I had a bit of a rest from posting a lot. The conference I attended was intense and I have been tired.
I have a zillion emails in my inbox and I doubt I will be able to read them all, much less answer them. FWIW
I had a bit of a rest from posting a lot. The conference I attended was intense and I have been tired.
I have a zillion emails in my inbox and I doubt I will be able to read them all, much less answer them. FWIW
My usual Roman bar breakfast.
The days begins. We are about to have a talk by Msgr. Newton of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, for former Anglicans. He is reading a paper for Msgr. Andrew Burnham.
Newton is explaining that, while they are formally part of the Roman Rite, they preserve Anglican liturgical patrimony. He says that many of those who belong to the UK Ordinariate have tended to be liturgically faithful (even high) and close to the Roman Rite. We are told that there is work being done in Rome right now on various rites for the Ordinariate by an interdicasterial group Anglicanae traditiones. He used the image of a fragment of a vase being glued back into the larger original source.
May I just add here… Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
Newton (Burnham) now speaks a bit about “the black rubric” and Cranmerian commmunion order.
Just heard a new version of a term: Anglo-papalist. “Papalist”… great word.
The paper quotes László Dobszay about the Catholic liturgical law allowing substitution of “another apt song” as being like “anthrax in the envelope”. I think we all know that results have varied. On the other hand, in the Anglican tradition, since the 19th c. Tractarians and others tried to bring some medieval hymns and Catholic ideas back into Anglican worship. So, in the Anglican tradition hymn singing “added value”. That hasn’t recently been in the case in some Catholic worship.
Learned a new term “Prayerbook Catholic”.
Second Vatican Council affected Anglican worship as well.
Newton (Burnham) talks about what from the Anglican tradition could enrich the Roman Missal. There is also some interest in the Sarum Use (suppressed in the 16th c.). Antiquarian? It didn’t seem to match the needs of Anglicans in UK or in N America and Australia (for whom it was too foreign.
What I wonder what from the Roman Tradition might enrich the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite?
Newton (Burnham) speaks about the problems of the Episcopalian rites.
UPDATE:
Jeffrey Tucker was asked to talk about liturgy and the internet.
UPDATE:
We had a little lunch like… thing… in the courtyard.
Now we have Raymond Card. Burke on liturgical law!
BTW… some of us are live tweeting with #SacLit or #saclit
There is an especially awful story about clergy in Rome circulating right now.
Once upon a time, I was walking under the colonnade of St. Peter’s Square with an especially well-placed curial official, nay rather, institution.
I asked him if it were true that Masons (the European style Masons, not the US style) had infiltrated the Church and the Roman Curia.
He stopped and looked around. He leaned in, lowered his voice, and said, “Yes. But they are not the ones people talk about.”
Many years ago, also in Rome, I stayed for a while at the Czech College. They were almost paranoid when it came to outsiders. Eventually, someone told me that when they did some renovations of rooms, they found listening devices planted in the walls. They had been infiltrated by seminarians that were actually working for government agencies.
Also in Rome, I lived for a couple summers at a Ukrainian Catholic residence when my own place was under renovation. Some of these old guys had survived Stalin. There was a concern that KGB plants would manage to get in.
For a long time in certain circles there was a great concern that Masons, communists and homosexuals had systematically infiltrated the Church for the purpose of eventually attaining high positions and influence and so under mine or twist the Church and her mission from within.
“But Father! But Father!”, some of you may be sputtering, “You don’t believe any of this, do you? Even though you obviously hate Vatican II, do you buy this stuff?”
I do buy it, yes.
But when I hear about scandalous stories involving Church figures, I tend to shrug. They are only the very edge of a slimy underbelly. Sin isn’t rare.
On the other hand…
There are those who hate the Church with as much hate as we love the Church. They are organized, they have a great resources, they have a Dark Prince. Dreadful liberal publications and websites, and even the blitherings of some priests and bishops, are only shadows of the deeper agenda flickered out on the back of the cave for popular consumption by barely witting dupes.
Deeper enemies, like our own beautiful missionaries and martyrs of ages past, are willing to set aside their appetites, put on a facade, and endure for patient years for the sake of a long term plan.
Yes, I buy it. I have seen manifestations of communist, Masonic, and especially homosexual networking in the Church both in the USA and in Rome. It would be stupidly naive to think that it isn’t present. In the USA, Masonic and communist? Maybe not so much. Elsewhere, yes. The other thing? Ohhhh, yes.
Those agents will probably go to Hell. Let us remember that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.
However, Our Lord did not promise that Hell would not prevail in these USA or, in the Roman Curia, in any other particular place.
When you hear awful stories, do not become discouraged.
We are nearing some kind of turning point. I think it is time to press forward HARD and with courage to renew our Holy Church’s liturgical worship, the best, clean antidote.
Someone sent me a PDF of a parish bulletin for St. Patrick’s Church in Madison, WI dated 7 Feb 1965. On the front page there is this poem.
Latin’s gone, peace is too;
singin’ and shoutin’ from every pew.
Altar’s turned around, priest is too;
Commentators yellin’: “Page 22.”
Communion rail’s gone, stand up straight!
Kneelin’ suddenly went out of date.
Processions are form in’ In every aisle
Salvation’ organized Single file.
Rosary’s out, psalms are in;
hardly ever hear a word against sin.
Listen to the lector, hear how he reads;
Please stop rattlin’ them rosary beads.
Padre’s looking puzzled, Doesn’t know his part;
Used to know the whole deal, In Latin by heart.
I hope all changes are just about done;
That they don’t drop Bingo, before I”ve won.
The Mass and confession schedule reminds me of my home parish where I worked as a young priest when back in the USA. Those were the days.
I saw this on CNA:
Cardinal bars dissident priest from speaking on Archdiocesan property
Boston, Mass., Jun 27, 2013 / 02:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Archdiocese of Boston verified that an Austrian priest will not be allowed to speak on archdiocesan property during a stop on his U.S. speaking tour due to his dissenting views on Catholic teaching.
“It is the policy of the Archdiocese of Boston, and the generally accepted practice in dioceses across the country, not to permit individuals to conduct speaking engagements in Catholic parishes or at Church events when those individuals promote positions that are contrary to Catholic teachings,” spokesman Terrance Donilon said in a statement provided to CNA.
Fr. Helmut Schüller, who was set to speak at St. Susanna Parish in Dedham, Mass. on July 17, is the founder of the Austrian Priests’ Initiative – a group founded in 2006 that advocates for “optional celibacy” for priests, women’s ordination, and other positions contrary to Catholic doctrine. [Doesn’t this sound similar to the agenda of an American group of priests I posted about recently?]
To this end, Fr. Schüller has raised a “Call to Disobedience” – or the refusal to accept basic tenets of the Catholic faith – in order to “reform” the Bride of Christ.
Auxiliary Bishop of Boston, Bishop Walter Edyvean called St. Susanna Parish last week to notify them that Cardinal O’Malley would not allow the priest to speak “at any Catholic parish because he espouses beliefs that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” the National Catholic Reporter wrote June 24. [What’s with the priest at that parish?]
Among the sponsoring organizations of the tour, “The Catholic Tipping Point,” are the Women’s Ordination Conference and Future Church, both of which promote initiatives contrary to Catholic teaching.
The priest’s July 16 to Aug. 6 speaking tour includes stops in New York City, Baltimore, Detroit, Denver and Los Angeles. All the stops except for Detroit are scheduled to take place at local Protestant churches. [I wonder if this priest will be allowed to speak at any parishes in those places.]
As of publication time, Fr. Schüller is still set to speak at Sts. Simon and Jude Parish in Westland, Mich. on July 26.
Fr. Schüller previously served as the head of Caritas Austria and as the vicar general of the Archdiocese of Vienna until 1999 when he was dismissed by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn. In 2012, the Vatican revoked Fr. Schüller’s title of “monsignor.”
Fr Z kudos to Card. O’Malley.
Another sign of the decay:
DOJ cuts funding of Young Marines program for mentioning ‘God’
A Louisiana sheriff is standing firm on not accepting Department of Justice funds for the Young Marines program after he was told he couldn’t mention God if he wanted the funding. Bossier Parrish Sherriff Julian Whittington said the demand infringes on his religious freedoms.
Whittington said he was appalled at the funding condition, spelled out in a letter from the Justice Department saying any mention of “God” or any “voluntary prayers” could not be included in the program if it was to receive the $30,000 in funding.
“Last time I said the Pledge of Allegiance, it had God in it,” Whittington told KTBS, a local TV station. “The last time I picked up a dollar bill this morning, it had God on it. You mean to tell me that we can’t have voluntary prayer or mention God in our program?”
[…]
We are getting underway on the 3rd Day of the Sacred Liturgy Conference.
The first speaker is Fr. Michael Uwe Lang of the Brompton Oratory, one Sacred Architecture at the Service of the Church.
Non linguistic signs may be more important than words.
Fr. Lang examined what happens to church architecture when the wrong starting points are adopted. He assigned more blame to ecclesiastics rather than to architects. If the theological starting points are wrong-headed, the building will not serve its proper purpose. Lang posited that many modern (really ugly, failure) churches take as their starting points the notion of Rahner, and then Schillebeecxk, that sacraments recognize preexisting realities rather than confer grace. Contrast that with Sacrosanctum Concilium 7.
The next talk was by dom Alcuin Reid, who spoke to the need of a true “spirit of the liturgy”. To recover a proper liturgical spirit, and therefore to foster authentic “actual participation”, we need a kind of lectio divina in sound liturgical sources and commentaries.
UPDATE:
Now my old friend Archbp. Sample is speaking about the role of diocesan bishop in regulating the liturgical life of a local church. He says that safeguarding he liturgical life of the diocese should be one of the highest priorities for a bishop.
He cited the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, Christus Dominus, in speaking of the diocesan bishop, states: “In fulfilling their duty to sanctify, bishops should be mindful that they have been taken from among men and appointed their representatives before God in order to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Bishops enjoy the fullness of the sacrament of orders, and all priests as well as deacons are dependent upon them in the exercise of authority … Therefore bishops are the principal dispensers of the mysteries of God, just as they are the governors, promoters and guardians of the entire liturgical life in the church committed to them.” (Christus Dominus, 15)
He goes on to talk about preventing abuses from creeping into the celebration of sacraments and sacramentals.
UPDATE:
At the after noon session, we have a talk by the great Msgr. Nicola Bux!
Before he began, he told an anecdote about an Italian priest who went to the new bishop and said that he was celebrating the older form of Mass. The bishop, on the edge of indifference, shrugged and said that it was okay but that it wasn’t a “priority”.
It isn’t a priority? Consider that Benedict XVI’s letter to bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum points out that in some places the faith is dying out. That being the case, we have to start again from the liturgy and adoration of God. So, the Roman Rite IS a priority. We have to have our fons et culmen. If we want to evangelize we go to liturgy. We are in a critical period for the Roman Rite. It is about to be snuffed out. If it weren’t for Benedict XVI we would be in serious straights. We might look again at SC 37 with a stricter view. It, with SP, could be tools for rebuilding the Roman Rite.
Bux also reminded us that in the famous verse of the letter of St. Peter, in which we are admonished to be ready to reasons for the faith we have, we are not to be intimidated and we are to adore God in our hearts (cf 1 Peter 3).
I had an email from the Benedictines at Norcia in Italy. They sent the text of a sermon given some time ago by Fr. Cassian Folsom, OSB. Given recent events and the sermon’s topic, it occurred to me that we could benefit from it:
The Three Degrees of Anger
by Fr. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.
Monastery of San Benedetto, Norcia, ItalyToday’s Gospel speaks of anger. The context is a debate against those who observe the Law of God superficially and exteriorly, but sin in their heart. He who lives superficially protests by saying “I’ve never killed anybody”, and therefore I’m not guilty of breaking the fifth commandment. But Jesus responds: “Look at the intentions in your heart: have you ever had feelings of anger or hatred towards your brother? The crime of murder has its roots in the heart!”
Therefore, the Lord directs this appeal to us, so that we can be more sensible to the presence of sin in our life—not only big sins, but especially those small ones.
Note how the Gospel distinguishes three degrees of anger, and assigns to each degree a suitable penalty.
1. He who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment, i.e. a trial.
2. He who insults his brother saying “Raca”—a word in Hebrew which is pejorative and strong—shall be liable to the council (a panel of judges)
3. He who says “you fool”—another word similar to “Raca”—shall be liable to hellfire.It seems like a disproportionate punishment for so little! But the point is that the heart speaks through the mouth. Wrath that spreads throughout the heart and soul must be confronted and healed—so that our actions might be free from the consequences of anger.
The patristic tradition takes these considerations seriously. Let’s look at what St. Augustine and St. John Cassian have to say.
St. Augustine interprets these three degrees of anger in a psychological sense (cf. Breviarium Monasticum, V dominica post Pentecosten). In other words, by his acute observation of human behavior, Augustine makes this diagnosis:
1. Anger begins with an interior turmoil.
2. This turmoil is unleashed on the outside with a cry of wrath, a sound—but not yet articulated in words.
3. Finally, a cry rises from the wrath of a word—as, for example, “raca” or something similar.Parallel to these three degrees of anger are three degrees of the judicial process.
1. The first degree is the meeting of the judges, St. Augustine says, where the case is discussed. There is still the possibility to exonerate the accused, because it deals with interior turmoil, which has not yet been expressed exteriorly.
2. The second degree presumes that the accused is guilty, and the panel of judges discusses the sentence, the punishment.
3. The third degree carries out the sentence with the fire of hell.Summarizing the thought of St. Augustine, one notes the various degrees of anger from the interior turmoil to the explicit appearance in sounds and words. The punishment is very severe, as if it were not only a wrathful word, but actually homicide.
St. John Cassian, too, describes three species of anger (Conf. V,11).
1. The first is that which glows interiorly—here he repeats the concept of St. Augustine.
2. The second is that which breaks out in words and gestures—here he unites the second and third degree of St. Augustine.
3. The third is that which is not disposed of in a short time, but is cultivated for days and days. This third species, Cassian continues to develop, saying that such people who prolong their anger “for several days, and nourish rancorous feelings against those against whom they have been excited, they say in words that they are not angry, but in fact and deed show that they are extremely disturbed. For they do not speak to them pleasantly, nor address them with ordinary civility, and they think that they are not doing wrong in this, because they do not seek to avenge themselves for their upset. But since they either do not dare, or at any rate are not able to show their anger openly, and give place to it, they drive in, to their own detriment, the poison of anger, and secretly cherish it in their hearts, and silently feed on it in themselves; without shaking off by an effort of mind their sulky disposition, but digesting it as the days go by, and somewhat mitigating it after a while” (Institutes, VIII, 11).In this precious description of the three species of anger, we can recognize ourselves and, with compunction and repentance, realize the negative consequences of our anger both for us and for those with whom we live.
What is the cause of anger? Normally, our wrath is provoked because we cannot have what we want. Our ego encounters an obstacle; our own will, in some way, is denied: and then boom, anger. To heal the wounds of wrath, according to this analysis, we must examine our desires: what do we want? That which we want: is it more or less reasonable? Should I change my expectations?
The opposing virtues are patience and meekness. Patience undergoes an injury and accepts the suffering experienced in the midst of the difficult situation. Meekness renounces the aggression of its own will, and says with St. John the Baptist: he must increase, but I must decrease (Jn 3:30). In this way, we will become like the disciples described in today’s Epistle: All of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind (1 Pet 3:8).
Our model, as always, is our Lord Jesus Christ, who comforts us with these words: Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart… (Mt 11:28-29).
During Confession, the parochial vicar at my parish insists that I say the Act of Contrition after absolution, when I have left the confessional. So I say it in the pew prior to doing my penance. I think he wants to move the line along, but it seems strange to me.
It is not the norm, to be sure, but it is not unheard of.
The priest has to be reasonably certain that the penitent is sorry for her sins. One could argue that the fact of the confession itself is the minimum adequate to convince him of the sorrow. That, however, has to be the exception rather than the rule. Hearing at least attrition during the Act of Contrition is the normal way that Father comes to reasonable certainty that you are sorry and have a firm purpose of amendment.
There are times when the line of penitents is quite long and the confessor is up against a scheduled event, such as the beginning of Mass at the top of the hour for a church full of people. In that case Father might try to move things along so that more penitents can be heard. That is usually why a confessor might occasionally ask penitents to say the Act of Contrition afterward. Again, that is not the optimal practice, but, if you are sorry for your sins and made your good confession, it would not invalidate the absolution. And during “high volume” times, that can get a few more people in.
This situation prompts me to remind everyone reading this not to “ramble” when there is a line of people behind you. Be thoughtful!
Please, friends, be clear, be concise, be blunt, and be gone. Get in there and confess those sins in number and kind, and include just the details that might aggravate or attenuate the sins. Under the normal circumstances of regular confession times, priests don’t need the story of your life or account of your week. It isn’t chat time. Nor is it a psychotherapy session. You don’t have to speed talk, like the disclaimers at the end of a radio commercial. Just be clear, be concise, be blunt, and be gone.
To this end, examine your conscience beforehand. Pretty please? You should know what you are going to confess before entering the confessional. Before, right?
And, please, pay attention to that request for “bluntness”, above. Be blunt. Don’t beat around the bush. Use the clearest words, even if embarrassing. “Father, I did ___ X times, ___’d X times, I failed to ___ although I must add that the house was on fire at the time, I ___’d my ___ X times….” etc. There is very little that a priest hasn’t heard before. He usually has no idea who you are, especially if you whisper. He can’t reveal anything to anyone. He usually – and this is something just about every priest you will ever meet can verify – he usually forgets what you told him even as he goes to the next penitent on the other side of the box. It’s weird, but true… at least for me and priests I know.
Making a good confession regularly will help you with being clear, concise, blunt and gone.
In the meantime, if you are really nervous or haven’t gone to confession often for a long time, Father can help you out, but ask him to help you out so that he doesn’t wonder about intervening. Be direct.
And please be patient and understanding with priest who try to get a few more penitents in before being forced to get out of the box.
Today real marriage and true sexual identity was dealt a blow by one of the most dangerous institutions on the planet, the Supreme Court of these United States of America.
What was the reaction of “The First Gay President”?
Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages
President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.
“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”
[…]
Fr. Z responds:
To paraphrase the famous fight: Every word he says is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
This is the result of “creeping incrementalism”.
And it is not over.