Msgr. Guido Marini interviewed

I was alerted to the following by a friend.  The present Papal Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini gave an interview to the Sunday magazine of Niedziela in Poland.  I don’t know if this was published somewhere else previously, but this is where I saw it.

With my emphases and comments.

Wlodzimierz Redzioch: – What does the collaboration between Benedict XVI and his Master of Ceremonies look like? Does the Pope decide about everything? [A question I have wondered about for a long time.]

Msgr. Guido Marini: – At first, I would like to stress that the celebrations the Holy Father presides over are to be the points of reference for the whole Church. The Pope is the highest priest, [after the Lord] the one who offers the sacrifice of the Church, the one who shows the liturgical teaching through celebrations – the point of reference for all. [I wonder what the Polish (or Italian) says.  Is there is difference between “point of reference” and “model to be imitated”?] Considering this explanation it is easier to understand what the style of collaboration between the Papal Master of Ceremonies and the Holy Father should be. One should act in the way to make the papal liturgies the expressions of his authentic liturgical orientation. Therefore, the Papal Master of Ceremonies must be a humble and faithful servant of the liturgy of the Church. I have understood my work in the Office of Papal Liturgical Celebrations in this way since the very beginning.

– We all can see the changes introduced to the liturgical celebrations by Benedict XVI. How can we synthesize these changes?

– I think that these changes can be synthesized in the following way: first of all, these are changes made in accordance with the logic of development of continuity with the past. So we do not deal with breaking with the past and juxtaposing with the former pontificates. Secondly, the introduced changes serve to evoke the true spirit of liturgy like the Second Vatican Council wanted, ‘The “subject” of the liturgy’s intrinsic beauty is Christ himself, risen and glorified in the Holy Spirit, who includes the Church in his work.’

– Celebrations directed towards the cross, Holy Communion received directly by mouth and while keeling, longer moments of silence and meditation – these are the most visible liturgical changes introduced by Benedict XVI. Unfortunately, many people do not understand the theological and historical meanings of these changes and what is worse, they can see them as ‘return to the past.’ Can you briefly explain the meanings of these changes?

– To tell you the truth our office has received many testimonies of the faithful who have favourably received the changes introduced by the Pope because they see them as the authentic renewal of the liturgy. As for the significance of some changes I will say a few synthetic reflections. Celebrating towards the cross stresses the correct direction of liturgical prayer, i.e. towards God; during prayers the faithful are not to look at themselves but should direct their eyes towards the Saviour. Giving hosts to people kneeling aims to giving value to the aspect of adoration both as the fundamental element of celebration and the necessary attitude while facing the mystery of God’s real presence in the Eucharist. During the liturgical celebration prayer assumes various forms: words, songs, music, gestures and silence. Furthermore, moments of silence let us participate truly in the act of worship, and what’s more, from the inside evoke every other form of prayer.

– The Pope attaches importance to the liturgical vestments. Is it a matter of pure aestheticism?

– In order to understand better the Pope’s ideas concerning the meaning of the beauty as an important element of liturgical celebrations I would like to quote the apostolic exhortation ‘Sacramentum caritatis, ’This relationship between creed and worship is evidenced in a particular way by the rich theological and liturgical category of beauty. Like the rest of Christian Revelation, the liturgy is inherently linked to beauty: it is veritatis splendor. […] This is no mere aestheticism, but the concrete way in which the truth of God’s love in Christ encounters us, attracts us and delights us, enabling us to emerge from ourselves and drawing us towards our true vocation, which is love. The truest beauty is the love of God, who definitively revealed himself to us in the paschal mystery. […] The beauty of the liturgy is part of this mystery; it is a sublime expression of God’s glory and, in a certain sense, a glimpse of heaven on earth. Beauty, then, is not mere decoration, but rather an essential element of the liturgical action, since it is an attribute of God himself and his revelation.’

– Benedict XVI has changed his pastoral staff – currently he is using the cross-shaped staff. Why?

– I would like to remind you that till the pontificate of Pope Paul VI popes did not use crosiers at all; on special occasions they carried a ferula (cross-shaped staff). Pope Montini, Paul VI, introduced a cross-shaped crosier. And so did Benedict XVI till the Pentecost Sunday of 2008. Since then he has been using ferula because he thinks that it is more suitable for the papal liturgy.

[NB]Why is it so important that the Church preserves using Latin in the liturgy?

– Although the Second Vatican Council introduced national languages it recommended [required] using Latin in the liturgy. I think it is for two reasons that we should not give up Latin. Above all, we have a great liturgical legacy of Latin: from the Gregorian chant to polyphony as well as ‘testi venerandi’ (sacred texts) that Christians have used for ages. Besides, Latin allows us to show catholicity and universality of the Church. We can experience this universality in a unique way in St Peter’s Basilica and during other international gatherings when men and women from all continents, nationalities, languages, sing and pray in the same language. Who will not feel at home when being at church abroad can join his/her brothers in the faith at least in some parts by using Latin? [That presupposes use in parishes, not just in international gatherings.  I am sick of that international gatherings blather, frankly.  Why must they beat around the bush?  How are people to “feel at home” in international gatherings using Latin if they have never had Latin in their parishes (as Sacrosanctum Concilium mandated?  Similarly, if the Holy Father has Latin in his Masses, and the Holy Father’s Masses are a “point of reference” for the rest of the world… well… ergo….  Why is this so hard?  JUST.USE.LATIN.]

Do you agree that the faith of priest is expressed in the liturgy in a special way? [Sigh… this is a question for the Papal MC?]

– I have no doubts about it. [What was he going to say?  On the other hand, given what I have seen in some places… never mind.] Since the liturgy is the celebration of Christ’s mystery here and now the priest is called to express his faith in a twofold way. Firstly, he should celebrate with eyes of the one that looks beyond the visible reality to ‘touch’ what is invisible, i.e. God’s presence and work. [More easily facilitated by celebrating Mass ad orientem, no?] It is ‘ars celebrandi’ (art of celebration) that lets the faithful check whether the liturgy is only a performance, spectacle for the priest or whether it is a vivid and attractive relation with Christ’s mystery. Secondly, after the celebration the priest is renewed and ready to follow what he has experienced, i.e. make his life a celebration of Christ’s mystery.  [Again the ad intra and ad extra pairing, this time within Mass and outside Mass.]

Posted in The Drill | Tagged ,
32 Comments

Archbp. Sheehan (Santa Fe), his Pastoral Letter on Cohabitation, a liberal reaction, and my interlinear rant

Fr. Z's Episcopal Backbone AwardH.E. Most Rev. Michael Sheehan Archbishop of Santa Fe, NM has issued a Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating.

Archbp. Sheehan had this letter read in all parishes of that Archdiocese.

I think this pastoral letter could be seen as a stage in the New Evangelization.  But then, I am not a Cafeteria Catholic.

Let’s have a taste of the first part of his letter with my emphases and comments.

Archbishop SheehanPastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation. [No cringing, sensitive, apologetic beginning.  He gets right into it.] The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God. [In other words, “repent and believe the Good News (Gospel)”.]

First of all, we ourselves must be firmly rooted in the Gospel teaching that, when it comes to sexual union, there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is no “third way” possible for a Christian. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions. [“Amen!”, brother!  Tell it!]

We have three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage: [1] those who cohabit; [2] those who have a merely civil union with no previous marriage; [3] and those who have a civil union who were married before. [There are consequences…] These people are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion. They are in great spiritual danger. At the best – and this is, sadly, often the case – they are ignorant of God’s plan for man and woman. At the worst, they are contemptuous of God’s commandments and His sacraments.

Of these three groups, the first two have no real excuse. They should marry in the Church or separate. [Again, he is not cringing, he is not watering the message down with weasel words.] Often their plea is that they “cannot afford a church wedding” i.e. the external trappings, or that “what difference does a piece of paper make?” – as if a sacramental covenant is nothing more than a piece of paper! Such statements show religious ignorance, or a lack of faith and awareness of the evil of sin. [OOH-RAH!]

The third group, those who were married before and married again outside the Church, can seek a marriage annulment and have their marriage blest in the Church. Please remember that divorce still is no reason to refrain from Holy Communion as long as they have not entered into another marriage or sinful relationship. Many Catholics are confused on this point.

Christ our Lord loves all these people and wishes to save them – not by ignoring their sin, or calling evil good, but by repentance and helping them to change their lives in accordance with His teaching. We, as His Church, must do the same. In accord with this, I would remind you of the following:

[…]

There are 6 points, including not being able to receive Sacraments.  Not just Communion, but also Penance, unless you are changing your life.  They can’t be EMCH’s or sponsors for Baptism or Confirmation.

Apply this to the situation of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the attacks on the canonist Ed Peter’s for pointing out the obvious!

The columnist for NCFishwrap, Heidi Slumphf, had – in the name of Fishwrap – a little tiff about Archbp. Sheehan’s pastoral letter.

Fishwrap‘s response:

Sheehan’s threats to cohabitating couples [threats!]
By Heidi Schlumpf
Created Apr 06, 2011
by Heidi Schlumpf [1] on Apr. 06, 2011

[…]

Two comments:I wonder if Sheehan will widen his rule against “sinning godparents” to include other sins? [Which means… what?  I think she is trying to be sly.  But Archbp. Sheehan has addressed things that are public not private.  Marriage, civil or in the Church, is a public, verifiable relationship. ]

[Now she displays her new and hard-won expertise, which allows her to critique the Archbishop…] And, having just finished teaching a college course on “Persuasion,[A course, perhaps, on 19th c. English novels?] I’m struck how un-persuasive this letter is. [Arguments can be legitimately attacked through the procedure they follow, or through their premises.  Archbp. Sheehan’s premises are the perennial teaching of the Church and her positive law derived from both natural law and divine positive law.  The argument is pretty straight forward: if you are doing X then you can’t do Y.  If Heidi has a problem with the Archbishop’s letter, does that mean she doesn’t accept his premises?  She doesn’t say she disagrees with anything he says. But wait… Heidi is going to be sly again.] But then I wonder if that is its purpose. [It seems…] It seems Sheehan has no real interest in persuading or teaching, but rather only punishing those who disagree with him. [HUH?  Let’s get this straight.  The Archbishop issues a clear document short enough to be read from pulpits.  It is correct in every respect.  She doesn’t say she disagrees with what he says.  She doesn’t openly dissent from its teaching. Instead, she is applying to Archbp. Sheehan what the NCR and others applied to the “Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come”, Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix over the dust-up with the formerly Catholic hospital that did abortions.  Bishops who talk clearly and straight, even when they are right (or within their rights, in the case of Bp. Olmsted) are mean.  They are mean old mean meanies.  They want to punish instead of affirm.  The way you affirm is never to mention sin and never to apply any consequences to anyone for any reason.  Be accepting, even when what the people are doing is demonstrably and objectively contrary to divine law.  And, if you are forced to talk about these things, you must always, always, cringe and wring your hands, and use soft, mollifying words, which people can more easily ignore.] Oh, and making those who already agree with him happy for “laying down the law.” I think we’ll see a lot of that in response to this letter. [I’m one of them.]

WDTPRS Kudos to Archbp. Sheehan.

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , , , ,
66 Comments

James MacMillan: TLM not the “usual trendy rubbish” (Fr. Z rants)

James MacMillan Seven Last WordsThe fine composer James MacMillan (who wrote music for the Papal Visit to the UK and who also has a superb Seven Last Words) has comments about his participation at a TLM in Amsterdam.

My emphases and comments.

April 6th, 2011 15:48
An Extraordinary Form Mass in Amsterdam – much more inspiring than the usual trendy rubbish

I was in Amsterdam last week, conducting at the Concertgebouw. I found out that the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St Peter) have a thriving parish there, in the Sint-Agneskerk. I went along on Sunday for their beautiful Extraordinary Form liturgy. The Dutch church is a wasteland/joke/disaster area because of 30 years of liberalism. Basically there are no Catholics left here! Or so it seems sometimes, thanks to the usual rubbish. Thankfully there are some younger, faithful Catholics willing to swim against the tide. [I knew a couple Dutch priests in Rome and they said the same thing, with deep sorrow.]

I’m still a bit of a novice when it comes to the EF – Sunday’s was my third – but I am struck each time by just how devotional the atmosphere is, even on entering the church. Everything seems focused on the tabernacle. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] There is a palpable presence of God, which tends to be missing from a lot of churches now, which feel more like Glasgow Central station than a house of prayer.

In the FSSP’s Amsterdam church there was a veritable tsunami of mantillas on display! [If women don’t think these things make an impression on men… hah!  I laugh.  Again… hah!  And let us not now divert the conversation in the combox about this single point, which I can already feel some people will try to do.  They will say “I know I am not supposed to bring this up but…”… followed by my deleting you.] There is a liberal argument in Holland which is opposing the government’s crackdown on Islamic women wearing the hijab/niqab/burka. Those same liberals who would have a fit if they saw a mantilla in a Catholic church, no doubt!

I certainly got the impression that the people present on Sunday were being helped enormously in their faith, much of which has been swept away in Holland. Many ethnic/immigrant faces in evidence. It reminded me of the Newman Beatification Mass at Cofton Park. Compared to this, the anti-Pope demonstrations in London looked terribly white and middle-class. Just like most opponents of Rome, outside and inside the Church.  [I think it was James Joyce who described the Church as “here comes everyone”.]

“Ah, but we can’t go back to the past,” we hear the usual ageing handwringers cry. But the past is the past, and has no bearing any more on the new impetus to sort out the liturgy. [I am not quite sure what he means here and I am not sure I can go along with this.  The past does provide a “bearing”.  If we don’t know where we have been, we can’t chart a course for the future.  A composer will know this.  Thus, I am not quite sure what he was driving at.  I’ll take this up again, below, where there may be a clue.] Latin Mass can be in the EF and the Novus Ordo – that’s the beauty of Latin, and that’s why the Devil (let alone the Tabletistas) hates it!

Oh but where is the active participation in the Latin Mass?” cry the liberal killjoys. But lay involvement is clearly possible to the fullest extent in the EF or Latin Novus Ordo. [As a real composer, MacMillan is going to have a clearer sense of active participation as interiorly active receptivity.  Listening is a profound dimension of active participation, and it is also a difficult dimension.] In the three EF liturgies I have attended in the last year, the assembly sang much, much more than one ever sees or hears in a Glasgow “Mass-for-Daily-Record-Man” or its depressing equivalent up and down the country. Everything from the Asperges Me, through the Kyrie, Sanctus and all the Dominus vobiscum/et cum spiritu tuos – sung by EVERYBODY. There is no point in using the past, pre-Vatican II practice as a weapon against the inevitable. [The key word here is “inevitable”.  That, friends, is worthy of important conversation.] None of the young Catholics now committed to good liturgy have any idea what the old curmudgeons are going on about when they moan about the bad old days. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] Their bad memories are irrelevant and have no bearing at all on the push for improvements. [There is the word “bearing” again. Perhaps that is what he was driving at, above, with his comment about the past.] And these improvements will have a bearing on both forms the Mass, especially the English vernacular, I’m sure. [Indeed.]

Even the readings – chanted in Latin – were understood by everyone, because we had the translations in Dutch and English in our bulletins. [NB!] I have never felt so participatory. [There it is.] These “readings” were heightened and holier because they were sung, and in an elevated tongue. The whole experience was sublime – ie, the way it should be every week in the Novus Ordo, and will be again once the Reform of the Reform has been won. Much better this than the usual lackadaisical mumbling and stumbling that we usually get, with all the right-on social/political messages thrown in for good measure. The only bit of the Mass I didn’t understand on Sunday was the homily, in the vernacular – Dutch.

I want to return to a point, in that last paragraph.  I an an anecdote, the plural of which, as we know, is “data”.

When I was a seminarian, assigned to a parish for “pastoreal”, as they called it, experience, I was asked to work on music for the Triduum with a very good parish musician and a then-seminarian from the local minor seminary (who participates on this blog, btw).  After clearing it with the pastor we did the Good Friday Passion sung in Latin with the old books and slight adaptations so the texts matched the Novus Ordo.   After the liturgy, at the back of the church, I was set upon by Just-Call-Me-Maggie man-hating wymynpryst-type harpy nun in plainclothes – not even a lapel pin – who berated me in front of people for having denied everyone the chance to participate in the Passion.  Since this was in front of parishioners, I went on offense.  I turned to a family heading out of church, with children, and quizzed them, asking if they had been disturbed by the Latin sung Passion.  On the contrary, they paid closer attention because it was so much more interesting than they way it is usually done.  I asked a boy, probably 10-12 years old, if he was able to follow it.  No problem, he responded, he just followed in the booklet.  He meant the regular missalette, which of course did not have Latin.  How did he know what was being said?  He could tell where they were when the different people started to sing.  No problem.  He just read along.

People are smart. If you dumb everything down, they will be liturgically as dumb as the stuff you give them.  Raise the level, and they will rise as well.

Posted in SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , ,
29 Comments

WDTPRS Wednesday 4th Week of a Lent: “He crowns His own merits in us”

Mass of St. Gregory by YsenbrandtCOLLECT (2002MR):
Deus, qui et iustis praemia meritorum
et peccatoribus veniam per paenitentiam praebes,
tuis supplicibus miserere,
ut reatus nostri confessio
indulgentiam valeat percipere delictorum.

In the Gelasianum Vetus for Wednesday of the Fourth Week of Lent we find “Omnipotens sempiterne deus, qui et iustis praemia meritorum et peccatoribus per ieiunium erroris sui ueniam praebis, miserire supplicibus, parce peccantibus: ut reatus nostri confessio indulgentiam ualeat percipere dilictorum: per dominum nostrum.” In the Hadrianum of the Gregorian Sacramentary there is: Deus qui et iustis praemia meritorum et peccatoribus per ieiunium veniam praebes miserere supplicibus tuis, ut reatus nostri indulgentiam valeat percipere delictorum.

Same day in both with the indication of the same Roman Station of St. Paul’s outside-the-walls.

SLAVISHLY LITERAL TRANSLATION
O God, who does profer to the just the rewards of merits
and through penance forgiveness unto sinners
be merciful to Your humble petitioners,
so that the confession of our guilt
may prevail in obtaining the remission of our offenses.

LAME-DUCK ICEL:
Lord,
you reward virtue and forgive the repentant sinner.
Grant us your forgiveness
as we come before you confessing our guilt
.

I’ll bet you are as surprised as I am to see any reference to sin or guilt.

NEW CORRECTED ICEL:
O God, who reward the merits of the just
and offer pardon to sinners who do penance,
have mercy, we pray, on those who call upon you,
that the admission of our guilt
may serve to obtain your pardon for our sins
.

We need to be clear about something.

What we do on our own cannot obtain anything from God on its own merits. To paraphrase St. Augustine when God crowns our merits, He crowns His own merits in us.

St. Augustine of HippoWe have here a pairing of words which are, so to speak, two sides of the one and same coin: meritum and praemium.

Meritum or “merit” is the right to a reward (praemium) due to some work done. Supernatural merit is the right to a reward for a work God determines is good and which is done for His sake. This sort of work must be supernatural in its origin, that is, it is done under the influence of grace, and supernatural in its purpose. God alone is the source of supernatural good and therefore He must designate it as such.

Consider the consecration in Holy Mass which contains the command of Jesus at the Last Supper and His description of what His commands lead to. Christ tells us that consuming His Body and Blood are for eternal life (cf. John 6). He commanded His Apostles to do what he was doing. If we do what He commands for His sake and the reasons He described, then we merit the reward God designates. The vocabulary (devotio, servitus, meritum, praemium) boldly communicates the truth of our stance before God.

Non-Catholics often think that when Catholics talk about merit, we are saying we can earn salvation by performing good works.

The Church doesn’t teach this.

The Council of Trent said that

“none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace” (13 January 1547 Session VI, Decree on Justification 8, cf. Rom 11:6).

Holy Church teaches that Christ alone merits anything in the strictest sense. Man by himself does not merit supernatural rewards (cf. CCC 2007).

When moved by grace we do those things God promised to reward (cf. Rom 2:6–11 and Gal 6:6–10). God’s grace and His promises are the source of all our merit (CCC 2008). We must make a distinction between condign merit, awarded because it is fully deserved and our action was proportioned to the reward, and congruent merit, awarded by God’s generosity for imperfect works.

The Bishop of Hippo St. Augustine (+430) eloquently teaches (ep. 194, 19 – read this out loud):

“What, therefore, before grace is man’s merit, by which merit he receives except by grace and since God crowns nothing other than His own gifts when He crowns our merits?”

The theology of this teaching, even the key phrase of Augustine, is in Preface “de sanctis” – (De gloria Sanctorum): “…et, eorum coronando merita, tua dona coronas….”

Clearly the Church continues faithfully to hold to her traditional theology of merit and grace.

Posted in LENT, Patristiblogging | Tagged
10 Comments

Maynooth Seminary in Ireland: Fit for Mission?

On a blog called Lux Occulta there is posted a pdf of an article in a Catholic newspaper called The Catholic Voice written by a group of seminarians about their experience at Maynooth Seminary in Ireland.

As I read it, I had a horrible, sinking feeling.  It all sounded like what I experienced 20+ years ago in my US seminary before I went to Rome.

It was eerily familiar.

The heretical teaching about the Eucharist, the total blurring of priesthood of the priest and of the laity, blatant homosexuality, angry feminist nuns teaching and running our lives, the relentless mix of non-seminary students, the absurd excuse for worship, the risible spiritual direction, the breezily malevolent evaluations, the defense of abortion and contraception, the all-pervading incompetence.

Reading this was like looking into that dank infested hole of my seminary again, after having climbed out long ago.

On a cheerier note, it confirmed how much faster the seminarians in the USA have improved than in many other places!

The faculty and some other seminarians may have a different story to tell about Maynooth.  We must grant that.  But here is the story of this group of seminarians and you can take it for what it’s worth.

Read the article.  Some names have been blotted out:

14 FEATURE                                         CatholicVoice 3 April, 2011

Is Maynooth Fit for Mission?

A group of seminarians offer their reflections on the short comings in priestly formation at the National Seminary. There are currently around sixty seminarians studying for the priesthood in Maynooth although it is worth noting that a further thirty students have been forced to continue their studies outside of Ireland having been rejected by the Seminary Council in Maynooth. These priests could return to Ireland at some stage, just why they were rejected by Maynooth might best be explained in the following reflections.

REFLECTING BACK ON THE EXPERIENCE:

The very first week I entered St. Patrick’s we were told there was “no difference” whatsoever in the various modes of Presence of Christ in the world: the priest, the people, the Word and the Eucharist; all are equal and the same we were continually told, that Christ cannot make Himself more present in one mode than in another. We were also informed that we were not to kneel for the Consecration during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in St. Mary’s. The Holy Father’s authority was frequently challenged by both staff and seminarians, as indeed was the hierarchical structure of the Church and the lack of “female leadership” in the present structure. The role of our Blessed Mother in the Church and of private devotions was also frequently challenged and criticized. Almost daily in class one had to endure challenges to the Church’s moral teachings, particularly in relation to homosexuality, contraception, marriage, and on some occasions even abortion. The role of women in the Church was a frequent topic of discussion, and the need for equality in governing and leading the Church, and this was particularly pushed by a number of Sisters on the staff with a very clear feministic agenda.

SPIRITUAL FORMATION:

The quality of spiritual direction in St. Patrick’s is very poor. Spiritual direction usually took the form of a general chat, and there was no specific direction as such. 1 was not guided on the path towards holiness through spiritual direction in the Seminary. Many seminarians in St. Patrick’s ·receive spiritual direction in secret outside the Seminary because of the same reason: poor spiritual direction within the Seminary. We also had a number of in-house spiritual retreats, reflection groups and classes. These classes were taken by a number of sisters who had a very clear feminist agenda in running the classes. The role of women within the Church was frequently addressed and the fact that they have suffered neglect at the hands of a “male dominated Church” for so many years. In addressing these issues, the sisters hid behind the guise of ‘playing devil’s advocate.’ They continually used this ploy to assert their own views and opinions, safe in the knowledge that they could not be accused of being a feminist, anti-male, anti-Church Magisterium or pro-choice, because they were only “expressing the views of a large number of women out there, who feel hurt and neglected by the Church.”

QUESTIONING THE REAL PRESENCE:

It was very uncommon for any of the priests to attend Eucharistic Adoration. A request for daily adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament was submitted to the Seminary Council but was turned down because the Council “did not want to impinge on other forms of adoration.” During ‘in-house’ Liturgy classes we were told by Ms. [xxx] that “all modes of presence of Christ in the world are equal.” We were told that Jesus is equally present in the Word, the priest, the people, and the Holy Eucharist. That all these modes of presence of Christ are the same; that Jesus cannot make Himself more present under one form . On one occasion, both [xxx] and [xxx] were present when [xxx] stated this and neither [xxx] or [xxx] objected to this or corrected her in any way. When seminarians questioned this she reaffirmed what she had just said. We asked if this was the case then why did Jesus institute the Most Holy Eucharist as the Sacrament of His Body and Blood? If Christ’s Presence is equal and the same under all modes does this mean we should worship one another? Again, we were told that these Presences were simply different modes, but that Jesus was present equally and in the same manner in each mode of Presence. Fr. [xxx] (Professor of [xxx] stated on a number of occasions in our [xxx] class that the primary mode of presence of Christ in [the] world is the Word, and not the Holy Eucharist. [xxx] also frequently referred to us in class as “girls” and joked about “pillow talk,” the suggestion being, how we would speak to someone in bed as opposed to speaking in public. Some of the priests, while celebrating Holy Mass, actually changed the words of the Eucharistic Prayer in order to personalize the Prayer.

RETREATS:

Many of the retreats run within the seminary took the form of promoting a watered down version of the faith and much of the material used for these retreats was founded on non-Catholic theologians and philosophers, or Catholic theologians and philosophers who have been silenced by the Church or who have had their work suppressed.
In 2009 [xxx] a Kerry priest working in Leeds, led an in-house retreat. Throughout the retreat he frequently made reference to a need to move away from a dogmatic theology and he stated that it annoys him when the Church makes statements saying, “this can’t change or that can’t change, because how do we know they won’t change, things change all the time.” He, like many people who have led retreats in St. Patrick’s, tended to imply certain things, without crossing any lines, leaving it up to ourselves to piece it all together to figure out what they were implying. For instance, [xxx] questioned the Church’s position on the non-ordination of women to the priesthood, without openly saying he believed women should be ordained to the priesthood. In another retreat gjven by a Cork priest, [xxx] made a similar inference , telling us that if he had his choice of working with any minister of his choosing, he would choose two female protestant ministers he was on a Scripture course with in the U.S.A. He also compared priests and seminarians who stick rigidly to Church teaching to people looking out through narrow windows (such as in old Irish monastic towers) who can only see part of the picture and miss out on the greater picture due to their narrow view.

MORAL FORMATION:

In philosophy classes we personally witnessed seminarians defend abortion (in certain circumstances), homosexuality and contraception. We also witnessed seminarians attack the Church hierarchy and the teaching of the Church on matters relating to faith and morals, most notably the teaching of the Church surrounding homosexuality, priestly celibacy, the non-ordination of women to the priesthood, contraception, and sin. In addition to this some seminarians openly criticized the office of the Papacy and the hierarchical structure of the Church.
The building and grounds of Saint Patrick’s are open to the general public which meant we were subjected to all that that entails. Many groups booked into the Saint Patrick’s complex for hen parties in the town with the result that immorally dressed girls ended up wandering around the cloisters of Saint Patrick’s. Also, as supposedly part of a class on the elderly, the entire first year class had to watch a movie called “Iris” which contained explicit sexual material including a lesbian scene. Many felt this was highly inappropriate. However, our protestations were dismissed as being over-the-top.

PASTORAL FORMATION:

The pastoral reflection groups tended to focus continually on the feelings and emotions of each group member. [xxx], the group facilitator, [xxx], continually told us that there were no right or wrong emotions and emphasized that our actions must be directed by our emotions. The intellect and the will were not entertained in these discussions at all. During the course of our first group reflection [xxx] told us that the reason we go on pastoral placements is to learn about ourselves. [xxx] also frequently used the group as a platform to air her own views and opinions, many of which were criticisms directed against the Church’s hierarchy, particularly in relation to the role of women within the Church.

INTELLECTUAL FORMATION:

Most students studying philosophy in the Seminary do so in the N.U.I.M. along with all the lay students. For most part the philosophy in the N.U.I. is very secular and some of the modules are taught by Jewish and atheist philosophers. The philosophical anthropology module for example was taught by a Jewish philosopher, and it was very notable that he omitted Saint Thomas Aquinas from the course and focused instead on thinkers such as Kant, Hume and Descartes. There was a distinct shortage of Scholastic philosophy being taught, with a very noticeable deficiency in the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas being taught. There were one or two notable exceptions: the philosophy classes taken by Fr. Pat Gorevan, Fr. Donal Daly and Fr. Simon Nolan were excellent and very much centered on the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

HUMAN FORMATION:

There appears to be a very unbalanced significance placed on human formation, to the detriment of spiritual formation. There was a major emphasis placed on feelings and emotions and very little on the intellect and will. Holiness was replaced by worldliness; there was very little sense of the importance of growing in holiness, and an over-emphasis on psychological development and an infatuation with sexual history, whereby everything was viewed as being due to sexual repression. The formation program was very horizontal, with little reference to the vertical (or transcendent aspect), or the supernatural element of our vocation.

MISCELLEANEOUS:

In Saint Patrick’s very few priests wear clerical dress; this is often commented on by lay students and visitors to the college. With the exception of the President, Monsignor Connolly, Fr. Oliver Treanor and Fr. Tom Norris, none of the other priests dressed regularly in clerical dress. For a stranger it was impossible to distinguish between priests and laity. The practice of wearing the·soutane and surplice for leading the daily Office was discontinued, even though a large majority of students were in favor of maintaining this practice.

CONCLUSION:

In an era where the Church is encouraging openness and transparency, the Irish seminary formation system is punishing those who are open and honest in their faith, and rewarding those who continue to ‘play the game’ and who openly oppose the teaching of the Church. As a result of this, some young men are being ordained to the priesthood who have never developed an intimate and personal relationship with Jesus Christ or our Blessed Mother. Some of these men end up leaving the priest priesthood after a short period because they cannot cope with the solitude and loneliness of priestly life. How can the priest be lonely when Jesus is present perpetually in the Most Blessed Sacrament, awaiting our visit, thirsting for our love, and above all thirsting to pour out His love and mercy upon us and all those whom we lead to Him? The Church needs to form more good and holy priests who can lead others to the great Gift of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, where they will ‘discover a joy and peace the world cannot give.

This is a truthful and accurate account of our experiences and observations in St. Patrick’s College. The treatment we received in St. Patrick’s almost broke us and took us away from our true calling, the calling God had in mind for from all eternity. At times over the past two to three years we began to doubt our faith and began to wonder if in fact there was something wrong with us: if the Seminary Council were so sure of this then maybe they were right and there was something wrong with us for being this way. However, thanks to the grace of God, and thanks to wonderful priests, we were given the grace and strength to persevere and remain faithful to Christ and His Holy Church.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , ,
64 Comments

QUAERITUR: Of the Precious Blood, wine, water and dilution

Unreconstructed Ossified ManualistFrom a reader:

Fr., Perhaps one of your ossified manuals would address this. Today at Mass, the priest had a cruet of wine on the altar during the consecration. I am sure he did not intend to consecrate that wine.
But, it got me to thinking. Let’s say that, somehow, the Precious Blood is thought to be ordinary wine and put back into a bottle of unconsecrated wine. (Someone did not follow the law regarding “flagons,” for example, and some of the Precious Blood was left over, in the flagon. It’s then mistaken for wine.) We say that the Lord is present as long as the accidents of the wine remain. Well, the accidents remain, right? The appearance of wine is mixed with wine, which also appears to be wine, obviously. Does the dilution of the Precious Blood, even with wine, lead to the end of the Sacramental presence? Hope this makes sense. Thanks.

Unreconstructed Ossified ManualistFirst, I believe only manualists can be ossified, not the manuals themselves.  Manualists can also be, simultaneously, unreconstructed.

Second, the priest has to have an intention to consecrate something, even a moral intention.  Generally this intention is established by placing the elements to be consecrated on the corporal.

Third, and to your question.   At the offertory the priest is to add a small quantity of water to the wine in the chalice.  That is to be a small quantity so that there is not the least doubt that the quantity of water added was great enough so that what was in the chalice can’t any longer be called wine.  In other words, it cannot be so much water that it breaks the substance of the wine by dilution.

In the manual of dogmatic theology by Tanquerey, that tonic for the soul, I found the opinion that “quinta pars aquae ad vinum corrumpendum non sufficiat … a fifth part of water isn’t enough to break [the substance of] the wine”, and thus render it invalid matter for consecration.  Consider that wine is comprised of a high percentage of water to begin with, but we know what the accidents of wine are.

Given the fact that at the consecration the wine mixed with water is entirely changed, and we don’t think of what is there being Precious Blood with water, but rather just the Precious Blood alone, I suspect that we could work the other way and say that once you get past one quarter part of water added to the Precious Blood you are fairly likely to have broken the substance.  Certainly one half quantity of water added would do so.  You wouldn’t thereafter recognize by the accidents of the liquid that you were dealing with wine’s accidents.

scruple spoonSo, yes, the dilution of the Precious Blood with some liquid that is not the Precious Blood will, in fact, break the substance, which can be recognized by a change in the accidents.  When enough wine is added, well… it is harder to see the accidents change with our unaided senses, they change a great deal less, but the substance of the Precious Blood will have broken.

Once you get past about a fifth part, you are getting close.

This is why at the offertory careful, diligent priests will use what is nicknamed a “scruple spoon”, a tiny dipper-shaped tool with with they dip up a tiny quantity of water from the cruet to put into the wine in the chalice.  The idea is that you never have to worry that, for reasons of surface tension of the water or the shape of the cruet or the unsteadiness of hand of the priest or deacon, too much water might be inadvertently added to the wine.  Priests must take care to avoid the the Ketchup Bottle Technique of Chalice Preparation when the water in the cruet is being stubborn.  You know the poem by Richard Armour (not Ogden Nash):

Shake and shake
the catsup bottle
first none’ll come
and then a lot’ll.

Lot’ll = bad.

When that happens the priest should start over.

Why?

I’ll tell ya’ why.

Because we are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists and we never never never fool around with the validity of matter of sacraments.

That’s why.

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

IRON LITURGY CAGEMATCH SHOWDOWN … and a question

Save The Liturgy Save The WorldI have been posting some liturgical compare and contrast pictures and videos lately.  Some readers have taken me to task for being unfair by posting images that are great when traditional, really nasty when liberal.

Fine.  Let’s try this again.

Yesterday we saw the “celebration” for the annual Los Angeles Education Conference.  This was the closing liturgy. I think most liturgical liberals would say that this is about as good as it gets for doing their sort of thing.

Let’s refresh your memory about opening minutes of last year‘s closing Mass, 2010.

[wp_youtube]nZ5it20gKqw[/wp_youtube]

And now, by way of contrast, here is the sample video of the opening minutes of last year‘s Pontifical TLM at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, in 2010.  This was in honor of the anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI.   I think must of the traditionally-minded would say this is about as good as it gets for their sort of thing.

Let’s refresh your memory.

[wp_youtube]VaydRX5y0vk[/wp_youtube]

QUAERITUR:  If the organizers of this year’s Mass for Pope Benedict’s anniversary at the National Shrine had wanted do something like the Los Angeles liturgy instead of a Pontifical TLM, would they have encountered so many obstacles that they were forced to cancel the event?

You decide.

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
74 Comments

Chicago “LIFE Mob” Hits the Streets Again

From a reader in Chicago:

[wp_youtube]nNztPXNFexk[/wp_youtube]

Chicago “LIFE Mob” Hits the Streets Again

Youth cheer Joe Scheidler and upset pro-abortion rally.

On April 2, 2011, hundreds of pro-life advocates and more than two dozen leaders from all over the country gathered in downtown Chicago for an “Evening of Tribute” to honor Pro-life Action League founder and president, Joseph Scheidler. (www.joescheidlertribute.com)

It was on this occasion, that “pro-choice” abortion supporters in Chicago, organized a protest against Scheidler, who they claim, “works actively to eliminate access to reproductive healthcare and promotes the harassment of patients who enter family planning clinics for a variety of services.”

After hearing about the planned protest against Mr. Scheidler, the young organizers of the famed “Chicago Pro-Life Flash Mob”, once again, took to the streets in what proved to be a poignant reunion for both sides of the issue.

In part one, of this epic video, Joe Scheidler is surprised by a special red-carpet tribute by the “Chicago Life Mob”, as he arrived for his Evening of Tribute, at the Holiday Inn Mart Plaza.

Hotel security was less than cordial and was eager to escort the throng of jubilant youth and their yellow balloons out of the hotel parking lot. Security was not so tight later that evening, when ill-meaning persons slashed the tires of vehicles displaying pro-life bumper stickers.

After leaving the hotel premises, the Chicago Life Mob encountered the abortion supporters in an intersection face off, while the Chicago Police divided the two groups. The youth greeted the virulent “pro-choicers” with joyous chants, music, and prayer.

Part two of this video (soon be released) recounts the transformation of downtown Chicago later that evening, when the pro-life youth, joined by many bystanders, marched from the “Magnificent Mile” to Millennium Park, witnessing to the culture of life with contagious exuberance and joy.

UPDATE 6 April:

Part 2:

[wp_youtube]L5qPR-faOB0[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Just Too Cool, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
5 Comments

You decide

And exercise in contrasts:

[wp_youtube]rh_nqtp3VrU[/wp_youtube]

And then there was this:

UPDATE:

And in Los Angeles this year, 2011, at the Three Day so Darkness Conference… er um… Education Conference.   No hotel meeting room, like the “liturgy” at the top.

Is this the progressivist/liberal version of the Papal Mass from 1942?

All that “liturgy” ought to be?

The very apotheosis of their worship aspirations?

[wp_youtube]YL9tmkBS9K0[/wp_youtube]

To my mind, the mishmash of languages and musical styles didn’t manifest our unity.  On the contrary, it underscored our divisions.

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , ,
59 Comments

QUAERITUR: How early can the Easter Vigil 2011 begin?

Here is an oldie but goodie. Updated for 2011.

From a reader:

There is a parish in our diocese that is advertising (in the bulletin and even in the diocesan paper) a 4:00 p.m. Easter Vigil. Are there ANY circumstances which allow for such an exception to the rule that the Easter Vigil may not begin until after sundown?

I seem to remember a clarification from Rome which stipulated that beginning an Easter Vigil at the same time as anticipated Masses is “reprehensible.”

I cannot think of any exceptions. Given the time of year and daylight savings time) 4:00 pm is simply too early. It is still too light out.

Since this night is the most important of the year, you want to get it right. Right?

That includes the time when the rite is to begin.

The symbolism of the light in darkness is important to the meaning of the rite. And the purpose of our liturgical rites is to have an encounter with mystery. The signs and symbols are important.

This Vigil (which is by definition a nighttime action) is not like the normal “vigil” celebrated in anticipation of a all other Sundays or Holy Day. It has a unique character in the whole liturgical year.

The rubrics for this rite, as found in the 2002MR says this is “nox“, night.

3. Tota celebratio Vigliae paschalis peragi debet noctu, ita ut vel non incipiatur ante initium noctis, vel finiatur ante diluculum diei dominicae. The whole celebration of the Paschal Vigil ought to be completed at night, both so that it does not begin before the beginning of night, or and that it finishes before dawn of Sunday.

sunset twilightAs your Lewis & Short Dictionary will indicate perago is “to complete”, in other words, “to get through it”. Vel…vel… is the equivalent of et… et.

To repeat: the Vigil is to

a) gotten through entirely during nighttime
b) begun after nightfall
c) complete before dawn

Also,

4. Missa Vigiliae, etsi ante mediam noctem celebratur, est Missa pachalis dominicae Resurrectionis. The Mass of the Vigil, even celebrated before midnight, is the Easter Mass of the Lord’s Resurrection.

In most cases you don’t have to say that a vigil Mass is for the following Sunday. But the unique character of the Rite, different from the Sunday morning Mass, needs to be clarified. Also, the time midnight is explicitly mentioned. This is the traditional time to begin the Vigil Mass rites.

Also, 1988 Circular of the CDWDS called Paschale solemnitatis dealt with the time of the beginning of the Vigil,

78. This rule is to be taken according to its strictest sense. Reprehensible [!] are those abuses and practices which have crept in many places in violation of this ruling, whereby the Easter Vigil is celebrated at the time of day that it is customary to celebrate anticipated Masses.

“Reprehensible”… get that? And that from a year long before this Pope.

We must drill into initium noctis.

sunset twilightThis is the time when daylight is no longer visible. It is after nightfall.

The Jews made all sorts of distinctions about sundown and twilight and night. So do we when considering liturgical times.

The earliest time we can start the Vigil is initium noctis. What does this mean?

Nightfall is when sunlight is no longer part of the illumination of the sky.

Sunset is when the upper edge of the sun finally sinks the horizon. This is what the Jews called sunset. There is “civil” twilight, that is, when the sun’s center is 6 degrees below the horizon.

Of course there is still a lot of light from the sun in the sky at that time. For Jews the evening twilight lasted until a few stars appeared. Then it was night. They had to figure these things out so that they knew, for example, how far they could walk to get to places, etc., before the sabbath fell.

We can go by that, …

… but perhaps more helpful in this day of astronomical precision and electric lights is to go by astronomical twilight.

Astronomical twilight is, technically, when sunlight is no longer illuminates the sky. That is a fancy way of saying, “it’s night”.

Astronomical twilight is helpful because we can use the calculations of the Naval Observatory to figure out when astronomical twilight takes place.

Your nightfall (astronomical twilight) will be a little different depending on your location (latitude and longitude, elevation, etc).

Exempli gratia let’s say you are in the umbilicus mundi, that is, where I was born, Minneapolis, MN.

Summon a chart for Astronomical Twilight from the Naval Observatory for your place and find the beginning of astronomical twilight for 23 April (yes 23, because the Sunday is 24 April)  My results were 2101 + 0100 hour for daylight savings, which means that the starting time can be 22:01.  Let’s call it 10:00 pm, to start the procession.

Okay, clearly it is the Church’s intention that the rites begin when it is dark. There can be a little flexibility. There might still be traces of twilight but it would be black in church with the lights out,  outside trees, mountains, and buildings might be in the way, etc.

The point is: let there be darkness!

So… if by 4:00 pm where you are night has fallen, fine! Start the Vigil Mass. If not, – and I will bet it hasn’t in most places people inhabit – then 4:00 pm is too early.

And, given how important the Vigil is, it is a grave liturgical abuse to begin Mass at 4:00 pm.

Didn’t that document say “reprehensible”?

Reprehensible.

Reprehensible.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, LENT, Look! Up in the sky!, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
44 Comments