ASK FATHER: Conflict with parents about use of artificial contraception

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I am 20 years old, and I believe that contraception is immoral. My parents do not. This has caused much strife at home. We went to our trusted parish priest together to discuss it. He told me that certain circumstances within marriage can make contraception justifiable. Now my parents believe the matter settled and think I am all the more unreasonable for not changing my mind. What should I do?

Your “trusted parish priest” is wrong.

Review Humanae vitae, Evangelium vitae, Donum vitae, and Dignitas personae for the definitive teaching.

There are narrow circumstances in which one spouse can without sinning endure its use when it is pretty much inflicted by the other spouse, but that does not justify its use.  Furthermore, invincible ignorance can mitigate the sinfulness of its use, but it does not justify its use.

 

If the issue is causing a lot of strife at home, it might be best not to discuss it. If your parents, having had guidance (bad guidance) from their parish priest about the advisability of birth control, are using it themselves, there’s nothing that you, their child, can do about it other than to pray that they receive more enlightened and better counsel.

You’ve discussed it, you’ve made your thoughts on the matter known, you’ve argued well (one hopes), and now might be the time to step back.  Fraternal correction doesn’t flow “upward”, as it were from children to parents in matters such as these.

Entrust them to the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, Christ’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage cannot be changed.

(I just thought I’d toss that in there, because I can.)

Moderation queue is, of course, ON for this.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Emanations from Penumbras, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity |
49 Comments

ASK FATHER: Parish fundraiser serves meat on 1st Fridays

GrilledT-BoneSteakFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Every First Friday, a neighboring parish hosts a fundraiser dinner at which they serve beef or chicken, except during Lent. Many of our friends (homeschooling families) are parishioners there and attend every month. We hear that it’s delicious fare and as I know who’s doing the cooking, I’m sure it is. Nonetheless, advertisements go out via email and social media a few days before and every month it drives me to distraction!
I know that my homeschooling friends, at least, are aware that every Friday is a day of penance and know they need to do an alternate penance if they don’t abstain from meat. So I don’t want to annoy them or present myself as holier-than-thou with such a reminder whenever posts about the dinner circulate. The parishioners there are remarkably committed to supporting the pastor, who is a good priest, but doesn’t get this.

This parish is in the United States. Unlike England and Wales, which has – God be praised – gone back to abstinence from meat on all Fridays of the year (except for Solemnities), the requirement to do penance on Fridays in these United States is fatally vague.

Catholics are required to do penance on all Fridays (except Solemnities). However, the US bishops have, for the most part, been anything but clear or forceful in teaching about Friday penance. Catholics in America are permitted to choose another penance other than abstinence from meat. This is entirely at the discretion of the individual. All that was heard, and remembered, from 1966 when the US bishops (with the approval of the Holy See) changed the requirement was, “We don’t have to eat fishsticks anymore!”

The USCCB, while permitting Catholics to choose other options, still recommends abstaining from meat on Fridays.  But you would never know it.

It is bad form for a Catholic parish to host a fundraising dinner which goes against the recommendations of the bishops’ conference.

Mind you, fundraising dinners are optional events. No one is required to go, and those who do are not obliged to eat meat.  Still, it sends a bad message about our commitment to our Catholic identity.

It puts people in an awkward position.  Do I support my parish and go to a beef dinner on Friday? Or do I follow the bishop’s recommendation and abstain from meat?

It would be better for the pastor to think the matter through and either switch to non-meat options or move the dinner to another night of the week.  Admittedly, that might cut into profits.  Even as we understand that parishes must be creative about raising money – because Catholics are generally not as good as our Protestant neighbors at supporting parishes – in the end, it’s the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, I have an ongoing POLL:

Should the US Bishops have us return to obligatory "meatless Fridays" during the whole year and not just during Lent?

View Results

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
42 Comments

Nice Epiphany Mass image

Here is a wonderful shot of Holy Mass for Epiphany in Washington DC celebrated by my friend Msgr. Charles Pope.  They blessed Epiphany water, chalk and, I hope, gold frankincense and myrrh.  HERE

 

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 10.11.56

Did you have special blessings at your parishes?

Posted in Just Too Cool, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 |
20 Comments

ASK FATHER: Catholic funeral for Freemasons

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Recently there was a huge funeral in our cathedral for a 32nd degree member of the Freemasons. The local TLM community is very upset and crying foul. It’s a mess. Could you offer some insight? I have friends in the TLM community, but I only occasionally go mass with them.

Go to the TLM more often and be a cheerful good example of holiness and devotion!

Under the 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 2335), it was clear that Catholics who joined Masonic organizations were excommunicated.

When the Code was revised in 1983, this explicit condemnation was broadened to say,

“A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. However, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict” (can. 1374).

The automatic excommunication is gone, but membership in such organizations is still forbidden.

The day before the 1983 Code was promulgated, the CDF reiterated the Church’s prohibition on membership in Masonic organizations, saying that such people are involved in seriously sinful matter and should not approach Holy Communion. It stated firmly that local bishops and bishops’ conferences do not have the ability to prescind from this declaration.

Masonry is serious stuff, folks. In North America, Masons may be seen as those good-hearted, civic minded men who drive around in little cars at the Fourth of July Parade, who host a circus for the kids, and who spend a lot of time and money helping out at the children’s hospital.   Lately in these USA we have seen the money appeal commercials for Shriners Hospitals with the heart wrenching images of children.

Insofar as many of the members might be unwitting dupes whose primary interest is fraternity and civic pride, they seem innocuous. However, the philosophy that Masonry espouses is – at its core – opposed to the Church in every way.

In other parts of the world, where Masonry has stronger political connections, it fights the Church over the very heart and soul of the nation. The higher one gets in Masonry, the less able one is to excuse oneself as being an unwitting dupe.

Catholics should stay far away from involvement with Masons.

It’s unclear from the question whether the 32nd degree Mason was a Catholic or not. Since the excommunication is no longer automatic, but requires the intervention of the bishop, it is possible (but tragic, considering the consequences) that a Catholic could join the Masons, and even rise to such a high level, without the Church, out of mercy, applying a penalty to warn the individual of the peril he is putting his soul in.

The law requires that funerals be denied to three categories of people (can. 1184):

1) notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2) those who for anti-Christian motives chose to have their bodies cremated;

3) other manifest sinners to whom a Church funeral could not be granted without public scandal to the faithful.

The local ordinary (bishop or vicar general) is to have the final say if there is any doubt.

If the deceased Mason (and please, pray for his soul, even though it may be too late) was not Catholic, a funeral still may have been permitted to him in virtue of can. 1183: baptized persons belonging to a non-Catholic Church (e.g., Orthodox) or ecclesial community (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans) may, in accordance with the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, be allowed church funerals unless it is established that they did not wish this. This canon is normally used when a non-Catholic spouse of a Catholic, who has dutifully attended Mass with his family for years, though never fully converted, has died and the family wishes the funeral to be in the Catholic Church. Or else, it could be applied when someone who belongs to a more obscure Orthodox or Oriental Church, living in a place with no real access to his own Church, turns to the Catholic Church for some spiritual support, but has not formally converted.

The law is relatively broad, and its interpretation is left to the local ordinary.

If an ecclesiastical funeral has been permitted to someone who had no right to it, or if the community is in disagreement with the local ordinary about the application of the law, an appeal could be made to the Holy See. It would be difficult to understand what could be gained from this. One cannot unring the bell.  Perhaps it might forestall similar events taking place in the future.

What to do?

One option would be to gather in small groups after Mass over coffee and doughnuts to gripe and complain about how wacky and liberal things have gotten. Mutter a few invectives (I’d suggest raising a fist while muttering through clenched teeth, “Why I oughta…”), and, thereafter, bask in the self-satisfaction that the truth has been defended.

Another option is to get on your knees and pray. Pray for the poor deceased man. Let’s hope he was deluded and confused and did not enter into the Masons with full consent of the will based on adequate knowledge.  Pray for his family. Pray for the local ordinary who may or may not have understood the full gravity of the situation when he made the call to permit the funeral, or who may not have been consulted at all! Pray for the priest who celebrated the funeral. Pray that the Church triumphs and defeats Masonry worldwide. Pray that our Church emerge from times of confusion and disarray that it may once again shine as a beacon for all those poor souls who have been deluded by dangerous philosophies.

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

VIDEO: How long can you stand it?

A priest friend of mine posted this elsewhere with the challenge… can you make it to the end of this video?  How long can you stand it before you click off?

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

And to think… some men don’t want to go to church. Who knows why?

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
109 Comments

WARNING! If you suffer from Burke Derangement Syndrome™, DO NOT READ THIS.

At Emangelization there is a long interview with His Eminence Raymond Leo (which means “Lion”) Card. Burke.  His Eminence is not going quietly into the good night, as I am sure his enemies had wanted… since they couldn’t get more.  But I digress.

The interview is arranged around the theme of the state of men in the Church today.

This part is going to make some on the catholic Left have spittle-flecked nutty!

[…]

Sadly, the Church has not effectively reacted to these destructive cultural forces; [He has just listed a few.] instead the Church has become too influenced by radical feminism and has largely ignored the serious needs of men.

My generation has taken for granted the many blessings we were blessed with in our solid family lives and with the Church’s solid formation of us. My generation let all of this nonsense of sexual confusion, radical feminism and the breakdown of the family go on, not realizing that we were robbing the next generations of the most treasured gifts that we had been blessed to receive.

We have gravely wounded the current generations. As a bishop, young people complained bitterly to me, “Why we were not taught these things. Why we were not more clearly taught about the Mass, Confession and traditional devotions?” These things matter for they form a spiritual life and a man’s character.

Going to Confession and to Sunday Mass, praying the Rosary together as a family in the evening, eating meals together, all these things give practical direction in the Christian life. Learning that it is not manly to be vulgar or blasphemous and that a man is welcoming and courteous to others; these might seem like little things but they form a man’s character. Much of this has been lost.

Matthew:   Your Eminence, what has been the impact of this Catholic “man-crisis” on the Church?

Cardinal Burke:  [NB!] The Church becomes very feminized. [Here that repeated ‘popping’ sound?  Those are arteries bursting in the necks and heads of the Left.  Watch for swift retaliation in the liberal press.] Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out. [See my polls on the effect of all male service in the sanctuary on vocations.]

As an example, it became politically incorrect to talk about the Knights of the Altar, an idea that is highly appealing to young men. The Knights of the Altar emphasize the idea that young men offer their chivalrous service at the altar to defend Christ in the sacred realities of the Church. This idea is not welcome in many places today. [Guess who drives this sort of thing away?]

Aspects of the Church’s life that emphasized the man?like character of devotion and sacrifice have been deemphasized. Devotions that required time and effort were simply abandoned. Everything became so easy and when things are easy, men don’t think it is worth the effort. [Ain’t it the truth?]

There has been, and continues to be, serious liturgical abuses that turn men off.

In many places the Mass became very priest?centered, it was like the “priest show”. [Not in the TLM, however.  The priest is completely controlled and made subservient to the action and the true Actor.] This type of abuse leads to a loss of the sense of the sacred, taking the essential mystery out of the Mass. The reality of Christ Himself coming down on the altar to make present His sacrifice on Cavalry gets lost. Men are drawn to the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice but tune out when the Mass becomes a “priest show” or trite.

The rampant liturgical experimentation after Vatican II, much of which was not sanctioned by Vatican II, stripped the Rite of the Mass of much of its careful articulation of the Sacred Mysteries that had been developed over centuries. The Mass seemed to become something very familiar, performed by men; the profound supernatural sense of the Sacred Mystery became obscured.

The loss of the sacred led to a loss of participation of women and men. But I think that men were really turned off by the loss of the sacred. It seems clear that many men are not being drawn into a deeper liturgical spirituality; today, many men are not being drawn to service at the altar.  [Remember Card. Heenan’s remarks?   HERE]

Young men and men respond to rigor and precision and excellence. When I was trained to be a server, the training lasted for several weeks and you had to memorize the prayers at the foot of the altar. It was a rigorous and a carefully executed service. All of a sudden, in the wake of Vatican II, the celebration of the liturgy became very sloppy in many places. It became less attractive to young men, for it was slipshod. [Put the shapeless, characterless white sack on, tie it with a dopey rope cord thing, stand there while the talking and the commercial jingle-like music go on and on and on, carry a cruet over….]

The introduction of girl servers also led many boys to abandon altar service. Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural. The girls were also very good at altar service. So many boys drifted away over time. I want to emphasize that the practice of having exclusively boys as altar servers has nothing to do with inequality of women in the Church.

I think that this has contributed to a loss of priestly vocations. It requires a certain manly discipline to serve as an altar boy in service at the side of priest, and most priests have their first deep experiences of the liturgy as altar boys. If we are not training young men as altar boys, giving them an experience of serving God in the liturgy, we should not be surprised that vocations have fallen dramatically.

[…]

Yes, the Left will now have to issue their own hit pieces again Card. Burke, again.  They will be ad hominem, since they don’t usually deal with substance.  They don’t have to.  They suffer from BDS… BURKE DERANGEMENT SYNDROME™!

UPDATE:

I said that retaliation would start.  It has.   Here is an example.

RNS, not friendly to faithful Catholicism, posted a story on the interview.  Here is a screen shot, including the picture they posted with the story.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 1.17.00

In the piece Gibson goes after Burke and disputes some points, but at least uses a little reason.   Fine.

Now… look at what catholic Crux does.  Another screenshot.  They simply repost David Gibson’s piece from RNS but the repackaged it a little for effect.

Screen Shot 2015-01-08 at 1.22.02

 

Here’s the larger photo chosen by Crux, not RNS.

Cardinal-Burke-Church-Feminine-C-717x450

 

See what they are trying to do?

CRUX: “Burke says the Church has become effeminate, but… tee hee… look!  He’s wearing lace!  See?  SEE?!?  And so are those other guys!  Who’s effeminate?  Tee hee!”

Never mind that people who make insinuations like this a) know nothing of Burke, b) are the same types who go weak-kneed watching people jump around in tights in the aisles of churches, and c) don’t get that the Franciscan Friars in this picture are tougher than nails, they live like mendicants, and don’t even wear shoes in the winter.  The FFI’s would only hang out with the Crux types out of pity and charity and as an act of their outreach and apostolate, but they respect and admire Card. Burke…because they’re men.

What is slimy about what Crux did here – as they show more and more their true colors – is that they did exactly what they would howl against were the tables turned.  Were a faithful Catholic comment on someone’s clothing and then suggest something about their sexuality, they’d have a cow.  Indeed, a series of cows.  A small herd, all mooing.

Finally, avoid the combox at Crux if you have to go over there.  It is as vile a sewer of anonymity-driven toxic waste as what you find at Fishwrap.  Instead, say a prayer for them, perhaps using the Memorare, asking our Blessed Mother’s help to turn some of these folks around before they die with the sins of their hate-filled calumnious and slanderous remarks rotting their souls as they go to the inescapable Judge.  May God have mercy on them.

I’m turning the moderation queue on here after seeing what they are doing in that fever swamp over there.  There may not be many comments visible for a while, since it is time to sleep here.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood, Seminarians and Seminaries | Tagged , , , ,
47 Comments

GUEST POST: “Do blogs change lives?”

Here is some feedback and comments that will keep me going for a while.

“Do blogs change lives? They do when they pay honour to Holy Mother Church and draw us into her treasures. Back in 2006 I did not even know the TLM existed. But thanks to WDTPRS I became intrigued: what is this Traditional Mass about which Fr Z keeps posting?

Enthusiasm was not immediate because there was such a steep learning curve. But what captured me was reading time and time again posts or comments which affirmed that the TLM by its very form offers greater glory to God. If this were so, then I wanted to be there, especially while my country scorns God.

Furthermore, your posts explained that the TLM’s rites and prayers dare to address us as sinners in need of redemption. This kind of communication is what my soul responds to, for I know it is true. Novus Ordo spirituality seems frightened to go there. And what sealed the deal for me on the TLM is that these two realities which are so infinitely far apart—God’s glory and our sinfulness—are bridged by that very reality which is the essence of Holy Mass: the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary. And the TLM is full of references to the Cross and to sacrifice, in too many ways to count. As there is nothing on earth more adorable than Christ on the Cross, then there is nowhere better to be every day than at a TLM.

Now I am a seminarian for an Ecclesia Dei community, and cannot thank God enough. Thanks too to you Fr Z for your blog, especially for those posts around the time of Summorum Pontificum, which insisted that if we hunger for God’s glory, if we hunger for Redemption, if we adore the Cross, then we simply must go and be present at Traditional Masses, again and again and again, and pray and work to understand the sacrifice and to consent to the sacrifice. And God does not disappoint.

For anyone out there who has the beginning of an interest, please please do go to the TLM, and don’t stop going. It will fulfil you.”

It is great that this young man found some inspiration and courage to check out the TLM.  I love this devout enthusiasm and zeal.  Zelus domus tuae!

My path into the Catholic Church was through the Novus Ordo celebrated in close continuity with our Roman liturgical tradition, and with great reverence and splendor.  It was the binding, blending, building experience of both my intellectual and affective conversion.

Posted in Seminarians and Seminaries, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged
7 Comments

ASK FATHER: Catholic wishes to marry “non-denominational Christian”

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

When a nondenominational Christian wishes to marry a Catholic, what must that Christian do if they do not wish to convert to Catholicism?

First, I must say that marrying a non-Catholic isn’t the very best of situations.  Yes, yes.  I know that this happens all the time.  However, I’ll bet that if the Catholic and non-Catholic are in anyway serious about their respective identities, they would rapidly admit my point, especially as children come along.

If the “non-denominational Christian” … by the way, what an odd notion that is – “non-denominational Christian”!  In one sense, Catholics are “non-denominational” because, as members of the Church founded by Christ, Catholics are not a mere denomination.   We ARE Christians in the fullest sense of the word. Catholics are the denomination.  We have it all.  But I digress.

If the non-denominational Christian has received valid baptism, then, in order to marry a Catholic, the couple will need to participate in marriage preparation at the Catholic party’s parish. Subsequently, the pastor, if he believes the couple is adequately prepared for marriage and if he has the well-founded hope that this union will have sacramental potential, he will then request of the local ordinary (usually the bishop or vicar general) permission to perform an interfaith wedding.

Before that takes place, the Catholic party will need to promise to retain his or her Catholic Faith and to do all in his or her power to ensure that that Catholic Faith is handed on to the children of the union.  The non-denominational Christian will not be asked to make these promises.  Instead, he or she must be informed that his or her intended spouse has made them.

The marriage should not take place in the context of a Mass.

If the non-denominational Christian was not validly baptized, all of the above is the same, except that, instead of asking the local ordinary for mere permission, the pastor will need to ask the local ordinary for a dispensation from the law. Canon law (can. 1086 of the Latin Code and can. 803 of the Eastern Code, among other canons) requires that Catholics marry baptized persons. The bishop can dispense from this requirement, if there is a good reason.

By the way, I’m not convinced that, “I’m in love with Harvey, he’s sooooo cute and, and, like, he’s my souuulmaate” is a good reason, especially since many interreligious marriages fail.  But the local ordinary is the one who gets to make that call!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
19 Comments

Card Burke interview on “hot button” topics. Fr. Z rants.

card burkeAt my old stomping ground The Wanderer (I had a weekly column for 11 years) there is an interview with His Eminence Raymond Leo Card. Burke.  Read the whole thing there, but here is a sample of Part One of the interview, with my patented treatment.

[…]

Q. Returning to a point you previously mentioned [about the last, controversial Synod of Bishops], you noted that even though three contentious paragraphs [on divorced, civilly remarried and homosexuals] failed to garner the required two-thirds majority, they were included in the final relatio. You subsequently called for these “hot-button topics” to be removed from consideration. Do you think there is a legitimate possibility that they will be taken off the table prior to the General Synod?
In the meantime, how can faithful Catholics respond to questions regarding the perception of many that the Church is on the verge of changing her teaching? What positive steps can be taken by the laity?

A. I trust that there is a possibility that these topics will be taken off the table prior to the General Synod — that is precisely why I have insisted upon it. But it will not happen easily because those insisting on their consideration are in positions of great influence with regard to the Synod of Bishops.  [Whom I suspect have strong reasons for those paragraphs to remain at the heart of the final resulting document.]
The Church cannot change her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the grave sinfulness of sexual relations outside the matrimonial union and the grave sinfulness of homosexual acts. [Before some nitwit out there says that “Burke is a homophobe!”, note that he speaks of “acts” not “persons”.]
The laity needs to nourish themselves with the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium on marriage, with the teaching that is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They must also give witness to it in their everyday dealings, not only with other Catholics but with people who are not of the Catholic Faith, to make it clear that the Church is not changing her teaching — indeed, that she cannot.  [That’s right.  And it is even more important, by factors of hundreds, for priests and bishops to do this in the clearest possible language.  We must not rest or be complacent, because the … other side is not going to be!]
I am hopeful that there will be opportunities for the lay faithful to take part in days of study with regard to the Church’s teaching on marriage and its beauty. I also hope that there might be demonstrations and other public manifestations in support of the truth about marriage.

Q. “Who am I to judge?” continues to be a phrase that is used and misused by the media and is a source of confusion among many of the lay faithful. In your opinion, what steps need to be taken by the Church’s Magisterium to correct misperceptions of this statement? When is it acceptable to make judgments and when is it not?

A. The phrase “Who am I to judge?” is one that I have to understand according to sound Catholic teaching and practice, namely, “Who am I to judge the individual?” We have always withheld judgment on an individual because to be in grave sin, one must have knowledge and full consent of the will. The Church has always taught that we love the sinner, but we hate the sin.
On the other hand, a person is bound to judge evil acts as evil. We cannot pretend — tolerance cannot fly in the face of truth. We are held to judge if we see an act which is objectively disordered — to make that judgment. For instance, if people are involved in extramarital activities, one must be charitable to them, loving the sinner but at the same time being very clear that the acts they are committing are gravely immoral.

[…]

And then…

[…]

Q. Please comment on the connection between the Sacred Liturgy and the New Evangelization. [A good question!  I think there is a straight line between them, so much so that without a renewal of our sacred worship, using what Summorum Pontificum has given us, no of “New Evangelization” can succeed.] Is the Sacred Liturgy a peripheral matter to the preaching of the Gospel? Or does the Sacred Liturgy play an essential role in the Gospel imperative to proclaim Jesus Christ? If the two activities of the Church are in fact essentially connected, how can this connection be shown more clearly and lived more compellingly within the ordinary parish setting? Does a wide celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass have any part to play in the efforts of the New Evangelization?

A. The Sacred Liturgy is absolutely the first act of the New Evangelization. [YES!  I recently heard another Cardinal speak about various challenges we face and the issue of liturgy didn’t come up until about 47 minutes into the presentation.] Unless we worship God in spirit and in truth, unless we celebrate the Sacred Liturgy with the greatest possible faith in God and faith in the divine action which takes place in Holy Mass, we are not going to have the inspiration and the grace to carry out the New Evangelization.
The Sacred Liturgy shows us the form of the New Evangelization because it is a direct encounter with the mystery of faith: Christ’s redemptive Incarnation for the sake of conquering sin in our lives and winning for us the grace of the divine life, a share in the life of the Holy Trinity through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit into our hearts.
The first three commandments all have to do with the worship of God. It is the Sacred Liturgy which establishes a right relationship with God and with one another which we are called to live in our daily lives.  [Exactly what I am always harping about.]
The way this connection can be more compellingly lived in parish life is by celebrating the Sacred Liturgy in such a way that all of the faithful understand that the priest is acting in the person of Christ. They must understand that it is Christ Himself Who is descending to our altars to make truly present His sacrifice; that they must unite their hearts to His own glorious pierced Heart to cleanse them from sin and thus strengthen them for love of God and love of neighbor.
If the Sacred Liturgy is celebrated in an anthropocentric way, in a horizontal way in which it is no longer evident that it is a divine action, it simply becomes a social activity that can be relativized along with everything else — it doesn’t have any lasting impact on one’s life.  [Alas, the Novus Ordo lends itself, through its structure, wordiness, options, etc., to this horizontality.]
I think the celebration of the Extraordinary Form can have a very significant part to play in the New Evangelization because of its emphasis on the transcendence of the Sacred Liturgy. In other words, it emphasizes the reality of the union of Heaven and earth through the Sacred Liturgy. The action of Christ through the signs of the sacrament, through His priests, is very evident in the Extraordinary Form. It helps us, then, to be more reverent also in the celebration of the Ordinary Form. [And, I’ll add, it is good to use it not just because it helps reverence in the Ordinary Form.  The use of the Extraordinary Form is good in itself and not just because there are other practical knock-on effects.]

[…]

Regarding both issues I excerpted for this post, I remind the readership that …

… if we are not on offense, we are on defense.

We must not be complacent.

We cannot forget about what happened at the last Synod of Bishops and then imagine that everything is going to be smooth and perfect at the next meeting in October 2015.  The “hot button” issues are not going away.  They are not going to die out.  On the contrary.

Also, we have Summorum Pontificum.   USE. IT.  Those of you who have obtained what you want… don’t just sit complacently and imagine that everything is fine now and that you don’t have to do anything else.  In fact, some of you may simply be benefiting from the efforts and sacrifices of others.   GET TO WORK.   Get involved.  Make the use of the older, traditional use of Holy Mass and sacraments spread.   Form an “action item” group.  Develop some projects and goals.   Help priests who want to learn to learn.  Advertise, invite, persuade.  Take out ads in papers.

¡Hagan lío!

Don’t just sit there, all smug, thinking that you a) can’t lose what you have and b) you don’t have to keep working.

If you are not on offense, you are on defense!

Don’t be self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagians!

Think about what Card. Burke has been doing. He hasn’t just sat back or receded into the shadows of his new appointment. He is giving interview and speaking forthrightly. He is not resting because he knows what the stakes are.

We need to have the same attitude. Do not let your past victories be pyrrhic victories.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, ACTION ITEM!, Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Si vis pacem para bellum!, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , ,
25 Comments

ASK FATHER: Priest invites people to stand around altar during consecration

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Today [actually a while back at the time of this posting] the associate pastor, a newly ordained priest, asked us, since there were fewer people than usual present at Mass, to come up after the homily around the altar and “all celebrate Mass together”. The Pastor was there as well. (The new associate pastor is diocesan, but the pastor is from a liberal religious order. I haven’t a clue whose idea this was.)

A few of us stayed in our seats. It did not seem right to go up there. Is it actually wrong? Should I/we do anything about it? (I’m a convert.)

Sigh.

A “newly ordained priest”? And here I thought this silliness was dying off.

It is, of course, but the fact that there are pockets here and there that still pop up is still depressing.  Even as pandemics die out, the occasional case of the disease will present itself.

Father seems not to have obtained a good education on the nature of the priesthood, or the nature of liturgical prayer. Perhaps, as I try to imagine the best scenario, he’s merely trying to impress the aging-hippy pastor with how forward-thinking he is.  Therefore he is putting on display his grasp of the aging pastor’s formation: the summer of love, disco, bell bottoms, liturgical tambourines, etc.

Here’s an idea.   Since Father seems to think that people are “celebrating liturgy” together in the same manner that he is (thus, calling them around the altar), perhaps he ought to share both his Mass stipends and his paycheck with them too.  Fair’s fair, right? Aren’t we all about peace and justice? Schleiermacher’s ghost would approve, but I’ll bet Father won’t go that far.

To your dilemma.  Don’t go up.

Back in 1997 several offices of the Roman Curia cooperated in an authoritative document called Ecclesia de mystery, called in English “Instruction On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest. This instruction clarified the distinct roles of laypeople and of priests. In that document, we find:

In liturgical celebrations each one, minister or layperson, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to that office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.” (SC art. 29). During the liturgy of the eucharist, only the presiding celebrant remains at the altar. The assembly of the faithful take their place in the Church outside the “presbyterium,” which is reserved for the celebrant or concelebrants and altar ministers. [Notitiae 17 (1981) 61]

Bottom line: the lay faithful (except those in liturgical serving roles) are not permitted to be inside the sanctuary, that is, “around the Altar” during the Holy Mass.

What to do?  Other than rolling your eyes and then looking for a different parish for daily Mass, there aren’t many action options.

Depending on the diocese, a letter to the local bishop would probably result in one of three things.

1) A “strongly worded letter” from the bishop to the priest telling him to cut it out;

2) A “strongly worded letter” from the bishop to you telling you to stop calumniating a wonderful priest who empowers the laity;

3) The ceremonial placing of your letter either in the special round file (often used in chanceries for such correspondence) or else in Father’s file, where it will sit until the quinquennial culling.   NB: Letters of complaint about Father’s use of Latin or maniples seem to have longer shelf-life for some reason.

Good luck.  Pray that Father finds a better priestly mentor and then grows up.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Priests and Priesthood |
20 Comments