out what it means in this encyclical, not merely in some other source.

Possibility: We cannot separate human ecology and environmental ecology, and human ecology has logical precedence.

Discuss.

 

Posted in Francis, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
38 Comments

Of fortune cookies

No, I’m not talking about the posts of a certain Fishwrap writer…

On my way back to the SPTDV from Acton U in Grand Rapids, I stopped in S. Chicago to meet friends for Chinese at the best Chinese restaurant I know (so far) in these USA.

Ma Po Tofu … a Chinese business associate of my host for the meal said that this is better than what he finds in China.

Of fortune cookies

The house special noodles.  I got a take out order to bring home for breakfast the next day.

Of fortune cookies

Lamb in cumin.  WOW… this is seriously intense.

Of fortune cookies

Shrimp in orange and mayo, but… crispy!

 

Of fortune cookies

Eggplants

 

Of fortune cookies

Chicken

Of fortune cookies

A birds eye view.

 

Of fortune cookies

And I got a real fortune… a couple days late, perhaps.

 

 

Of fortune cookies

 

It wasn’t easy to drive several hours after this meal, that’s for sure.

What a treat this was.  The Chinese in my town is, frankly, barely mediocre at the places the locals tout as “the best”.

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged ,
3 Comments

How machinations led Paul VI in the liturgical reform

Fr. Hunwicke has an interesting post about the machinations of the late (Archbp) Annibale Bugnini with Paul VI to slam through the former’s desired changes.

Here is a taste…

(1) He relied upon dishonest people for advice. (a) From the Memoires of Louis Bouyer: “At different stages, be it with regard to the dumping overboard (sabordage) of the Liturgy of the Departed, or again in that unbelievable enterprise of expurgating the psalms in view of their use in the Office, Bugnini came up against an opposition, not just massive, but one could say pretty well unanimous. In some such cases, he did not hesitate to tell us ‘But the Pope wants it!’. [Which was probably false.] After that, to be sure, there was no longer a question of discussing it.” Bouyer recounts how he once met Bugnini in circumstances in which the latter, mistakenly, believed that he, Bouyer, had just been with Pope Paul … whom Bugnini was on his way to see. “On seeing me, he not only turned completely white but, visibly, was knocked for six (non seulement il blemit, mais, visiblement, il fut atterre)”. “The answer was to be presented to me, but some weeks later, by Paul VI himself. Nattering with me about our famous labours, which he had confirmed, he finally said to me ‘But why, then, did you put into this reform …’ (Here, I have to admit that I don’t recall any longer which of the details which I have mentioned particularly irritated him.) Naturally, I replied ‘But purely and simply because Bugnini guaranteed to us that you were absolutely set on it (avait certifie que vous le vouliez absolument).’ His reaction was immediate: ‘Is it possible? He said to me personally that you were unanimous in this respect!'”.

[…]

As well as the human and historical tragedy, there is an ecclesiological point here. If you blend together in one saucepan an exaggerated notion of papal authority (as analysed by Joseph Ratzinger) with the activities (described in detail by Louis Bouyer) of unscrupulous and dishonest and ruthlessly determined manipulative individuals who have the pope’s ear, you are gravely at risk of having a disaster the results of which it may well take generations to mitigate. Quod factum est.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , ,
14 Comments

NSR’s Mickens on the “election” of bishops

Robert Mickens, now of the Fishwrap (aka National Sodomitic Reporter aka National Schismatic Reporter) and famous for his Facebook chat about wishing death on Pope Emeritus Benedict (which got him fired from The Tablet), has a piece today about choosing bishops in a new way.

Bishops should be elected with considerable local input.

He beats up for a while on Archbp. Nienstedt, and then…

How many priests and other baptized faithful had a voice in any of these appointments? Where are the concerns of any of them listened to seriously? The “election” of bishops (that’s what the Holy See calls such appointments, underlining the more ancient practice) need not be done by widespread popular vote. In fact, that would be disaster.

But there should be a more serious and involved process that involves a significant representation of the entire community in identifying the most qualified and gifted leaders. And it should be the rule, not the exception, that the choice (or recommendation) of candidate generally be from the local clergy, especially in long-established dioceses.

Such an “election process” needs to be re-established, albeit with provisions for changed modern-day situations.

Let’s think about what he is proposing.

If dioceses elected bishops, what chance would Cupich have had in Chicago?  Wouldn’t more local talent have eclipsed Cupich?  But, trusting instead in our Holy Father, the Church of Chicago now has Archbp. Cupich, a great favorite on the Left, a great successor to Card. Bernardin.   As a matter of fact, Card. Bernardin would never have been elected to Chicago, coming as he did from Cincinnati.

Let’s continue along this line.

Would Montini have made it to Milan?

Would Roncalli have been elected by the Venetians?

Would Mahony have been chosen by the Angelinos?

Would Kasper have wound up in Stuttgart?

Anyway… though I’m sometimes a little hard on Mr. Mickens, I can’t help but thinking that, in this article at least, he might be on to something.

Comment moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Liberals, Lighter fare, What are they REALLY saying?, You must be joking! | Tagged , ,
27 Comments

ASK FATHER: Who is a member of the Church?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Who is a member of the Roman Catholic Church? Is baptism all that is required? What about people baptised into the RC Church who later in life do not believe in some of the teachings of the RC Church (eg regarding homosexuality) but still go to Mass & Holy Communion? Can they still claim to be members?

This seems like a simple question, calling for a simple answer.  It isn’t.

From the perspective of the world, the Church, like any other “club” should have clearly demarcated lines of membership, with an initiation process, rules for membership, and penalties of exclusion for those who either violate the rules, or who choose to separate themselves.

The Church is not just a human institution. It is also a divine one.  Therefore, it is a mystery. Founded by Christ the Lord, it is the gathering of all those called to faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.” Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.

1270 “Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.

We know the effects of valid baptism.  Baptism makes the baptized members of Christ’s Body… the Church.  Baptism is the ordinary means by which men are initiated into the Church.  In one sense, every person who has ever been validly baptized is a member of the Church.

The Church often uses the language of “communion”. Every baptized person is initiated into the communion of the Church.  But many baptized people, through their actions and beliefs, impair, or even break their communion with the Church. These people remain baptized.  Baptism changes the person’s soul forever.  In some senses, they are still “members” of the Church. Until they die, they are capable of repairing their communion with the Church.

In the early centuries of the Church, we faced the question of whether those who commit sin are excluded from the Church. The heresy of Donatism concluded that some sins, particularly the sin of denying one’s faith, rejecting Christ and His Church in order to avoid punishment by the State, were so heinous that those who committed these sins were no longer part of the Church. The Church responded that as serious as the sin of apostasy is, apostates and other sinners are still Christians in virtue of their baptism, which is not repeatable. Their communion with the Church was broken, but it could be repaired through penance and reconciliation.

Today, sinners who reject the teachings of the Church sometimes hide their break with the Church.  They pretend that they are still in full communion with the Church, despite their rejection of the Church or of some essential teachings.  We can think of examples.

Added to their sins of rejecting the Church’s teaching, they continue to receive Holy Communion, adding to their others sins the sin of sacrilege, a serious sin indeed. These people desperately need our prayers: they have been deceived by Satan, the Father of Lies.

As their sins pile up, they become jaded and can no longer see the dangerous cliff toward which they are speeding.

They remain baptized, however.  The Church remains their Mother, ever solicitous for their care. We should pray for them to realize the damage they are doing to themselves, and hope that, before it is too late, they recant their misguided beliefs, return to full communion with the Church, and put their moral lives in order.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liberals, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
19 Comments

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

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

Let us know.

Reminder: Even if you know you must not go forward to receive Holy Communion, you are still obliged to go to Mass!

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
20 Comments

New Horizons!

Biretta tip to APOD, this comes from NASA:

NASA’s New Horizons – the fastest spacecraft ever created – will speed past Pluto on July 14, 2015, beaming back high resolution photos (and invaluable data) of the dwarf planet’s surface for the first time in human history.

Play video

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
6 Comments

ASK FATHER: Proper location on altar for stuffed koala

KOALAFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Our local Extraordinary Form group was preparing for Mass and we found left on the altar a stuffed koala bear apparently from an earlier Novus Ordo Mass.  One of the members wondered aloud if a stuffed koala should be situated on the Epistle or Gospel side of the altar.

We immediately knew who to ask such questions of liturgical import.

Clearly, the koala should be on the liturgical south (Epistle) side. He’s native to Australia.

Also, the south side is where the priest prays the Lavabo inter innocentes, and what’s more innocent than the cuddly (but poisonous) koala.

Or… is that the cuddly but poisonous platypus?

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

ROME: The faithful defend the family. Where were the bishops?

In Rome there a vast throng of lay people turned out to defend the family and human ecology in the public square… in front of Rome’s Cathedral, St. John Lateran.

Some snaps from The Great Roman Fabrizio™.

Perhaps has many as 1 million people.
ROME: The faithful defend the family. Where were the bishops?  ROME: The faithful defend the family. Where were the bishops?

 

There were no bishops.

There were Jews, Muslims and even homosexual groups!

There were no bishops.

Marco Tossati has some point comments.  HERE

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, ACTION ITEM!, One Man & One Woman |
43 Comments