Canadian Anglicans vote to unite with Rome

From the blog canterbury tales:

A recent meeting of leaders in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) voted to unite with the Roman Catholic Church through the Apostolic Constitution created by Pope Benedict XVI.  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

[…]

Read more there.

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

Posted in Brick by Brick, New Evangelization, Non Nobis and Te Deum, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
5 Comments

Reason #668948 for the new, corrected translation

For 9 September: Saint Peter Claver in the Ordinary Form.

COLLECT (2002 MR):
Deus, qui beatum Petrum servorum servum effecisti
eumque mira in eis iuvandis caritate et patientia roborasti,
eius nobis intercessione concede,
ut, qua Iesu Christi sunt, quaerentes,
proximos opere et veritate diligamus
.

NEW CORRECTED ICEL (2011):
O God, who made Saint Peter Claver a slave of slaves
and strengthened him with wonderful charity and patience as he came to their help,
grant, through his intercession,
that, seeking the things of Jesus Christ,
we may love our neighbor in deeds and in truth
.

I am not making this up.

LAME-DUCK ICEL (1973):
God of mercy and love,
you offer all peoples
the dignity of sharing in your life.
By the example and prayers of Saint Peter Claver,
strengthen us to overcome all racial hatreds
and to love each other as brothers and sisters
.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged , ,
15 Comments

QUAERITUR: Host became stuck in my throat. Did I commit sacrilege?

hostsFrom a reader:

I went to Mass and Benediction this evening and at Communion time, and I under-estimated how small the pieces of host were in my mouth before swallowing, and there was a really large sharp chunk that got stuck in my throat.

I tried going into the washroom to wash it down with water from the sink, but I could still feel it in there stabbing my throat. (I think our priest uses the hosts used for intinction because they’re rather crispy and don’t dissolve in the mouth.)

Father was busy in the Adoration Chapel, so I couldn’t get his assistance on what to do. The only other thing I could think of was to wait until I got home and eat a ball of bread and a glass of milk to force it down like I was taught in my first aid course.

Now I’m wondering if I committed a sacrilege?

No.  To my mind you did not commit a sacrilege.

These things happen.

I commend you for your concern and your obvious reverence for the Eucharist and your desire to receive Communion properly.  Also, I remind you that we are human beings.  While the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic lives, it is at the same time “for us”, and we are human beings.  When you consume the Host and, because of some problem, start thinking in terms of first aid, you should do something so that you are not any longer in discomfort.

We believe that the Host and all small particles, the Precious Blood and small droplets, are the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.  This is the perfect and infallible teaching of the Church and every Catholic is bound to believe this. Those who deny it are heretics.  However, we don’t really know how small is “small”, in the sense of our ability to recognize the accidents of bread and wine which remain after transubstantiation. We also would have this difficulty when it comes to a Host which is already being broken down after consumption, even it something gets “stuck” somewhere.

Because we can’t recognize precisely when the accidents of bread or wine cease and the Real Presence of Christ in what remains has ceased, it is entirely reasonable to be cautious and conservative rather than casual and careless about what is a great Mystery.

That said, I can’t see how it is wrong to have a drink of water in order to solve the problem.  And if that doesn’t work, move to a more aggressive “first aid” type of solution.

I think you were cautious and I cannot find any fault in what you did.

Your question does raise the old question of whether or not people should chew or not chew.

Some people prefer, and were taught, never to chew the Host they receive in Communion.  They prefer to allow the Host to dissolve to an extent before swallowing.  Others will chew to an extent, as they would food.  Sometimes, something of a Host will stick to dental work, which requires the communicant to be very careful.

For the sake of the conversation, in John 6 one of the words the Lord uses about “eating” his flesh actually means “chew, gnaw”.  He also uses a simpler word “eat”, but that “chew” is there.  Furthermore, to satisfy our need to be Unreconstructed Osssified Manualists, in a manual by Heribert Jone, OFM, we find the opinion that if one only allows the Host the dissolve in the mouth, one does not receive the Sacrament.   (Remember that there is the Sacrament itself and the effects of the Sacrament.)

I once did a WDTPRS POLL on this issue and here are the results:

How do you consume the Host?

Generally avoid chewing and allow It to dissolve or soften before swallowing (63%, 1,374 Votes)
Generally chew to some degree and then swallow (37%, 815 Votes)

Total Voters: 2,189

The parameters of the POLL question change when “substantial bread” is used.  Sometimes the “substantial bread” is so tough and the pieces so large that it can be hard to swallow it.

ANECDOTE: In my seminary in the USA – a horrible place filled with heresy and the black grief of the world – we had “substantial bread” that was so hard, so impossible to get down that even the liberals (the majority) complained about it.  We receive back the answer that “the longer you chew, the more of a sacrament it is.”  To this day that remark remains one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in a Catholic context.

So, without suggesting that there is a direct proportion between how long you chew and how much the Lord is present or the graces efficacious, I will suggest that if the Hosts used are quite resistant or large, it isn’t wrong to chew so as to break them down enough to be able to swallow them easily.  If there isn’t “more Jesus”, neither do you “hurt Jesus” by chewing a Host.

At this point I will recreate that POLL.   Please “chews” your answer and give your reasons in the combox. I admonish you to be respectful to each other.  It isn’t hard to lock someone out of the combox for good.

How do you consume the Host?

View Results

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, POLLS | Tagged , , , , ,
47 Comments

A few observations about POTUS address to Congress.

Having taken a strong antiemetic, I watched Pres. Obama’s address to the Joint Session of Congress.

First, people say this fellow is a great orator.  Great orators craft their speech for the occasion.  I can’t fathom how “up your game” and “you guys” was apt.

Were I in the Republican leadership, I would take the good parts of what he is proposing, and carve them out as individual pieces of legislation and present them for a vote.  Do what the President asks piece by piece, in separate pieces of legislation, rather than as a whole bill.

“I intend to take that message to every corner of the country.”  Given the tone with which it was delivered, did it sound to you like a threat?   Then he called on Americans to raise their voice.  That is what a demagogue does.   He purposely set traps for the opposition.  He wanted Americans to raise their voices.  That is what the Tea Party has been doing, no?  But I don’t think POTUS wants them around.

However, the way I heard it, this address degenerated into a shamefully obvious campaign speech in content and in tone.  Eventually he just bludgeoned the listeners in the chamber into silence.   This was the springboard for a campaign speech, as I heard it develop.  Shame.

Am I wrong?

One thing I was pleased about, was the pace.  Usually this fellow is a dreadful speaker.  He pace is sepulchral.   Perhaps that comes from too much reliance on using a text.  Tonight, however, the pace was determined by the need to finish before the beginning of the big NFL football game.

I think every network should have had a little ticking football in the corner, flashing in a screen bug.  THAT’ll get the attention of presidential candidates!

Please, Congress! Pass legislation – right away! – requiring that Presidents can only address Congress on the day of the opening of the NFL season.  I call on you to pass this right away!

At the end he managed to mention God when quoting a standard patriotic text… “one nation, under God”.  He said God!  He has cut it when quoting the Declaration of Independence and don’t even try to suggest he forgot it or slipped.

And even though the President finished a little early, the White House then put out a notice that there is some credible terrorist threat.  I may be cynical, but I think that had something to do with cutting off analysis.

So, what next?

UPDATE:

Are products stamped “Made in America” or “Made in the USA”? I’m asking.  Really.

And when POTUS uttered the sentiment about selling more American products abroad, was Jeffrey Immelt really sitting with Mrs. Obama?

Posted in The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
69 Comments

“The Church is not defined by her failures. And you and I are not defined by our critics”

From Archbishop Chaput’s sermon during his installation:

This Church in Philadelphia faces very serious challenges these days. There’s no quick fix to problems that are so difficult, and none of us here today, except the Lord Himself, is a miracle worker. But it’s important to remember and to believe the Church is not defined by her failures. And you and I are not defined by our critics or by those who dislike us. What we do in the coming months and years to respond to these challenges – that will define who we really are. And in engaging that work, we need to be Catholics first, and always. Jesus Christ is the center of our lives, and the Church is our mother and teacher. Everything we do should flow from that.

The text of the whole sermon is HERE.

Listen to the sermon:

Posted in New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
13 Comments

Archbp. Chaput quotes St. Augustine on bishops during his installation Mass

During his sermon for his installation in the Cathedral Basilica in Philadelphia, Archbishop Chaput used several good analogies, including that of an arranged marriage (versus romantic love which often today winds up in divorce).

However, he used a striking quote from St. Augustine of Hippo’s Exposition of Psalm 127,2.

He used a different translation and cut it down, but this is the whole paragraph from which he quoted.  It is worth reading the whole thing.

2. But that which is the house of God is also a city. For the house of God is the people of God; for the house of God is the temple of God….This is Jerusalem: she has guards: as she has builders, labouring at her building up, so also has she guards. To this guardianship these words of the Apostle relate: “I fear, lest by any means your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:3 He was guarding the Church. He kept watch, to the utmost of his power, over those over whom he was set. The Bishops also do this. For a higher place was for this reason given the Bishops, that they might be themselves the superintendents and as it were the guardians of the people. For the Greek word Episcopus, and the vernacular Superintendent, are the same; for the Bishop superintends, in that he looks over. As a higher place is assigned to the vinedresser in the charge of the vineyard, so also to the Bishops a more exalted station is alloted. And a perilous account is rendered of this high station, except we stand here with a heart that causes us to stand beneath your feet in humility, and pray for you, that He who knows your minds may be Himself your keeper. Since we can see you both coming in and going out; but we are so unable to see what are the thoughts of your hearts, that we cannot even see what ye do in your houses. How then can we guard you? As men: as far as we are able, as far as we have received power. And because we guard you like men, and cannot guard you perfectly, shall you therefore remain without a keeper? Far be it! For where is He of whom it is said, “Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain?” Psalm 126:1. We are watchful on our guard, but vain in our watchfulness, except He who sees your thoughts guard you. He keeps guard while you are awake, He keeps guard also while you are asleep. For He has once slept on the Cross, and has risen again; He no longer sleeps. Be Israel: for “the Keeper of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers.” Yea, brethren, if we wish to be kept beneath the shadow of God’s wings, let us be Israel. For we guard you in our office of stewards; but we wish to be guarded together with you. We are as it were shepherds unto you; but beneath that Shepherd we are fellow-sheep with you. We are as it were your teachers from this station; but beneath Him, the One Master, we are schoolfellows with you in this school.

Watchman, watched over.

Shepherd, fellow sheep.

Teacher, student.

Above in station, but below in humility.

The text of the whole sermon is HERE.

Listen to the sermon.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Patristiblogging, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
3 Comments

When diocesan priests choose to use exclusively the Extraordinary Form. Fr. Z rants, a lot.

baby foodOur friends at Rorate have an interesting piece, which you should read in toto over there.

Here are some salient points.

Can one be a diocesan priest and
celebrate the traditional Mass exclusively?
A true motivational example
[We [Rorate] consider this to be one of our most relevant and inspiring posts ever.]

Soon after the publication of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, three priests of the Diocese of Novara (Piedmont, Italy) tried to celebrate the Traditional Mass exclusively (we reported on these developments here and here).  [I, also. One of the posts is here.]

In an interview released a few days ago, Father Alberto Secci tells his story, and presents us with the wonderful account of his life after Summorum. Yes, there is a life for diocesan priests celebrating the Sacraments according to the ancient use exclusively. And it can be beautiful, and powerful, and glorious, despite the normal difficulties of life.

Can you imagine what would happen if all diocesan priests chose to do this?” This is the kind of weak argument one would expect to hear – it is not one that holds water, not with us, being on the same level as, “There should not be monks, for mankind would cease to exist if all men became exemplary monks”: yes it would, but no they wouldn’t… What we hope to provide by this example is that there can be comfort and consolation for that extremely small number of priests who choose to make use of their right of celebrating in the “Extraordinary Form” in a radical way. And why should that choice shock us? Almost all choose to celebrate the “Ordinary Form” in a radical and exclusive way, and they are not villified for this. [True.] There is tribulation in these priests’s radical choice, [Very true.] and that is fine: the priests who choose this path must be completely aware that they will be removed, moved, transferred, demoted, despised, mocked and ridiculed, made an example; they will have to give up favors, ecclesiastical careers, sabbatical years, special appointments; [Absolutely true… for now still true.] but, thanks to Summorum, they may face all this in perfect peace of conscience, with a Mass, that, in the words of a great cardinal, provides “greater spiritual fruit”. And, as for the tribulation, if you may modestly allow us to quote a great layman, “they therefore, I say, that are in tribulation, have on the other side a great cause to take in their grief great inward comfort and spiritual consolation.” (St. Thomas More, “A dialogue of comfort against tribulation”).

Summorum is the charter of manumission of traditional-minded priests; [Since day one I have been calling it the Emancipation Proclamation.] it is good that those who contemplate making the same radical choice of these Italian heroic priests know that they are not alone, that, when there is a will, there is a way. If at least one single diocesan priest is moved by this translation to at least consider the possibility of following this radical path, then all our work here in Rorate over all these years will have been worth every second. This is dedicated to you, dear diocesan priests: if they can do it, so can you.
___________________________________

[Interview granted by Don Alberto Secci to Marco Bongi]
[Source: Una Fides. Translation: contributor Francesca Romana.]

[…]

You can go over the Rorate and read more.

An intriguing, and provocative, post, nicht wahr?

It is also pretty easy for lay people to suggest this to diocesan priests.  Lay people, in making these suggestions, have to be willing to stand there with those priests and give them cover and help bind their wounds when they are dealt with (as one can predict) by their bishops.  No one in the Church is, these days, as vulnerable to attack from within and without as diocesan priests.  Believe me.

BTW… I am adding this entry to my category “New Evangelization”.

But now allow me to rant for a while.

Some questions are raised by this post at Rorate.

I have long said that priests are not ordained “for a book”.  They are ordained to serve God’s people.  Priests have to be ready to give people what they need from sacrificial love for them, charity.  This means looking to what is best for the people, even if it means sacrificing their own preferences.

On that basis, then, we have to think about the state of the Church today in our respective places.  Older people haven’t had the older form of Mass for decades.  Many haven’t a clue what it is.  Some want it or are curious but don’t know it.  Consider also the state of catechesis, the weakened role of priests in many parishes and dioceses, the corrosion of our Catholic identity which cannot be reversed by a single stroke, the problems that were caused 40 years ago by sudden changes.

At the same time, I maintain that no renewal of any of these aspects of Catholic life can take place without a revitalization of our liturgical worship. Furthermore, I think that Pope Benedict’s provisions in Summorum Pontificum are a key element in such a revitalization.

Back to preferences.

Long-time readers here will recall that I liken addressing these problems to the feeding of children and the feeding of adults.  Think of the Letter to the Hebrews 5:11-12:

About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.  For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food.

In the Gospel of John the Lord says:

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.”

The hard teaching of the Lord in John 6 notwithstanding, the Lord also said the above in John 16.

Shepherds, modeling their work after that the Savior who is our Chief Shepherd and High Priest, and His Vicar, must give the flock what they can bear and then change what they give as the capacity of the flock changes.

T-Bone SteakParents do not give their toothless babes the T-Bone and Cabernet Sauvignon which they prefer for themselves.   They give their children whatever goo they need until they can bear more.

Some will find this provocative, but those who think that the Extraordinary Form is more like the T-Bone and the Ordinary Form like the goo, perhaps should consider that we need a little patience in the way we approach the spiritual needs of the flock.

The new English translation will help the flock move from goo to food cut up into tiny pieces.  After that, with changes to music, a shift in the ars celebrandi, etc., I – ever an optimist – think that many people will crave the T-Bone and clamor for it.  Some won’t.  There are always some who will stick to smoothies and tofu (which, by the way, increases estrogen).

I am using these stark images not to be inflammatory, but rather to hammer home the point that priests also have to consider the state of their flock and how fast they can move, personal preferences aside.  From charity, it may be necessary for a priest who despises the Ordinary Form nevertheless to use it, with the view of what people can handle hic et nunc… here and now.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not like the liberals or dissenters who ran down and protested the production of a new translation into English of the Missale Romanum.  They were for the most part condescending about the capacity of people understand the new language, etc.  I think people can adjust well.  At the same time, when our Catholic identity has been so eroded, enervated, compromised, is it smart for a priest to try to take people from zero to sixty in a few seconds?  Put the whole big T-Bone down in front of the 5 year old?

There may be some communities ready for such a shift because they have had good pastors along the way, men who have tried to apply a “hermeneutic of continuity” in their pastoral and liturgical practice.  But what about most communities?

Another thing.

As a matter of charity, priests have the obligation to protect themselves and their standing for the sake of the flock they hope to serve.

Many officers desire to be with their men when they are ordered into battle.  Some can and must lead their men into the fire.  But there are some officers who must keep themselves safe and alive so that they can direct the battle and help keep their troops alive while attaining their objective.  It is irresponsible for officers directing their troops needlessly to expose themselves to harm.  Getting killed or wounded in the midst of a fire-fight could result in the death of everyone else as well together with a disastrous failure of mission.   Similarly, priests – who are in great shortage and will be in greater shortage – have an obligation to take care of themselves so that they can work as officers for the Church Militant.  Since some officers are far better than others, those better officers, knowing what the stakes are, have an even greater responsibility not to get shot up by the enemy (read = chancery, diocesan curia).

Let’s face facts.  These days there isn’t always a warm relationship between chanceries and priests in the field.  And in some places there is still profound hostility, though the baggage of days is now passing, on the part of some men of a certain age who still hold positions of power.  I can show you the scars.

I have great sympathy with the notion that a priest should be able to opt for the Extraordinary Form as his chief manner of saying Holy Mass, administering sacraments, blessing, etc.  But there are some other factors which, depending on the circumstances (the history of the parish and the pasts and present priests, the present bishop and his underlings, etc.) may render the choice of the Extraordinary Form less than prudent… at least for a time.  And there are the provisions and the words of the Holy Father himself about the Ordinary Form which must not be set aside if we are going to embrace his other words about the Extraordinary Form and its importance in his, as I call it, Marshall Plan.

I think you can tell by what I write in what direction priests should try to guide people.

Some may object along these lines: “But Father! But Father!  Going back to your military battle analogy, if someone is badly wounded, you need swift, not gradual action.  Sometimes you need to do something invasive, like open a chest or cut off a limb, and you need to do it right now!  We are in such a bad state of things today that we need bold action, not gradual.  Therefore, we should sweep aside the Novus Ordo and bring in the Extraordinary Form in order to save the dying soldiers of the Church Militant.”

Okay.  That is an argument.  However, I will go back to the analogy myself.  Perhaps the bishop is the surgeon at the field hospital, which the parish priest is the corpsman on the line.  While we praise corpsman and chaplains who will risk death to help the wounded, when they get killed there are many others who can no longer benefit from their critical work.  Medics need to stabilize the wounded, while bishops do the big interventions.  Not many corpsman can, in the field under fire, open a chest or amputate a limb.

Analogies can be multiplied, of course.  We can do this all day in comment after comment below.  The fact remains that Fr. X can do something dramatic in his place and Fr. Y has to move more slowly.  In either case, Father has to weigh the good of the flock against his own preferences.

And doesn’t this apply to liberal, dissenting priests and bishops as well?  If they realize that what they are doing is not in keeping with the Church’s teachings or the vision offered by Pope Benedict through gentle examples and the expansion of the rights of priests, then should they not – in charity – set aside their own liberal and dissenting preferences for the sake of the good of the flock and adjust their courses?   The key is, I think, discerning what the good of the flock is and, in sacrificial love, work for that good.

Personally, I think that moving in the direction of implementation, at whatever pace possible, will be part of this, because of the critical need to revitalize our Catholic identity.  We simply must reintegrate the traditions which work and reconnect with our forebears.

In any event, thus endeth the rant.

The Rorate post will provoke some interesting discussion.  I hope what I posted can be seen as a positive contribution.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Pope of Christian Unity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices, Universae Ecclesiae, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
75 Comments

UK: MP pushes to force Church to have contrary-to-nature “marriages” or no marriages at all

English MartyrsFrom the UK’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, comes this portentous (I’m serious this time) article:

Tory MP urges Cameron to crack down on churches that refuse to hold same-sex ceremonies

By Simon Caldwell on Thursday, 8 September 2011

Christian churches must be banned from performing any marriages if they refuse to hold civil partnerships ceremonies for gay couples, a Conservative MP has demanded.

Mike Weatherley has urged the Prime Minister to show no toleration to churches which turn away gays and lesbians who seek to marry in their premises. [Is he mad?  What’s his game?]

The Hove and Portslade MP has in turn been criticised by Bishop Kieran Conry of Arundel and Brighton for “over-stepping the mark”[I should think so!]

In a letter to David Cameron the south coast MP had said that the proposed Coalition amendment to the 2010 Equality Act to allow religious bodies or individual places of worship to register the controversial ceremonies would remain “unfair” as long as heterosexuals could marry in the churches of their choice.  [Perhaps the MP doesn’t understand that “fair” is a description of the weather, not of life.  What isn’t “fair”, however, is the attempt to force this on the Catholic Church.  Would he like to force it on Muslims?]

The law must instead be changed to compel churches to register civil partnerships, said Mr Weatherley, whose constituency near Brighton which has one of the highest numbers of gay couples in civil partnerships in the country.  [Hmmm… could this be a matter of.. how to say it… pandering?]

He told Mr Cameron to follow a precedent he suggested had been set by laws compelling 11 Catholic adoption agencies to assess gay couples as potential adopters and foster parents, although most of them have either since closed or left the control of the church.

Mr Weatherley said that the alternative would be to surrender to a “messy compromise” in which gays would remain the victims of inequality.

“I am becoming increasingly concerned about the inequality which exists between the unions of same-sex couples and those of opposite-sex couples in this country,” he said in his letter.

“As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality,” he said.

Such behaviour is not be tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.”

Mr Weatherley described the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, which permitted legal recognition of same-sex unions, as an “uneasy truce” between campaigners for equality and people who sought to uphold the religious significance of marriage.

He added that until “we untangle” marriage from religion “we will struggle to find a fair arrangement”[“untangle” marriage from religion… which is tantamount to tearing to shreds the bonds of society.  Once religious is entirely expunged from the public square, the riots of the past month will be remembered as mere trial runs.]

Bishop Conry, whose diocese encompasses Mr Weatherley’s constituency, said that the churches had a right to operate by “their own practices and behaviour”. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

“The Church is a voluntary organisation and if you belong to it then you abide by its rules,” [and doctrines] Bishop Conry said.

The law in this country recognises that there is no parity between civil partnerships and marriage,” the bishop added. “What he [Mr Weatherley] wants is a change in the law because he is not in a position to tell the Catholic Church what to do.”  [But, apparently, he would like to be.  And he is not alone.]

At present civil partnerships can be held in register offices and non-religious venues such as hotels. During the ceremonies there can be no manifestation of religious belief, such as icons or other imagery.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition [?!?] wants to create an “opt-in” system whereby places of worship can choose to register gay ceremonies alongside the existing venues.

The Government has admitted in its public consultation document, however, that the proposals could lead to litigation against churches that do not opt in.

In response to the public consultation, Fr Marcus Stock, general secretary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, stated clearly that “the Catholic Church in England and Wales will not allow civil partnerships to be registered on its premises”.  [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

He said: “Religious premises exist to meet the needs of the religion concerned. The activities that take place within them must be in accordance with the beliefs and practices of that religion, as determined by its proper authorities.

No other body can have the right to decide that activities contrary to the religion’s teaching may take place on its premises – to do so would be a flagrant breach of the right to freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights.”  [But… that will soon make no difference.]

Brighton priest Fr Ray Blake also accused Mr Weatherley of ignoring the convictions of not only nearly all of the Christians of his constituency but also of the many Jews and Muslims who lived there.  [Has the MP said that synagogues must permit contrary-to-nature same-sex “marriage”?]

He said the MP appeared to want to push all who held a “traditional notion” of marriage “to the margins of society”.

The Rev Nick Donnelly, a Catholic deacon from Lancaster, said on his Protect the Pope blog that the MP’s demands revealed that the churches “have every reason to fear that the next phase of the campaign to establish pseudo-gay marriages will be to coerce them to accept homosexuals or be banned from holding marriages”.

He said: “They’ve banned the Catholic Church from placing children for adoption, now the stage is being set to ban us from holding marriages.”

But gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell supports the rights of churches to decide the matter for themselves on the grounds that it was the “democratic and decent thing to do”.

WDTPRS kudos to Bp. Conry, Fr. Blake and the other clerics who have spoken up.

The UK is some years ahead of the USA in certain aspects of the culture war.  But it is coming.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , ,
31 Comments

QUAERITUR: Priests crossing their stoles… not

From a reader:

I’ve noticed that there seems to be a trend where priests don’t cross their stole anymore. If some do, they are ridiculed. Why has this happened?

Where to begin.

Really?  Ridiculed?  I have never heard or seen that happen.  If someone should be such a rube as to do that, he should be gently kicked or, alternatively, ejected from the sacristy using a firehose.

Yet, it is true that priests in general aren’t crossing their stoles when vesting for Mass or in cope.  And, given what I will include below, it seems as if they have a justification for wearing them uncrossed when using the Novus Ordo.  The Roman tradition, however, is that priests cross their stoles, right over left.  This has been the custom since about the 7th century.

Priests cross the stole.  Bishops or abbots do not.  They, instead, wear a pectoral cross and wear the stole hanging straight without crossing.

In the older form of ordination of a priest the ordaining bishop takes the stole, which till now has been worn on the left shoulder as befits a (former) deacon, draws it over the new priest’s right shoulder, and arranges it in the form of a cross over his chest, his heart (in the manner of a priest), saying: Take the yoke of the Lord, for His yoke is sweet and His burden light.

For the Novus Ordo, the Ordinary Form, the General Instruction/Institution of the Roman Missal 340 says:

340. The stole is worn by the priest around his neck and hanging down in front. It is worn by the deacon over his left shoulder and drawn diagonally across the chest to the right side, where it is fastened.

priest's vestmentsThat suggests that the priest is not to cross the stole, as he was directed to do before the reforms.  However, the paragraph is a bit vague.  When the priest crosses the stole, it still hangs down in front.   It doesn’t hang down the side, as a deacon wears it.  So, priests can still cross the stole in harmony with this paragraph.  And in doing so they maintain a tradition over a millennium old.  Also, in reading that paragraph, there is not indication that the deacon crosses the stole at his side.

I recommend, as a matter of fact, that when wearing the pianeta, the Roman chasuble, that priests cross the stole.  The crossed stole serves also to “fill in” part of the square opening in front.  That is a practical reason, an aesthetic reason, but a good reason nonetheless.

That said, if we are to interpret that GIRM 340 as to mean that the priest is to wear the stole in the traditional manner of a bishop, then we have to ask why.  Off the top of my head, the reason could be to symbolize the difference between, on the one hand, deacons and, on the other sacerdotes (priests and bishops).  Deacons cross their stoles, but the cross is not over their hearts.  Rather, they cross the stole on their side.  But it is nevertheless crossed.  If I am right, then the idea is that the straight uncrossed stole may be intended as the power to offer the Sacrifice.  I am theorizing.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged , , , , ,
20 Comments

QUAERITUR: Is liturgical dance legitimate?

Liturgical Dance Free ZoneFrom a reader:

I have been Catholic for two and a half years and today I went to theparish I attend to become a RCIA sponser. The subject of LiturgicslDance came up and I was informed that it is a perfectly ligetimatething to do durring the Liturgy. Is this True?

I have been Catholic for two and a half years and today I went to theparish I attend to become a RCIA sponser. The subject of LiturgicslDance came up and I was informed that it is a perfectly ligetimatething to do durring the Liturgy. Is this True?

I would like to see in the rubrics where the dancers are to come in.

Aside from that, I open the floor to the readers to respond.

Let’s keep it above the level of “they are poopy-heads for doing that”.

Along the line, inculturation, continuity, and the rite have to be dealt with.

And let’s leave aside for the moment issues of good taste.

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