From this Sunday, traditionally called 1st Sunday of the Passion, it is customary to veil images in churches.
What is going on where you are?
This is a fine old tradition. It has to do with deprivation of the senses and the liturgical dying of the Church in preparation for the Lord’s tomb and resurrection.
We are our rites.
Was there a good point in the sermon you heard for this 1st Passion Sunday? The 5th Sunday of Lent?
Let us know.
It’s time for the return trip, to be home for Sunday.
The sign I was sitting under.
As I wait for the first leg of the journey, I reflect on the joys of traveling by air. My stay in the members lounge is at least better than hanging out at the gate. For example, I settled into the “QUIET AREA”. You know the drill: one of those areas with a sign with an image of a phone overlaid with the circle and bar through it that says in CAPS: QUIET AREA. This quiet zone (QZone) was invaded by a woman with children with loud gaming systems. When this was pointed out to her by someone, her response was to point to the sign and say “I’m not using my cellphone!” They, too, were sitting directly under one of these signs.
So I moved.
Now I am being treated to the fairly loud belches of an older fellow in a pastel sweater and matching socks. But … when he got a call on his mobile, he got up and moved away even though we are not in the QZone.
Anyway, it has been a good trip. I all too briefly visited my mother for her 80th birthday and then gave a talk to a Newman Center group on “Modernism 2.o”. I am still furious that the Dodgers moved to Arizona or I probably would have tried to take in a Spring Training game.
UPDATE: Now the QZoners are carrying on a loud conversation with a couple some yards away. The irony is that the QZ sign is directly over her chair. That said, it is time to head to the gate. 
UPDATE
On board. So far no one has started to trim her toe nails or spit her tobacco juice into a beer can.
I have seen, however, some covert “vaping”. I suspect that that is not allowed flights now. But that’s a safe bet.
It is “vaping” with one p, right? A whole new phenomenon.
UPDATE
Apparently our vehicle doesn’t have any fuel. And so we are waiting. It seems too many flights were scheduled in too short a period.
Still, I have heard that it’s good to have fuel, so waiting is probably okay.
I also built in an adequate layover in my itinerary. Even though airlines pad their departure and arrival times, so as to have a higher on-time percentage, less and less often do I choose tight connections. The only extra hour or so off total length is just not worth the close calls.
UPDATE
Okay they are hooked up and giving us fuel. Meanwhile, speaking of vaping, vapor is pouring in with cold AC air creating dripping condensation on the cabin interior. It’s humid here. Not exactly the firing up of the Apollo XIII CM but… when you are bored you start to make stranger leaps.
UPDATE
Next leg. There is some sort of shapeless groovy techno-Euro pop being pumped in over the speakers. I’ve already heard a couple people mumble about it as they make their way to the seats.
I think this music isn’t actually performed by anyone.
This is what we had to listen to. I held my phone up to the cabin speaker.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
My fiance was baptised (as well as communion and confirmed) in a catholic church in Sicily and is unable to obtain his baptism certificate. What do we do in this situation? Can we still get married in the Church?
A recently-issued copy of the baptismal record is required for a Catholic marriage for a couple reasons.
First, and most importantly, it establishes the fact that the person in question is indeed a baptized Catholic.
Secondly, it demonstrates that the person is presumably free to marry. Had the person been married in the Catholic Church, notice of the wedding should/would have been sent to the parish of baptism. The fact of the marriage would have been recorded in the parish registers and, therefore, on the baptismal certificate. That’s why certificates have to have been issued fairly recently.
Thirdly, it provides information where this notice should be sent once the wedding is complete.
Baptismal records are sometimes difficult to get. Language barriers, destruction of buildings and record books, war, lack of knowledge of where one was baptized … all of these and other reasons, not to mention lazy priests, hinder attempts.
If a record is impossible to obtain, there are a couple possible solutions.
Someone who was actually at the baptism can provide testimony. If the one baptized was an adult, he could attest to his own baptism. Photographs, notices, family letters can sometimes be used to prove the fact of baptism. In some cases, proof of First Holy Communion or a confirmation certificate can be used.
There would be an explanation of why a certificate was not obtained. Just because the baptism took place overseas is not a good reason. ALL Catholic parishes, through the entire world, are required to keep these records. There would also need to be testimony taken from people who knew the person during his marriageable years, who could attest that the person had not been previously married.
In a worst-case scenario, if there is absolutely no objective proof forthcoming that the person had been baptized, and no witnesses who can attest to this, the person could be conditionally baptized. This is a last-resort option, since we really should do everything we can to avoid giving conditional sacraments.
This is also a reason why marriages at SSPX chapels and completely independent and fringe chapels are so problematic. There are questions not only of validity but also of record keeping.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I go to both the older and newer forms of the Roman Rite at my parish church and receive Holy Communion kneeling / on the tongue at the new form.
Instead of saying “?Body of Christ” when I go up to receive, Father gives Says ” Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam ætérnam. Amen” JUST FOR ME!
Is this a liturgical abuse? (albeit from the best of intentions) found it odd but haven’t spoken to him about it because I’m not sure.
I’m torn.
On the one hand, this is how a “mutual enrichment” of the two Forms of the Roman Rite will eventually come about.
On the other hand, and especially at this time, I think we need to hold pretty close to the “Say the Black, Do the Red.”
Using the older distribution form in the newer form of Mass is, objective, not in keeping with the rubrics of the newer form, wherein the distribution form is spelled out pretty clearly. From that point of view it is a violation of the rubrics. Is it a liturgical abuse? Yes, and no. No one, not even a priest, has the right to change the texts. And yet, it isn’t as if the priest is making up his own form for distribution. He is using a time honored form that is presently used in the Extraordinary Form.
How serious is this as an abuse? Not very. And if this is a one off, that is, he has done this for one person and isn’t doing it for everyone at every Mass, I think it can be set aside.
Were I this priest’s bishop, and this were reported to me as an abuse, I would punish him by suggesting that he use blended Scotch instead of a single malt for one week.
UPDATE:
I had a couple emails about the reverse: using the simple, Novus Ordo form, “Corpus Christi” during a TLM or, worse, the vernacular “The Body of Christ”.
It is slightly wrong for to use the older form during the newer Mass. It is much more wrong to use the newer form during the older Mass.
Not only are the sensibilities of those who attend regularly the TLM more finely attuned, but the very nature of the rites call for this more exacting formula of distribution. For one thing, the form is intimately tied to the form the priest says for his own Communion. That is not the case in the Novus Ordo, where the forms are entirely different. No solidarity there.
I have no time for the lame excuse whined up by priests that the older form for distribution is toooo haaaard. B as in B. S as in S. Just. Learn. It.
Remember, according to Universae Ecclesiae 24 and 28, in the TLM we don’t have altar girls, we don’t have Communion in the hand, and we priests must stick to the older, full formula for distribution of Communion rather than use the innovation, the simple Novus Ordo form.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on excommunication (from 1908) says an excommunicated person can’t participate in any liturgies, i.e. he can’t even be present. The CIC only says he can’t minister or administer the sacraments. Is the CE out of date or is the CIC not giving all applicable law?
The old Catholic Encyclopedia, while a good source to start with for certain things, is out of date.
According to the law currently in force, an excommunicated person is not excluded from attending Holy Mass. In fact she is obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days just like everyone else.
She may not, however, receive Holy Communion. And depending on the reason for the excommunication and the faculties of the confessor, she may not receive sacramental absolution until the censure is lifted… except in danger of death.
We no longer have the category of excommunicate who is also vitandus, to be avoided, shunned. That was rarely imposed and was done away with in the 1983 Code. There was also, once, a tolerandus category I believe. I can’t help of thinking of Card. Kasper’s odd solution for the divorced and civilly remarried, to be seen as “tolerated but not accepted” insofar as Communion is concerned. How odd.
A handy resource is Dr. Peter’s book HERE
I direct the attention of the whole readership to a video of a sermon of my old friend His Excellency Most Reverend Alexander Sample, Archbishop of Portland.
He is celebrating a Pontifical Mass at the Throne. He preaches about the unity of the Church, about a “house divided”.
Every single one of you who desire the Extraordinary Form (and those who hate it) ought to listen carefully to the Archbishop’s message.
I echo with him… imagine what we could accomplish were we to set aside some of our minor differences and work together in a more unified way.
Sandro Magister has some analysis of the lead up to next October’s Synod on the Family.
It might surprise you.
The Synod Market Index. Kasper Down, Caffarra Up
Even Pope Francis is distancing himself from the former and taking sides with the latter. And staying on good terms with Cardinal Müller. And promoting the African Sarah. All unyielding defenders of the Catholic doctrine on marriage
ROME, March 20, 2015 – “This does not resolve anything,” Pope Francis has said with regard to the idea of giving communion to the divorced and remarried. Much less if they “want” it, demand it. Because communion “is not a badge, a decoration. No.”
In his latest big interview Jorge Mario Bergoglio threw cold water on the expectations for substantial change in the doctrine and practice of Catholic marriage, which he himself had indirectly fostered:
“Overblown expectations,” he called them. With no more references to the innovative theses of Cardinal Walter Kasper, which he had repeatedly extolled in the past but now seems to be keeping at a distance.
Click to buy!
On the other hand, for some time now Pope Francis has looked with growing attention and esteem at another cardinal theologian, who upholds ideas on the “Gospel of marriage” that are perfectly in line with tradition: the Italian Carlo Caffarra, archbishop of Bologna. [Caffarra was a contributor to the Five Cardinals Book™.]As a professor of moral theology, Caffarra was a specialist in marriage, family, procreation. And this is why John Paul II wanted him at the head of the pontifical institute for studies on marriage and the family that he created in 1981 at the Lateran university, following the 1980 synod dedicated precisely to these themes.
So a stir was created last October by the exclusion of any representative of that institute[!] – which since its foundation has spread all over the world – from the first session of the synod on the family.
But now this gap has been filled, because last March 14 Pope Francis appointed among the advisers of the general secretariat of the second and last session of the synod, scheduled for October of this year, none other than the vice-president of the pontifical John Paul II institute for studies on marriage and the family, Professor José Granados. [Although we have to look at the other people who were appointed.]
As for Caffarra, if the Italian episcopal conference does not elect him this May among its four delegates at the synod, the pope will certainly see to including him among the synod fathers, as he did for the previous session.
The archbishop of Bologna is one of the five anti-Kasper cardinals who assembled their ideas in the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ” published in Italy by Cantagalli on the eve of the last synod and now translated into ten languages. [Buy in USA HERE Buy in UK HERE]
And right from the start he was one of the most determined and incisive critics of the bombshell speech read by Kasper at the consistory of February 2014:
In this extensive interview with “Il Foglio” published on March 15, 2014, Caffarra said among other things, with regard to communion for the divorced and remarried:
“Those who advance this hypothesis do not have an answer to a very simple question: what about the first marriage, ratified and consummated? The proposed solution leads one to think that the first marriage remains intact, but that there is also a second form of cohabitation that the Church legitimizes. Therefore there is an extramarital exercise of human sexuality that the Church considers legitimate. But with this comes a denial of the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. At this point one could ask oneself: so why not approve cohabitation at will? So why not relationships between homosexuals? This is not only a question of practice, it also touches upon doctrine. Unavoidably. One may say that it doesn’t, but it does. Not only that. It introduces a custom that in the long run determines this idea in the people, and not only among Christians: there is no such thing as an absolutely indissoluble marriage. And this is certainly against the Lord’s will.”
Further below, in its entirety, is Caffarra’s latest position statement on marriage and family: a conference he gave last March 12 in Rome at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross.
But first it will be helpful to recall other facts that highlight the growing approach of Pope Francis toward Kasper’s critics.
[…]
Read the rest there.
Is the tide turning, or is this a tactic?
From a reader:
A positive anecdote from the penance service from my parish last night (a different parish than the aforementioned one):
The retreat master (a Jesuit) was prepping the penitents for confession and said “…AND I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANY NUMBERS! DON’T FOCUS ON THAT SORT OF THING! START WITH SOMETHING YOU ARE GRATEFUL FOR” [face palm] and all of the local priests (good men but none of whom are famous for their orthodoxy or traditional leaning) as one rolled their eyes and shook their heads. It was a great moment.
Another Jesuit. What a gift they continue to be.
We are obliged to confess all our mortal sins in both kind and number. That means, what sort of sin and how many times or some indication of frequency if you can’t be precise (which is fairly common).
Everyone, repeat after me…
both kind and number
both kind and number
both kind and number
The Sacrament of Penance, or Reconciliation, is not for a chat about the great things going on in your life, how you’ve been “pretty much a good person”, or making excuses. Cut through the fog and confession SINS. Add just the circumstances that might make a real difference (such as, I stole the sandwich because my daughter and I are homeless and starving, or I stole the milk bottle from an elderly woman on a fixed income). Do not chat, do not hesitate, do not be afraid.
Examine your consciences and GO TO CONFESSION!
I saw this at The Pill (aka The Tablet aka RU-486), which makes it all the more enjoyable to read.
Vatican liturgy secretary rules out possibility of Catholics using 1998 Mass translation
A Vatican archbishop has ruled out the possibility of Catholics being able to use a different English translation of the Mass.
There have been growing calls for the 1998 version to be made available [Right… growing. Tens of people have cried out for the rejected 1998 version.] as critics are unhappy with the current missal text which is judged clunky, awkward, and a too literal translation of the Latin.
The 1998 text was approved by English-speaking bishops’ conferences after 17 years of work. It was, however, rejected by the Vatican and a revised translation, introduced in November 2011, was then implemented.
But Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary to the Congregation for Divine Worship, said using a different English version of the missal could not happen.
The archbishop told The Tablet[which makes in so much better] that the Roman liturgy “expresses the unity of the entire Church” and that while the 1998 version translated the 1975 Roman Missal, a new Latin Missal was introduced in 2002 thus making the 1998 edition outdated. [It must be admitted, however, that the necessary adjustments could have been made to the 1998 version. However, there were translation norms published in Liturgian authenticam.]
Archbishop Roche, who as Chairman of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) oversaw the introduction of the current English Mass text, also said that “the principles governing the translation of liturgical texts of the Roman Rite had altered by 2001 which would have, in any case, required a new translation of the Roman Missal.”
He was referring to the document Liturgiam Authenticam [as I said] whch called for translations to convey the “integral manner” of the original Latin “even while being verbally or syntactically different from it.”
This week, a former chairman of ICEL said many Catholics are dissatisfied with the current Mass text and should be allowed to use the 1998 version.
The Bishop Emeritus of Galloway, Maurice Taylor, who was in charge of ICEL from 1997-2002 said: “Many people are dissatisfied and unhappy with the present translation which we have to use. Our bishops have an opportunity to remedy the situation by asking the Holy See to grant its recognitio of the 1998 translation, a text that was approved by all the English speaking bishops’ conferences which are full members of ICEL.”
He added: “A precedent for having a choice of approved translations of the Missal already exists. Those who prefer to continue with the [2011] Missal, on grounds of either taste or expense, would do so; others would opt for the 1998 translation.” [Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those who want for the opportunity to use the 1998 version are supportive of those who want the opportunity to use the 1962 Missale Romanum.]
In The Tablet earlier this month Jesuit theologian Fr Gerald O’Collins wrote an open letter to English-speaking bishops, urging them to press for adoption of the 1998 text.
I haven’t posted this for a while.
Tabula delenda est.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
Greg Hlatky on Some notes for your Sunday Mass in the Vetus and the Novus Ordo: ““By pursuing perfection we will achieve excellence.” – Vince Lombardi”
on Some notes for your Sunday Mass in the Vetus and the Novus Ordo: “Regarding memorization, I read a book about the man who became the leader of the Christian democrats in West Germany…”
on ROME 26/10-11 – Day 36: Ultimate: “Have a safe trip Father! After my recent trip I understand how hard it is to leave Rome.”
on ROME 26/10-11 – Day 36: Ultimate: “Right you are, revueltos67. Back to the board: 1. f2f3+ Kh5 2. g3g4+ Kxh4 3. Qe7+ Qg5 4. Qe1++”
on Germans… “for many” in the Consecration formula, rather than “for all”: “That part of OS has been poorly translated. It does not say the Church has no authority. It said the…”
on WDTPRS – 5 November: Feast of the Holy Relics. These bones shall live again. Wherein Fr. Z rants.: “That reminds me of a story I read. St. John XXIII visited the convent of the Holy Spirit in Rome;…”
on YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS: “The parents of Gemma Faustina are asking for prayers for their unborn daughter. We are asking for the intercession of…”
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:
