QUAERITUR: Stole over chasuble, or “What part of ‘extirpetur’ does Your Excellency not understand?”

A reader asked:

Can/Should the stole be worn outside the chasuble by the celebrant
during Mass?

No.

This was obviously asked because some priest out there is wearing his stole over the chasuble.  And I’ll bet all the money in my pocket it is a groovy, meaningful stole, made by poor children from a third world country, perhaps with finger-painted stick-figure self-portraits conveying connotation-augment-hyphenated sentiments to an over-awed pew-sitting congregation.  And the guitars were strumming… and the people were holding hands… most of them in disgust… and the song-leader was waving that arm… and the presider was on display with a rictus of faux-joy…

Sorry… I’m ranting.

It is hard to believe this is still going on.   In any event, Redemptionis Sacramentum restates what the GIRM says.

[123.] “The vestment proper to the Priest celebrant at Mass, and in other sacred actions directly connected with Mass unless otherwise indicated, is the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.”[GIRM 337] Likewise the Priest, in putting on the chasuble according to the rubrics, is not to omit the stole. All Ordinaries should be vigilant in order that all usage to the contrary be eradicated.

Not just corrected… “eradicated”!

Vigilent omnes Ordinarii, ut omnis usus contrarius extirpetur.

Kinda catchy, no?  Extirpetur… extirpetur… extirpetur...

“But Father! But Father!”, you might be tempted to retort.  “This is small stuff.  At least he has the stole!”

When obedience is so easy in these small things, why not just be obedient?  Why is this hard?  Why does it have to be about the priest and what he wants to impose on the Mass?

And, finally, the maniple goes on the left arm.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , ,
40 Comments

WDTPRS: Epiphany (2002MR): becoming what we encounter

Allow me first to rant:

I understand that transferring major feasts to a Sunday can have the “pastoral” aim of exposing more people to the mystery the feast celebrates.  But… for the love of God… Ascension Thursday is on Thursday and Epiphany is called “Twelfth Night” for a reason.

Epiphany is from the Greek word for a divine “manifestation” or “revelation”.  The Church’s liturgy for the feast, especially in its antiphons for Vespers, reflect the tradition that Epiphany was thought to be the day not only when the Magi came to adore Christ, but also the same day years later when Jesus changed water into wine at Cana, and also when He was baptized by St. John at the Jordan.

Images of these three mysteries has been maintained in the 2002 edition of the Missale Romanum in the artwork on the facing page for the texts, artwork as I have said in the past that is every bit as good as that which Mommy might proudly display on the refrigerator fixed on with magnets of plastic fruit.   The “art” for the Missale is based on the mosaics of a new chapel of the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace built during the Jubilee.

I hope the art in the new editions of the corrected English Roman Missal is better than this.  I’ll post another image lower down of what might be in the new volume, as leaked…. if any one is interested.

In any event, in each of these three mysteries Jesus is revealed to be more than a mere man.

He is man and God.

The are many “epiphanies” of God in the Scripture, for example, the burning bush seen by Moses, the Transfiguration, and the above-mentioned.

The history of the modern feast of Epiphany is ancient and complicated history.

In the East Epiphany was an extremely important feast far more important than the relative latecomer Christmas.  In the West, the Nativity developed first and the celebration of Epiphany came later.  In many places in the world, Epiphany, and not Christmas, is the day to exchange gifts, in imitation of the Magi.

Will you exchange gifts for Epiphany?

The “Opening Prayer” for Mass, or more properly Collect, was in the 1962MR and in other ancient sacramentaries.   Enjoy the sound of the Latin by reading it aloud, with the fine rhythmic clausula at the end (celsitúdinis perducámur).

COLLECT (2002MR):
Deus, qui hodierna die Unigenitum tuum stella duce revelasti,
concede propitius,
ut qui iam te ex fide cognovimus,
usque ad contemplandam speciem tuae celsitudinis perducamur
.

LAME DUCK ICEL:
Father,
you revealed you Son to the nations
by the guidance of a star.
Lead us to your glory in heaven
by the light of faith
.

Well that is what ICEL gave us.  But is that what the prayer really says?   I suspect not. We are justifiably suspicious when the translation is shorter than the Latin original (which just doesn’t happen, friends).  In case you are trying to figure out the ending of revelasti it is a syncopated (shortened) form of revelavistiStella duce is an ablative absolute (duce is from dux).  Don’t fall into the trap of translating an ablative absolute beginning with “with” (e.g., “with a star as leader”).  “With” gives an impression of accompaniment rather than the existing circumstance at the time of the action of the main verb.   The adjective hodiernus, a, um, is “of this day, today’s”, so hodierna dies literally is “today’s day”, stronger than a simple “today”.  Perhaps we could say, “this day of day’s” or “this of all days”.  To my Latin ear this emphasizes the weight of the feast of Epiphany with its three events that are traditionally associated with it.  Celsitudo, in your revelatory Lewis & Short Dictionary, indicates in older Latin a loftiness of carriage while in later Latin it points to majesty, as in the title “Highness”.

A LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who today revealed your Only-begotten, a star having been the guide,
graciously grant,
that we, who have already come to know you from faith,
may be led all the way unto the contemplation of the beauty of your majesty
.

There is depth in the phrase usque ad contemplandam speciem.   The noun species (three syllables) is too broad in meaning for this narrow space.  Species often means “beauty” in prayers, but it is also a technical philosophical term about the way the human intellect apprehends things.  Species, (frequently also called forma, another word for “beauty, splendor”) points at a relationship between the thing known and our knowing power.  It allows us to perceive objects directly and without a bridge or intermediary.  A famous philosophical adage says, “Quidquid recipitur per modum recipientis recipitur…. Whatever is received, is received in the mode of the one doing the receiving” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, q. xii, a. 4).  Species has a transforming effect on the mind of the one perceiving a thing.  The object being considered acts upon our power of knowing, and this knowing power acts simultaneously on the object known.  So, our knowing power’s “active and passive” dimensions come together in the process and the object of consideration is known directly, without intermediaries.

This is what we are praying for, hoping for, living our earthly lives for: we want to see God face to face, directly and immediately.  In this life, we know God indirectly, by faith, our intellect being aided by authority of revelation and by grace.  This is St. Paul’s “dark glass” (1 Cor 13:12) through which we peer toward Him in longing.  In the next life we will not need faith because we will have direct knowledge.  In this phrase usque ad contemplandam speciem (a gerundive construction indicating purpose) we are praying to be brought “all the way to the beauty” of God “which is to be contemplated”.  This vision of His beauty will increase our knowledge of Him and therefore our love for all eternity.

This is what we were made for: His glory and splendor.  They will transform us, making us more and more like what God is by our contemplation of them for ever and ever.  The Fathers of the Church, such as Hilary of Poitiers (+367), spoke of the glory of God as a transforming power which divinizes us by conforming us more and more to His image.  In our prayer, there is a move from faith to knowledge in the Beatific Vision. Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, He is the Beauty and Truth of the Father.  Christ could be seen as the species of this prayer.  In heaven, God’s Truth and Beauty are indistinguishable and we will see them directly and be thus transformed during all eternity.

This prayer has meaning for our earthly lives: we need beauty now as well.

The influence of post-modernism, particularly in education, has made it harder and harder for people to grasp the existence of objective truth.  Ugly images flood our vision, hideous noises our ears.  This numbs us to beauty and therefore apprehensions of truths.

In a post-modern view everything relative, we cannot really know things with certainty nor can we communicate them, and nothing is admitted as unchanging or eternal.  The discord and restlessness this provokes in life has nothing to do with God.  But it has nothing to do with man either, at least in the way he was made and what he is intended for.

Dante in the Paradiso of the Divine Comedy invents a new word, “transhumanize”, to describe what happens to us through the Beatific Vision. In our direct contact with God we are simultaneously made more and more like God and also more and more what we are supposed to be, God’s images.  In being “transhumanized” in this world and the next, His grace perfects our nature, not destroys it.  In this life, holiness and the life of virtues is what does this.  Think of the document of the Holy Father, concerning moral theology, called Veritatis splendorThe Splendor of the Truth.

If eternal beauty transforms man, “divinizes” him, then in this life beauty (Truth’s echo) can change him as well.

So will ugliness.

The current dissolution of formal education in fundamentals and tools of learning has rendered many people incapable of following easily a linear argument to a conclusion that they will accept because it must perforce be true: “It is true for you, maybe,” they often respond.

Could the proper use of and fostering of beauty in our churches help us reach people in a way that the systematic approach and arguments may not be able to effect at this time?  Once people have seen God’s truth shining through beauty (of music, motion, language, environment) they can be reached in other ways.

The Church has given two things as a common inheritance for all mankind: art and saints.  In art, God’s truth and beauty are reflected in inanimate creation.  In the lives of saints, God’s truth and beauty shines forth in living creatures, His images.  In both, we find the beauty which points to the truth.  The beauty of the truth and the truth of beauty can affect every dimension of our lives now, in anticipation of heaven.

Our true Catholic faith and our splendid liturgy show forth the truth and beauty of God in a way that urges us to find the most accurate and beautiful words, actions, music we can possibly summon from human genius, labor and love.  What we say and do in church ought to be a foretaste of heaven and the Beatific Vision.

The Church must once again reclaim her role as the greatest patron of the arts in human history.  Beauty in liturgy can be a manifestation of the divine, a revelation, an “epiphany”.  In a new translation of the Missal, our bishops will have the chance to give us a precious gift: a new glimpse of God through beauty and truth in words.  When we go to Mass we are like shoeless Moses’ meeting God in the burning bush which is not consumed. We are like the Magi whose penetrating sight is fixed upon the infant Jesus, in whose perfect image something of the invisible Father is revealed.

2008 CORRECTED ICEL VERSION:
O God,
who on this day revealed your Only Begotten Son to the nations
by the guidance of a star,
grant in your mercy
that we who know you now by faith
may be brought to behold
the beauty of your sublime glory
.

2010 REVISED CORRECTED ICEL:
O God,
who on this day revealed your Only Begotten Son to the nations
by the guidance of a star,
grant in your mercy
that we who know you already by faith
may be brought to behold
the beauty of your sublime glory
.

Posted in Christmas and Epiphany, WDTPRS |
11 Comments

QUAERITUR: 1st Vespers of Epiphany? 2nd Vespers of Solemnity?

From a reader:

In my diocese the Solemnity of the Epiphany is celebrated tomorrow
rather than on the sixth. Which Vespers therefore takes precedence? Second Vespers of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God or First Vespers of the Epiphany? Looking at the ranking table it seems both are within the first section entitled “I” but then the Epiphany is above solemnities of Our Lady. It just seems strange to say First Vespers and then Lauds but then no Second Vespers. Does the Epiphany have precedence?

Hmmm…  I don’t have an Ordo at hand, for either calendar.

But in the older, traditional calendar I believe we say 2nd Vespers for the Octave of Christmas with a commemoration of the Holy Family.  Epiphany is, of course, on 6 January where it belongs.

In the newer calendar, if Epiphany is celebrated – which I consider somewhat appalling – I think that Epiphany’s 1st Vespers would have precedence over the 2nd Vespers of the Solemnity of Mary.  Furthermore, Epiphany is one of the most important and ancient feasts of the year.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 |
16 Comments

“Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” and the CDF

I believe you all know that recently the “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) for the US Military was overturned.

Also, last Sunday His Eminence Donald Card. Wuerl was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and was asked about this change of policy.  Here is the archived video.

I avoided writing about this, but I have been pelted by e-mail.

Finally, I was convinced to post something about this because of a link I received to an commentary on a Protestant website (onenewsnow.com of the American Family News Network), criticizing Card. Wuerl – in fact, criticizing the Catholic Church – for a lack of position about DADT.  They had a poll.  I posted a screenshot of the results as of the time of this writing.

In the same article, we read:

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says it appeared that Wuerl was not prepared for the question.
“…And he should have been [prepared], because the archbishop who is in charge of military services based in Washington, DC, [Archbp. Timothy Broglio] did issue a statement back in June recommending that the law not be repealed,” Donnelly points out.
“But when the issue got right down to the final vote — the one that ultimately was successful,” she laments, “the Catholic Church, among other organizations that had spoken in June, were silent.

Don’t forget that Card. Wuerl stood up and closed Catholic adoption agencies rather than cave in to the homosexual adoption thing.

I have to respond about the DADT issue that the Catholic Church has not been silent – in the past.  There is guidance for this issue in the Church’s documents.

A key source could be the 1992 document of the CDF, “Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons”.   This well-known document should be a constant point of reference for Church officials who have to deal with the media.

In the CDF document we read:
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
So, it is not exactly the case that the Church has no position about homosexuals in the military.  This document does not say there must be discrimination.  It says that it is not unjust to discriminate.
Posted in The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
16 Comments

QUAERITUR: To whom should I write?

From a reader:

I’m just returning from a confession where the priest used the words “He absolves” instead of “I absolve.” The priest was a Benedictine who
is the pastor of a Diocesan parish. So do I write to the bishop, whose parish it was, or the Abbot of the priest’s community. We have a good bishop here, who would understand the seriousness of this, especially when it’s his flock who pays the price. But I have less confidence writing the priest’s Abbot would bring any results. What’s the proper protocol? I have a letter to the bishop typed up, and I’ll probably wait for your response before I drop it in the mail.

If you have a concern about the validity of the administration of a sacrament in a concrete situation, you have the right – and perhaps obligation – to to write to the local bishop or to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

If you want to write, in my humble opinion, you should first write to the local bishop.  Keep copies of everything.

Remember: since this concerns the Sacrament of Penance, the priest is bound by the Seal. He cannot confirm or deny anything about what happened. That doesn’t mean that the local bishop could not have a one way conversation with the priest, or the pastor of the parish, reaffirming what the proper form of the sacrament is.

Finally, consider also this: there has been a lot of confusion in the formation of priests over the last decades. Don’t be harsh in your letter. Relate only FACTS.

Check my tips for writing to ecclesiastical authorities.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , ,
Comments Off on QUAERITUR: To whom should I write?

What were the biggest stories of 2010?

What were the biggest Catholic stories of 2010?

Let’s get some suggestions and then maybe I can organize a poll for some voting.

Posted in The Drill |
21 Comments

NCR’s very first “Person of the Year”: Sr. Carol Keehan

National Catholic Reporter has named Sr. Carol Keehan as their very first “Person of the Year”.

Even though she was head of the Catholic Health Association, a political lobby group, before 2009 Sr. Keehan was relatively unimportant.

Then Sr. Keehan, as an exponent of the Magisterium of Nuns facing off against the Catholic Bishops, gave cover to “catholic” pro-abortion politicians to vote in favor of legislation that would ultimately provide taxpayer money for abortions.

But this honor NCR is giving to Sr. Keehan isn’t really about her opposing bishops or bishops’ conferences.

This isn’t really about nuns being persecuted by a Vatican investigation.

This isn’t really about the conflict between women and bishops or women’s roles.

This certainly isn’t about compassion for the poor, or health care.

Sr. Keehan’s award is about abortion, and bringing the abortion business into “catholic” hospitals.

NCR is offering Sr. Carol Keehan as the acceptable Catholic face, the poster person, for compassionate access to abortion for poor women.

NCR honors Sr. Keehan because this year she did more than anyone else to change the perception that Catholics must oppose abortion.

Quite a legacy.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Magisterium of Nuns | Tagged , , , ,
51 Comments

Possible reception of 5 Anglican Bishops, their wives, and 3 Nuns at Westminster Cathedral tomorrow

My friend Fr. John Boyle posted this at his blog Caritas in veritate.  Be sure to visit him for follow up news.

Reception of Five Anglican Bishops, their wives, and three Nuns at Westminster Cathedral tomorrow
I have heard on the grapevine that five former Anglican bishops, their wives and three former Anglican nuns from Walshinghas are to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Chuch at 12.30pm tomorrow, New Years Day, at Westminster Cathedral.
I presume that the former bishops concerned (and their former dioceses) are: Andrew Burnham (Ebbsfleet), Keith Newton (Richborough), John Broadhurst (Fulham), Edwin Barnes (assistant bishop, Winchester) and David Silk (assistant bishop, Exeter).
This will be the first step on the road to the eventual establishment of the Ordinariate for former Anglicans who wish to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
I have found nothing about this anywhere on the internet, which all seems rather strange. It is, surely, a momentous occasion.

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

WDTPRS KUDOS to this courageous bishops and… welcome.

Posted in Mail from priests, Pope of Christian Unity | Tagged
19 Comments

Another Vatican website quirk concerning Summorum Pontificum

Under another entry in the combox, our friend iPadre pointed out that, at the time of this writing. on the Vatican website, the Supreme Pontiff’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum is still provided only in

Latin and Hungarian.

Languages equally comprehensible to liberals.

Does this seem right to you?

This is an important document of a Pope’s pontificate.

Shouldn’t it be in the main languages in which the Holy See released documents including, say, English?

Do the people who run that website, or oversee those who do, not think the Holy Father’s documents are important?

Posted in The Drill | Tagged , ,
38 Comments

Pages removed from Vatican’s online 1960 “Acta Apostolicae Sedis”: Rubrics of Breviary and Missal

The Vatican website’s OCR copy of AAS 52 has blank pages for pp. 593-740.

John XXIII’s new code of rubrics, “Rubricae breviarii et missalis Romani,” is on pp. 622-42.

Those inclined to look for conspiracies might wonder whether someone were withholding this key resource for the old Mass.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of incompetence regarding the website elsewhere.  And typos abound in these pdf’s.  They abound.

Still, this is pretty strange.  I think we can assume that those pages in AAS 52 were not themselves blank.

Here is a screenshot of the index:

There would almost have to have a been an explicit choice to leave that section out.

Why?

Cui bono?


In any event, let’s assume that this was all a big mistake and hope that whoever is in charge of that online resource will, for the sake of – I don’t know – completeness?  honesty? – correct the online version.

On a side note, also in this volume is the decree placing the infamous Poem of the Man God on the Index of Prohibited Books (p.60) and a decree on whether or not Communion can be distributed after noon (p.355), as well as when the Leonine Prayers could be omitted (p. 360) and the official text of the Litany of the Most Precious Blood (p. 412).

It is interesting to page through these volumes.

UPDATE 4 January 2010 2001 GMT:

I received an e-mail about this which, in fairness, I must share with you.

Dear Fr Zuhlsdorf,
thank you for your blog. I am a daily reader of it.

From 2005 to 2010 I worked in the Vatican and I happen to know the person who scanned the whole AAS collection which is now on th website. It might be a useful backround information that:

1) This was the work of a voluntary helper (more than 100.000 pages of “manual” scanning, one page after the other, all done by one person).
We should thank him.
2) When one person of the website team heard about these files, he decided to publish them. There was no time and personell to do corrections and they acted according to the principle “better this version than nothing; if we get something better in the future, we can still replace it”.
3) About AAS 1960: The voluntary helper consulted three copies in two libraries and all of them were incomplete. For now he just did not find the missing pages. I have informed him about your article and he told me that he will search in other libraries.

So, there are no second intentionts or conspiracies in all this (…
but it could still be useful to invite your readers to send messages to the Vatican about the missing translations of Summorum Pontificum on the website and other issues). I am sorry that this was and is “above my paygrade”.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged , ,
18 Comments