QUAERITUR: Mixing Latin and English in the Ordinary Form

From a reader:

Last Sunday I attended a Mass where the priest used one Latin phrase during an English-language Novus Ordo: he sang “Mysterium Fidei” after the Consecration. Is this permitted?

Would that he had used more!

Latin is the true language of our liturgical worship in the Latin Church. It is always permitted.  (cf. can. 928)

The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council explicitly mandated (SC 54) that pastors of souls make sure that people can both speak and sing the parts that pertain to them also in Latin. This has not been obeyed.

The implementation of a new translation closer to the Latin original is also an opportunity to reattach our ourselves to our forebears and reclaim our patrimony… and obey the mandate of the Council.

This will also provide a way to reopen the vast treasury of sacred music that is part of our inheritance as Catholics. All these years we have been given the dross when the true riches have been kept from us.

In some places this reintroduction will mean taking baby steps. We can bring in Latin a little at a time until people are used to the idea again.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Brick by Brick, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
39 Comments

PRAYER REQUEST

May I ask your prayers for something?  I need some “speed healing” of an injury on the brink, the day, of some important travel.  Thanks!

Grace builds on nature.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
13 Comments

“BACK TO THE PEOPLE!” “AGAINST VATICAN II!” “COMMUNION IN THE HAND!” “PARTICIPATION!” “LATIN!”

For your amusement:

[wp_youtube]6khnt7DXOlY[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged ,
43 Comments

Newt Gingrich clarifies the “implantation” remark. And a reminder about an “excommunication”.

Remember presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s disturbing remark about “implantation”?   I wanted a clarification about that comment… coming as it did from a two-year, and therefore recent, convert to Holy Church.

In the meantime, Mr. Gingrich as made a clarification.  HERE at LifeSite:

In a new statement the Gingrich campaign sent to LifeNews.com over the weekend, the former House Speaker says repeatedly that he believes life begins at conception, that he is pro-life and that he would implement a pro-life agenda immediately after being sown in as president if he becomes the GOP nominee and defeats pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

“As I have stated many times throughout the course of my public life, I believe that human life begins at conception,” Gingrich said in the statement. “I believe that every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived. I also believe that we should work for the day when there will be no abortions for any reason, and that every unborn child will be welcomed into life and protected by law.”

“That is why I have supported, and will continue to support, pro-life legislation that not only limits, but also reduces, the total number of abortions, with a view to the eventual legal protection of all unborn human life,” Gingrich continued.

[…]

In the 2012 presidential race, Gingrich has pledged to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, end taxpayer funding of abortion, de-fund Planned Parenthood and sign into law a federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  Gingrich is also committed to repealing the pro-abortion Obama healthcare law, which contains massive abortion funding and threats of rationing.

In the meantime, canonist Prof. Ed Peters, the Canonical Defender, has a comment about this matter.  He doesn’t have a combox so do spike his stats with a visit:

A canonical comment on Newt’s oddball remark

[…]

In 1988, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts authoritatively (authentice) answered the question about whether deliberate destruction of pre-natal human beings “by any method at any time after the moment of conception” (quocumque modo et quocumque tempore a momento conceptionis) was an excommunicable offense under Canon 1398. The Council’s answer, approved by Pope John Paul II on 23 May 1988, was Yes. See AAS 80 (1988) 1818-1819.Since that ruling there has not been, of course, a rush to excommunicate women for, say, miscarriages, etc., etc., and not just because such things were never threatened in the first place, but for simple legal reasons that basically leave hard cases (and there are hard cases, although miscarriage is not one) in the confessional, where they belong, while preserving the principle that innocent human life, at any stage of dependency and irrespective of how it came to be, can never be intentionally targeted for death. CCC 2271, 2275.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , ,
42 Comments

QUAERITUR: With what level of voice should priests say those quiet prayers?

From a priest:

A thought: In the rubrics of the Missal, would you agree that a change in a word signifies a change in action? Looking at the prayers that the priest says that are not directed to the congregation, I noticed a change. Three weeks ago, those prayers were to be said “inaudibly.”
Now, those prayers are to be said “quietly.” (Third typical edition) This includes at the Offertory (“With humble spirit…”), before the Agnus Dei (“May the mingling…”) and several times after the Agnus Dei. To me, a change of word does mean a change of action; otherwise, the rubrics would have kept the word “inaudible” as the direction to be followed. And clearly, “inaudible” is not equivalent to “quietly.”
Having said these words quietly now for two weeks, I find that when I say them quietly, I say each word…and with more reverence. And here is another point. The Latin-English Missals I used when growing up had the translations for ALL the words that the priest said at Mass; I have not found any Missal”ette” that has ever informed the congregation of these inaudible prayers that the priest prays at Mass…I thought one of the purposes of the vernacular Mass was to better inform those present what was happening at the Mass. I wonder why these prayers were never provided to the faithful…So, a question: is it proper for the priest to now say the formerly “inaudible” prayers in a quiet voice that could therefore actually be heard by altar boys and the first pew of congregants?

A good question.  You are very observant!  Thanks for Saying the Black and Doing the Red!

We must consider what the rubrics say in the Latin edition.   The priest is at times to say prayers “secreto” or as it is rendered at times “in a low voice”.   Parts to which servers must reply are to be just loud enough, in a subdued voice, to be audible to them.

In the Extraordinary Form there were two levels of voice.  At Low Mass the priest would either say texts aloud so that all could hear or  softly, as in a whisper so that the priest himself can hear but not others.   At a Solemn Mass much is sung, so, obviously, those texts are heard by all.  Other parts are with clara voce (aloud), or secreto (softly).  Parts to which servers must reply are to be in a subdued voice just loud enough to be audible to them.

I think we could take our cue from the way this was always done in the past, in our Latin, Roman tradition.

Certain texts requiring responses are addressed to the people and servers.  They should be audible to all who are to respond.  The other prayers, which the priest says on his own and which are not directed to people for a response, should be in the low voice, secreto as the Latin says.  Sometimes there is music during the offertory when the priest says prayers that need a response.  I would use a subdued voice so that a server/deacon nearby could respond, without necessarily being audible to the congregation over and against the music.

In my opinion, we should with the Novus Ordo, Ordinary Form, recapture something of the fact that, often, the priest is not talking to the congregation all the time.

Perhaps some priests will jump in with helpful observations.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , , , , ,
24 Comments

NEW WDTPRS MUG!: “Lockstep sheep and papist throwbacks”

You may recall that a nitwit at HuffPo called those who support the new, corrected translation “lockstep sheep and papist throwbacks”.   Some people clamored for a coffee mug with that phrase.

I have obliged!  I wanted to see one, physically hold it in my hand and examine it before posting the link to the store.

CafePress now lets you order and pay via your Amazon account.

I have the first being shipped to me as we speak.

Here is an image from the Cafepress store… which looked a little fuzzy to me.. which is why I wanted to see one.  This is the regular coffee mug.

CLICK TO GO TO STORE

Details of the images I used.

The sheep are from a very courtly critter in a 6th century mosaic in the Basilica of Sts. Cosmas and Damian in Rome.  When lined up like this, they have the added advantage of looking as if they are goosestepping.

Top right corner.

Lower left corner.

The whole thing:

And now the real thing.  Sorry.. my own photo is a little fussy, but the image is nice and clear in person.

This is the large coffee mug.   There is a bit more white above and below on this larger mug… but I like the larger mugs.

20111205-103006.jpg

20111205-103012.jpg

20111205-103019.jpg

Links to other Z-STUFF HERE.

Link to the “Lockstep Sheep” mug HERE.

I may make a second edition and add some other items… so keep an eye on the store!

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
21 Comments

Your good news and Sunday sermon observations

Will you share some good news with your fellow readers?

Also, do you recall a good point from the sermon you heard on Sunday?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
48 Comments

QUAERITUR: BEARDS! FACIAL HAIR! BISHOPS! SEMINARIANS! DRAMA! SCANDAL!

From a reader:

I am now wondering about beards for clerics of the Roman Rite (if, as Benedict once asked, the Latin Rite still exists). [If Benedict existed… some scholars of late-antiquity have their doubts…] It is my understanding that priests and seminarians of the Latin Rite were clean shaven. I know that St. Charles Borromeo wrote concerning this for example. A number of dioceses do not allow their seminarians to wear beards (e.g. ____), but there is a contigent of men here that are all starting to wear them. It looks terrible. Is there anything in writing still in force proscribing them?

It is true that for a very long time Latin rite clerics (therefore seminarians) were forbidden facial hair and and jewelry because they are “vanities”.   Think about some of the spectacular trends in male facial hair in ages past.  As Jack Aubrey would say, “Vanity ain’t in it.”

CLICK ME!

CLICK ME!

Since I am an unreconstructed ossified manualist, I think priests and diocesan seminarians of the Latin Rite should be clean shaven. Yes, I know that it is no longer the law and I know that some men chose beards for skin reasons and not for vanity, but that is where I stand.  I stand there, damn it!  No beard!  No mustaches, d’ya hear?  Off with them, then!

A bishop doesn’t have the right under law to require a diocesan seminarian to shave every day… think about it.  However, he can, for one reason or another, chose to keep the man as a seminarian or not.

Seminarians have the right to Christian burial… sort of.  It’s a power thing, like it or not.

However, the physical appearance of priests reflects on the priesthood and the diocese.  The bishop has a responsibility to uphold both the reputation of priests and the dignity of the whole presbyterate and diocese.

I recommend these things as gifts to seminarians and priests with beards.

shaving soap

GREAT stuff.

And this:

shaving brush

In the meantime, remember that some seminarians are actually pretty young and are still figuring out what they want to do with those, as Bill Cosby put it, “little tiny hairs growin’ out my face”.

Look… common sense has to prevail here.  Men grow beards.  So long as they are decent, and since the law does not now forbid them for Latin rite clerics, fine.  If they are scruffy and make the priest look like an idiot….. well… they have to figure that out on their own, just as would be the case in academia, an office, on Wall Street… or in the Occupy Wall Street crowd wherein I believe beards are also lice infested and laden with souvenirs of unpurchased meals.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, O'Brian Tags | Tagged , , , , , , ,
130 Comments

QUAERITUR: How do you get an image next to your comments around here?

A couple readers have asked about the images/icons/avatars next to the comments some readers leave.

Here is an entry which deal with that question and gives some answers.  Click HERE.

Would some kindly and geeky reader would post a step-by-step guide in combox?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Linking Back | Tagged , , ,
32 Comments

WDTPRS POLL: Holding hands during the Our Father – your preference.

holding handsThere is a lot of discussion about holding hands during the Our Father.

I am curious about your preferences.

Please chose your best answer and give your reasons or explanations in the combox, below.

Do NOT.. do NOT… engage each other in the combox.  Leave every person feel free to say their piece without worrying about other people jumping up and down on their heads.

To be clear … do NOT… do NOT engage each other in the combox. Leave every person feel free to say their piece without worrying about other people jumping up and down on their heads.

Holding hands with anyone/everyone during the Our Father.

View Results

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, POLLS, The Drill | Tagged , ,
165 Comments