A quick WDTPRS POLL:
Please leave a comment in the combox if you care to.
Triduum Ceremonies: I plan on attending...
Total Voters: 2,144
The great Canonical Defender, Dr. Ed Peters has an interesting note on the use… here we go again… about women wearing head coverings in church.
He has something from Cardinal Burke in the topic.
But first, in a nutshell here is the truth: In the Latin Church women are not bound by the Church’s positive law to wear head coverings in church. If they want to, they can. Period. Not much more to say.
Not much more to say? Every time I post on this question, scores of comments are made.
Back to Canonical Defender and Cardinal Burke.
From Dr. Peter’s blog In the Light of the Law comes this with my emphases and comments.
Raymundus locutus, causa finita
Some four years ago, I wrote a short blog post explaining why women were not required to wear ‘chapel veils’ at Mass. I thought it then, and think it now, an entirely uncontroversial position to have taken. [Soooo naive] Apparently, however, not a few folks think (or feel) otherwise.
Out of the hundreds of webpages and blogposts I have published, my post on chapel veils is frequently among the top ten pages read each month. No joke. I have seen, over the years, several “rebuttals” of my views, some rather pretentious in their rhetoric, to which, on rare occasions, I have replied informally in comboxes. For that matter, I’ve seen some other writers with, I would have thought, considerable ‘cred’ among the chapel veil set, also being rebuked for holding that the use of veils is optional. Folks like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Jimmy Akin, the kind of guys I ask guidance from when I’m stuck on a hard question about Catholic practice. If critics won’t believe Fr. Z or Jimmy, who I am to think I’ll convince them otherwise? [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]
Anyway I had just sworn off even noticing the chapel veil topic anymore when, lo and behold, a nice lady writes to Cdl. Raymund Burke, whose ‘cred’ outweighs all of ours put together, to ask whether the use of chapel veils is obligatory.
Well, the cardinal writes back to her, and she sends me a copy of his letter, from which I may quote (edited for privacy):
“Thank you for your letter …The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. [That is interesting for all sorts of reasons.] It is not, however a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.”
What’s left to say?
Burke’s note is not an “authentic interpretation” nor a formal sentence from the Signatura: it’s simply a calm observation by the world’s leading canonist (not to mention a man deeply in love with the Church and her liturgy) about whether women have to, as a matter of law or moral obligation, wear veils at Mass. Any Mass. And the answer is No.
If a woman wants to wear a veil to Mass, she is perfectly free to do so; if she does not want to wear a veil, she is perfectly free not to. Anyone not happy with that interpretation is welcome to take the matter up with Higher Authority than me, and higher than Burke, for that matter!
A Blessed Holy Thursday to my readers!
Jimmy Akins and Card. Burke, the undersigned, and Dr. Peters are usually right when we write, though I am not entirely convinced about the latter’s argument about latae sententiae excomunication. We are all right about this issue.
What is of special interest to me was the Cardinal’s comment that women should wear a covering as was expected when the Extraordinary Form was the Only Form. Back in the day, women wore head coverings, therefore they ought to do so today when participation in that form of the Roman Rite.
This principle should be applied to other aspects as well. Off of the top, I can think of the manner of reception of Holy Communion: every communicant (not just women) were expected back in the day to kneel and receive on the tongue. Thus, the same expectation applies today in the Extraordinary Form even though it is permissible to do otherwise. But wait: the Church gives permission to receive on the hand now, when the normal way to do it remains directly on the tongue. Well… analogies are never perfect.
Nevertheless, an interesting little point for our reflection and our Catholic identity.
And, once again, I think the tradition of women wearing head coverings in church should be revived even as I know that it is not obligatory by the Church’s positive law.
If any of you watched the Holy Father’s Mass at the Lateran, and perhaps recorded it, could you do me a favor?
I noticed that the Pope’s time of silent prayer before the Altar of Repose after Mass was especially prolonged. I haven’t seen him stay that long, in years past, before the tabernacle after the Holy Thursday Mass.
How long did he kneel before the Blessed Sacrament? I don’t mean by that question to imply that a shorter time would have been less meaningful or intense for the Holy Father. It is simply that his time there was longer than I have seen before.
I ask this question in the context of my own reading of Pope Benedict’s sermon for the Mass of the Last Supper, which I presented and examined here. He spoke of his own ministry as Peter.
It is hard to know what to do when you see a “catholic” site post something that is simultaneously heretical and thoroughly dopey.
Do you ignore it? Do you post about it and therefore drive traffic to it?
This is my dilemma today in the case of Jamie Manson of the National Catholic Fishwrap. Her piece today is both as weird and as heterodox as any NCR reader could ever wish.
Nutshell:
Jesus did not come into this world or endure His Cross and death to save us from our sins. That’s just a guilt trip the Church laid on people. Its Religious Power that killed Jesus. He came – so far as I am able to glean from her article – to save us from the Roman Curia and the Republican Party.
An excerpt:
I’ve had more than one Catholic who grew up either before or on the cusp of Vatican II tell me horror stories of how they were taught that Jesus died because of their sins.
This was a particularly heavy-handed way for priests and nuns to lay an even thicker coat of guilt on impressionable Catholic school children. Because they were sinners, Jesus had to suffer and die to redeem them. It was one rendering of the traditional theological interpretations of the crucifixion — that Jesus had to die to fulfill the Scriptures and that his death atoned for the sins of the world.
I know that countless people throughout the centuries have found profound, life-changing and even comforting meaning in this understanding of the Cross. But I’ve often felt that if we immerse ourselves in the accounts of Jesus’ arrest, passion, and death as told by the four Gospels, these texts can broaden and deepen our understanding of the crucifixion. It can help us make meaning of so much of the anguish that we witness in our world and in our church.
When I read the passion narratives of the Gospels, I don’t hear simply that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Rather, I hear the four evangelists very clearly say that Jesus’ suffering and death was the will of those who conspired against him — those whose political systems he had undermined, those whose religious convictions he had offended.
[…]
There’s a lot more like this. She effectively offers an NCR Soteriology.
Jesus died to save us from the Roman Curia.
I am trying to imagine a version of the Stations of the Cross composed by Jamie Manson for the National Catholic Fishwrap.
The term “Maunday” or “Maundy” Thursday refers to Christ’s mandate (mandatum) in John 13:34 to His apostles in the service of the Church. It is also called sometimes “Shere” Thursday, perhaps from “shere” indicating “tolerance” and “remedy”, in the sense of “wiggle room”. This “shere” was, according to the OED the difference or error permissible in a measure of something, such as the deviation from the standard in minting a coin.
COLLECT (2002MR):
Sacratissimam, Deus, frequentantibus Cenam,
in qua Unigenitus tuus, morti se traditurus,
novum in saecula sacrificium
dilectionisque suae convivium Ecclesiae commendavit,
da nobis, quaesumus, ut ex tanto mysterio
plenitudinem caritatis hauriamus et vitae.
This prayer is a new composition for the Novus Ordo.
It might have a thin tendril reaching back into the ancient Veronese Sacramentary #96: Uere dignum: qui se ipsum tibi pro nobis offerens immolandum idem sacerdos et sacer agnus exhibuit.
In our Lewis & Short Dictionary we find that frequento is “to visit or resort to frequently, to frequent; to do or make use of frequently, to repeat” and thence more suitably for our purposes, “to celebrate or keep in great numbers, especially a festival”. Haurio is “to tear up, pluck out, draw out, to take to one’s self, take; to swallow, devour, consume, exhaust”.
Commendo is “to commit to one for preservation, protection, etc., to entrust to one’s charge, commit to one’s care, commend to” and “implying a physical delivery, to deposit with, entrust to; constructed with aliquem or aliquid alicui, or absolutely”. Moreover, it is “to commend or recommend, i. e. to procure favor for, to make agreeable, to set off with advantage, to grace”. I was also intrigued by the possibilities in this definition: “Especially, of the dying, to commend children, parents, etc., to the care of others”. You all know about the final commendation of a dying person.
As you work on your own to put this into English, Deus is the subject of the main verb da, and those to whom it is to be granted are found in frequentantibus. Frequentantibus has as its object the Cenam. The whole phrase in qua… commendavit is embedded within that structure.
This prayer, it seems to me, is seriously overworked. It is so self-consciously elegant that it is a challenge to sort out at a single hearing. It becomes a tangled mass, just as when you are trying to twist up a forkful of spaghetti. If you twisting the fork with too many strands at the beginning, after a couple twists you have too much going on and the whole plate starts to move.
LITERAL TRANSLATION
O God, we beg, grant to us attending the most holy Supper
in which Your Only-begotten, about to hand Himself over to death,
commended to Church a new sacrifice unto the ages
and a banquet of His love,
that we may from so great a mystery
drink deeply the fullness of charity and life.
The word haurio gives us the image of Christ’s bitter struggle on Thursday in the garden when faced with the chalice from which He would need to drink.
His bitter draught was our drink of new life. This was the consequence of Christ’s sacrificial love, His perfect charity.
LAME-DUCK ICEL:
God our Father,
We are gathered here to share in the supper
which your only Son left to his Church to reveal his love.
He gave it to us when he was about to die
and commanded us to celebrate it as the new and eternal sacrifice.
We pray that in this Eucharist
we may find the fullness of love and life.
Not hideous.
NEW CORRECTED ICEL VERSION:
O God, who have called us to participate
in this most sacred Supper,
in which your Only Begotten Son,
when about to hand himself over to death,
entrusted to the Church a sacrifice new for all eternity,
the banquet of his love,
grant, we pray,
that we may draw from so great a mystery,
the fullness of charity and of life.
From a reader:
Is it wrong if not in fact sinful to attend the weddings and funerals
of non-Catholics? For as Pope Pius XI stated in his encyclical
treating on Christian unity, Catholics are never to participate in
schismatic or heretical congregations. I would love to know what you Father have to say in regards to this.
Yes, a Catholic can attend a non-Catholic wedding of non-Catholics marrying in their own non-Catholic church service. You can attend non-Catholic funerals of non-Catholics as well.
But you cannot participate in any form of “communion” they offer.
Go, and be respectful of what they do. Say your own prayers quietly for the people involved if you need to. And you don’t have to be a party to anything stupid, or blasphemous.
The encyclical referred to, above, is certainly Mortalium animos, which I drilled into in one of my PODCAzTs.
You and I are going to die someday. We don’t know when.
When we die we will be judged.
Scripture teaches, and Christ’s own words and actions make clear, that there are some sins bad enough to kill the life of grace in the soul and sever you from friendship with God.
Die in that state and you will be eternally separated from God.
If you think about that – eternal separation from God – which doesn’t immediately sound that bad, you will run or crawl to the confessional, get yourself to the priest to confess every mortal sin in kind and number you can think of…. because… you one day will die.
Jesus Christ Himself gave His own power to forgive sins to bishops and priests as the ordinary means for forgiveness of post-baptismal mortal sins. Christ’s power is exercised in the Sacrament of Penance.
You may have heard some goofy ideas over the years, or when you were growing up, about it being nearly impossible to commit a mortal sin, or that all that stuff the Church taught is too strict or too focused on sex or too mired in the mores of ages past.
Do you want to bet your eternal soul on those goofy ideas which, in your heart of hearts you know full well are dead wrong? When they are going all squishy and wobbly and easy on what you are doing… doesn’t that actually ring alarm bells somewhere in your conscience?
That alarm bell you hear is your conscience and God’s grace trying to pull your sorry backside out of the serious spiritual danger your soul might be in. And if your soul winds up in Hell, friend, your body will one day follow. And the results of that will never… ever… end.
Never ending separation from God in hopeless, loveless agony … or… the sight of God face to face, the fulfillment of every good and the perfection of every joy and virtue in communion with the angels and saints and the infinite Triune God.
Heaven or the PIT.
Stick to the Church, friends.
Review the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any old approved Catechism or pious book of prayers with examinations of conscience. Forget what the “Everyone’s just fine as they are and Jesus is a fluffy huggy friend” crowd, the “There can’t be anyone in hell” gang. Wanna bet your soul on that?
Never mind about the pious language in some of those older book, look at the substance. The things the old books and approved Catechisms say are sins really are sins and they can put you in Hell forever if you don’t confess them, receive absolution, do penance and amend your life.
Go to confession. Hold nothing back.
Go to confession. Confess it all, in kind and number.
Go to confession. Don’t be afraid.
Fr. Z’s 20 Tips For Making A Good Confession o{]:¬)
We should…
1) …examine our consciences regularly and thoroughly;
2) …wait our turn in line patiently;
3) …come at the time confessions are scheduled, not a few minutes before they are to end;
4) …speak distinctly but never so loudly that we might be overheard;
5) …state our sins clearly and briefly without rambling;
6) …confess all mortal sins in number and kind;
7) …listen carefully to the advice the priest gives;
8) …confess our own sins and not someone else’s;
9) …carefully listen to and remember the penance and be sure to understand it;
10) …use a regular formula for confession so that it is familiar and comfortable;
11) …never be afraid to say something “embarrassing”… just say it;
12) …never worry that the priest thinks we are jerks…. he is usually impressed by our courage;
13) …never fear that the priest will not keep our confession secret… he is bound by the Seal;
14) …never confess “tendencies” or “struggles”… just sins;
15) …never leave the confessional before the priest has finished giving absolution;
16) …memorize an Act of Contrition;
17) …answer the priest’s questions briefly if he asks for a clarification;
18) …ask questions if we can’t understand what he means when he tells us something;
19) …keep in mind that sometimes priests can have bad days just like we do;
20) …remember that priests must go to confession too … they know what we are going through.
This list is always available on a page I created for this blog. Go to the bottom of the blog and look for the page in the list on the left footer.
Okay… grilled is a little melodramatic.
I was at the Newscorp Building where Fox News Channel is ensconced to tape some Q&A for some upcoming projects my good friend Greg Burke, FNC’s Rome correspondent, is preparing.
Some people will probably look at this building with a measure of fear, as they cower below it. I see it as a place where the news industry gained some balance.
Here’s a really unflattering photo with books in the background.
We were going to do this in a church, but it didn’t work out.
I actually asked to make sure that none of the books on the shelves were “bad”. I don’t know about you, but I always look at the books on the shelves.
The very cool FNC people who helped with the taping. Taping. That doesn’t sound adequately digital, does it.
Really nice people, as has always been my experience with any of the FNC crew. I managed to crack them up during an answer today… and I’ll bet every dollar in my pocket that segment doesn’t get used.
So… that was part of my afternoon.
WDTPRS Kudos to the FNC behind the scenes staff.
And, to wrap this up, I assume my stuff will be used, if they use it, for the beatification coverage.
A couple weeks ago I asked how your Lent was going… if you were sticking to your plan… if you had a plan, that is.
It is time to ask again.
So?
How’s it going?
Select an answer and add a comment in the combox.
How is your Lent so far? II
Total Voters: 1,930
UPDATE: 20 April
The new L’Osservatore Romano site is working better today, though it is still clunky and a bit hard to navigate.
I was able to bring up the PDF of today’s daily.
One curiosity: They fuzzed out the Vatican stemma at the top of the front page.
I presume that they don’t want people to copy it and then use it elsewhere.
NEWSFLASH to the L’OR STAFF: The horse has already left the barn.
____
ORIGINAL POST 19 April
My general mantra for how the Vatican uses technology has for decades been:
Yesterday’s Technology Tomorrow!
The semi-official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano has at last expanded their online presence in an effort to make more of the content of the daily and different language editions available online and also probably make some money.
For 50 Euros (roughly US$72) you can subscribe to the daily, which is in Italian, for one year.
Imagine my shock when I tried to subscribe (I would like to support their effort) and I was kicked back to a previous page, with both Firefox and Chrome. Eureka, it worked with IE, however. Be prepared for Italian language buttons (a bad piece of planning, that). Use “conferma” to go ahead. They need buttons that have English beneath the Italian on the same button.
Moreover, you should be able to view a PDF of the daily at the click of a mouse button.
I tried it and – today at least – it doesn’t work on any browser I tried, and I am both registered and logged in. The PDF seems to be broken at the time of this writing.
Sure there will be bugs.
I am reminded of the press conference for the inauguration of the new Vatican Curia office for “New Evangelization”, during which the President, Archbishop Fisichella, said they didn’t have internet access. But that isn’t a “bug. That’s poor planning that reflects a culture within the Curia and how quickly (not) they get things done.
Slowly but surely the culture of extreme caution (read: paranoia) about technology is shifting there, probably as a result of younger blood filling more and more positions. It will take a while to shift the prevailing view of how the Curia uses technology. They are not exactly leading the way, but we have seen some big moves in the last few months.
For example, around Christmas time the Vatican Radio and Vatican TV have provided the impressive live streams for which you can choose audio for your language (from Vatican Radio) just the raw audio without voice-overs. That was a HUGE step forward. Sincere kudos for that!
To be fair, they have to deal with various languages all at once. That complicates and increases the workload. Nevertheless, given the pool of really smart people they could choose to draw on, if the Catholic Church can’t do it well, then who can?
Finally, I hope that the subscription income they will gain they will be able to afford a coffee machine in the editorial offices. They need to wake up and smell the doppio ristretto there.
But that is another issue.
UPDATE:
The site seems to have been overcome with traffic.
I hope they are ready for DOS attacks.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
