Another extravagant food entry

Posted on 9 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It’s time for some shots of really extravagant food!

Yesterday for lunch, I splurged on …

… and… wait for it …

I included the sprig of parsley to annoy the creepy people who think we should be rubbing gravel through our hair and drinking water from sidewalk puddles… which – come to think of it – would be hard to do this time of year.

The grilled cheese sando and tomato soup with crackers were very tasty, which was probably a bad thing.

And for today! 

I admit, this, like the sandwich above, was homemade… from actual leftover chicken bones and … meat!

I bought the little ravioli.  Was that wrong?

More evil parsley, I know.
 

Posted in Fr. Z's Kitchen, Lighter fare |
53 Comments

The Feeder Feed

Posted on 9 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

There was a lot of snow and a lot of cold and a lot of wind.

The birds are doing their best.

Posted in The Feeder Feed |
13 Comments

Catholic League: Pres. Obama renominates anti-Catholic lawyer

Posted on 8 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Catholic League has this to say about Pres. Obama’s renomination of an anti-Catholic lawyer who once compared pregnancy to slavery.

OBAMA RENOMINATES ANTI-CATHOLIC LAWYER

Catholic League president Bill Donohue calls attention to the decision of President Obama to renominate Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel:

Most of the critics of Dawn Johnsen focus on her strong pro-abortion record. While that is disturbing, a pro-abortion president can be expected to staff his administration with such persons, and no one doubts President Obama’s position on this subject. But it is an entirely different matter when a president selects bigots to work for him.

Dawn Johnsen is not someone who simply takes issue with the Catholic Church’s pro-life position: she wants to punish the Church. In the late 1980s, she joined a cadre of anti-Catholics to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status. The charge? The Church was guilty of violating IRS strictures because it took a strong pro-life position. The lawsuit failed.

The person who led this assault was Lawrence Lader, co-founder of NARAL with Dr. Bernard Nathanson. (Nathanson later dropped his pro-abortion position, became a strong pro-life advocate and converted to Catholicism.) At the time the two men founded NARAL, Lader, according to Nathanson, liked to refer to the Catholic Church as “our favorite whipping boy,” maintaining that his goal was to “bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That’s the real enemy.” (Italics in the original.) That was in the late 1960s. Twenty years later, Lader published a vicious book assailing the Catholic Church, and it was at this time that he launched his bid—assisted by Johnsen—to break the Church.

This is who Dawn Johnsen is. She is a person who is so fueled with hatred of the Catholic Church that she would like to destroy it. Having failed to secure her appointment last year, Obama has decided that he just can’t proceed without her. How telling.

Johnsen is not the first anti-Catholic chosen by Obama, but she is by far the most extreme and the most dangerous.

I remind you all to read THIS.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged
33 Comments

Wonderful investiture of Benedictine postulants in Kansas City

Posted on 8 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

We talk a great deal, and rightly so, about praying for vocations among men.   We must also pray both that women will answer a call and also have a place to go to realize that vocation.

Traditional communities of women are growing and happy.

One of my favorite groups of Benedictines, the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles near Kansas City, MO, had an investiture of postulants.

They are a wonderful and growing community.

Here are a few photos of the investiture.  You can find more at the site Kansas Catholic.

Here is Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City doing the honors.

Cutting hair.

There are some great photos on that site.  I encourage you to take a look.

Just one more…

Posted in Brick by Brick | Tagged , , ,
31 Comments

The Pope, the “sedia” and security – a security consultant’s view

Posted on 7 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Here on WDTPRS we had a POLL about whether or not the sedia gestatoria should be revived for the sake of the security of the person of the Roman Pontiff, at least in the Basilica of St. Peter.

The results:

    *  Yes
      1190 69% of all votes
    * No
      539 31% of all votes

Total Votes: 1729

People posted interesting comments with arguments for and against the revival of the sedia.

I find today on the site of the UK’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, that there is an article arguing in favor of the revival of the sedia gestatoria for the sake of security.  The writer is a security consultant.

My emphases and comments and with my edits:

The sedia gestatoria would protect the Pope
Security expert Dominic Scarborough urges the Vatican to draw on tradition to prevent a repeat of the Midnight Mass attack on Benedict XVI

8 January 2010

[…]

One only has to look at old black and white footage of pontiffs prior to Paul VI to see how popes always used to enter the basilica being carried shoulder high in the sedia gestatoria. Not only that, but there was always a throng of people around the chair, not only the actual bearers but numerous chamberlains and nobility and a large number of guards: Swiss Guards, uniformed Gendarmes, the Palatine Guard and Noble Guard. These comprised the old papal court which Pope Paul VI abolished and which formed a kind of buffer zone between the Pope and the crowds, no doubt as much a practical defence measure as a piece of ceremony. [That was one of my own arguments in favor.]

The use of the sedia continued until very recently and many are unaware that the last pope to use the sedia was actually Pope John Paul I. While the abolition of this ancient form of transport may have since been considered appropriate in the context of the late 20th century and the need to democratise the appearance of papal ceremonies, [This was part of an argument used by those against the revival.] the reality has left the Pope an isolated and vulnerable figure separated from the deacons ahead and the MCs behind, one who appears all too often like the figure in the Third Secret of Fatima: a victim walking alone simply waiting to be attacked.

While there are bound to be some who would see the return of the sedia as yet another example of this Pope "turning the clock back", [specious] in fact not only would it save an elderly man’s tired legs but it would allow more of the crowd to see him. [A classic argument in favor.] Most importantly, it would actually insulate him from the kind of physical assault we saw at Christmas by virtue of the mob of people surrounding it (who could these days be swelled by Swiss Guards and the gendarme officers in suitably formal garb) to work alongside the suited officers at the perimeter.

Naturally, the risk of attack from a gunman or explosive device would still be present and indeed potentially magnified by the sedia [Some against raised this.] but the use of X-ray machines at the entrance to the basilica and physical searches of congregants should by now be mandatory at such events to confront these risks which are no more heightened by the Pope presiding at Mass from an elevated platform, as he does, than from being carried in a chair. [Exactly.]

It was being reported earlier in the year on several Catholic blogs that the Vatican was actively considering a return for the sedia gestatoria for ceremonies in St Peter’s, more because of the Pope’s age than as a protection against attack. Perhaps the latest incident will persuade them that what tradition hands down frequently has a practical origin beyond merely the visually impressive spectacle that to sceptical modern eyes it had appeared to have become.

Dominic Scarborough is a regular commentator in the press and internet on Catholic affairs. His company, Proteus Risk, advises companies on security issues

 

For the record, I am in favor of the use of the sedia gestatoria, not for any sort of triumphalism, but rather because a) it is really hard to see the Pope when he enters in the Basilica and b) it would create a buffer zone of strong and well-prepared men around him.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged
30 Comments

QUAERITUR: we want the TLM, but no priest, no parish

Posted on 7 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

I must drive 1.5 hours minimum (in good driving conditions) to attend an EF mass.  There is only the […] offering it before noon.  I have 7, soon to be 8 children.  There are easily 12 parishes within 1/2 hour drive.  My own pastor refuses to offer latin mass in either form.  He isn’t at all prepared and he would likely get lynched.  I and others in the area have written to Archbishop […] requesting easier access.  The clergy in the area have no interest and some have contempt for anything latin.  Do I have reason to write to Ecclesia Dei or am I being unreasonable?   How would I go about it? 

 

You always have the right to write directly to the the competent office of the Holy See at any time.

That said, it is best to get involved locally before writing to the Holy See.

What you describe is not an easily solved situation.  If there is no priest who is capable of using the 1962MR, what can be done?  You can’t have that Mass without a priest who know how to do it.

I suggest that you keep working on your local Archbishop, saving copies of all your correspondence.

In the meantime, if there is a priest within a reasonable distance, perhaps you and others could arrange to bring the priest to you for a private Mass from time to time at a local parish where the pastor is disposed at least to help you that way. Be ready to give a donation to both the parish and the priest.

Keep a chronicle of everything that happens and urge others with your interest to do so as well.  Things written on paper remain, and they can be useful in future correspondence in case you need to write to the Holy See.

But the key here is a) find a priest willing to say that Mass and b) find a local priest willing to host it, it not do it himself.

You may need to apply some real diplomacy. 

In the meantime, keep going to Mass on days of obligation, even if you must go to the Novus Ordo.

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

QUAERITUR: EMCs, “leftover” Hosts after Communion calls

Posted on 7 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

But I can’t post to your forum.  I am an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist for my parish, serving the homebound.  I receive communion at mass, then take the Eucharist to those who are sick.  Sometimes they cannot receive, so I am left with the Host, and the church is often locked preventing my returning the Host to the tabernacle.  Is it licit to consume the Host?  This being a second reception in a day, outside of the Eucharistic Celebration.  If not, what do I do with the Host?

 

Actually, you are not an "extraordinary minister of the Eucharist".  You are an "extraordinary minister of Communion" (EMC). 

What you are describing is, in effect, self-communication.

This is a good question, since I imagine this happens to EMCs with some frequency.

Your diocese may have specific directions for EMC’s in these situations.  Ask your parish priest.

In the absence of clear direction from the diocese, my strong suggestion is that you return immediately with the Host to the parish and leave the pyx for the parish priest or give it to him directly.  If you can’t reach your priest (you should have contact information!), perhaps there is another parish where, after some contact in advance, you can get some help.

Don’t simply go home with the pyx and Host or run errands.  First things first.  I would say if you are truly in a bind (no priest anywhere, no access to a proper place to leave the Host, no options), then consume It.

It may be that the diocese will have a policy that, in these situations, you are simply to consume the Host. 
Follow their policy if you cannot do this in the better way, that is, return to the parish with the Host and give It to the priest to care of. 

It is true that pastors, parish priests, are pretty busy, especially if they are alone.  Yet the Code of Canon Law describes as one of the main duties of the parish priest to care for the Blessed Sacrament.  I think this falls under that canon.   He ought to make it sufficiently easy for you to deal with something that is beyond your ordinary role.

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

A note to parish priests

Posted on 7 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I had a note from someone this morning saying that the writer’s parish priest in his parish bulletin had urged people to fight against the new English translation of the Roman Missal and sign the a dissenting online petition.

Perhaps parish priests reading this might choose to urge people to sign a better petition, one in favor of the new translation.

I’m just sayin’.

Posted in I'm just askin'... |
15 Comments

QUAERITUR: Holy Communion twice in one day… did I sin?

Posted on 6 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

At Mass this morning I received Communion, then unexpectedly invited to serve Mass this evening, which I did. I did not think to say to the priest before Mass that I should not receive, having done so already, [That’s okay.] and to avoid disrupting the liturgy ended up doing so for a second time in the day. [You do not disrupt Mass by receiving Communion!]  I will mention this when next in the confessional, [No need.] but is this a sin or is receiving twice acceptable when serving? Both Masses were Extraordinary Form.

Please please please remember: Receiving Holy Communion during Mass, server or in the pews, does NOT disrupt Mass.  I know that some traditionalists have this view.  As a matter of fact, I have been in choir (sitting on the side in the sanctuary) at Masses of a particular group and, when I have indicated I would like to receive, was entirely ignored… as a priest.  But I digress. 

We have got to eradicate the idea that somehow your reception of Communion interferes with anything.

Next, it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether this was the Extraordinary Form (TLM) or the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo).  It doesn’t make a difference if you are serving or in the pews.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says:

Can. 917 – Qui sanctissimam Eucharistiam iam recepit, potest eam iterum eadem die suscipere solummodo intra eucharisticam celebrationem cui participat, salvo praescripto Can. 921, § 2. … Someone who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it again (iterum) on the same day only within the Eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, with due regard for the  prescription of can. 921 § 2.

Can. 921 § 2 says that if a person is in danger of death, he may receive Communion even it is not in the context of Mass.  That is Viaticum.

That iterum does not mean "again and again", but merely "again one more time".

So, say in the morning you were at some Novus Ordo Communion service wherein you received Communion, or a Mass in either Form.  Later in the day you stumble into a church where Mass was about to be celebrated.  At that Mass you could receive Communion again (iterum).  However, if you were at Mass in the morning and then stumbled into a Communion service at a priest-less parish in the afternoon, you could NOT receive again because a Communion Service isn’t Mass.

Canon 917 tries to walk the line between promoting frequent reception of the Eucharist and a superstitious or excessive frequency.

The key here is that the second time must be during a Mass, unless it is as Viaticum and you may not enter the Mass at some late point merely to receive.

So, do NOT worry about this.  You did NOT sin in receiving Communion, during Mass, the second time.   You did NOT disrupt Mass by receiving Communion.   And if the priest gave you to think you did, he should be admonished by proper authority in the strongest terms to knock it off. 

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

QUAERITUR: about what a priest said for absolution

Posted on 6 January 2010 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader:

This past weekend I went to a nearby church for confession.  When I was done confessing, the priest didn’t start out with the customary "God the Father of mercies…"  He went into an alternate prayer that concluded with: "and therefore Jesus extends to you His absolution for sin, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." <sic>

I thought the formula for absolution had to be a fairly accurate translation of ego te absolvo (I absolve you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Am I being too scrupulous or too precise?  This has been troubling me, as my wife was told the same thing.

Another example of a priest doing something stupid.

If… if… the priest didn’t also pronounce the proper form for absolution, then what he said was invalid.

If… if… this priest is doing this regularly, he ought to be reported to his bishop or religious superior.  If that doesn’t produced results, then write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

At the same time, God knows your heart.  Fine a good confessor.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged , , ,
41 Comments