QUAERITUR: How can the Church take away indulgences?

From a reader:

I have a (.pdf) copy of the 1910 Raccolta, which contains some 34 indulgenced novenas. These are beautiful prayers I am delighted to pray, but I’m told that as of “Indulgentiarum Doctrina” they are no longer indulgenced. I’m confused.

While I understand the “definition” of an indulgence and how it all works, what I don’t understand is how the Church can give them and then take them away. Is a certain prayer forever indulgenced, or not?

You touched on the answer in your question.  Since the Church grants them, the Church can suppress them.

The reform of the grants of indulgences was carried out so that we would have greater clarity about the indulgences granted.  Indulgences are now granted as either plenary (“full”) or partial, without distinctions of a number of years, days or, even longer ago, “quartines”, forty day grants whose roots were in the period of time often assigned in the ancient Church to do penance.  The idea was that indulgences represented the remission of temporal punishment equal to the amount remitted by performing a penance.  Forty days of fasting and prayer, forty days remitted through an indulgence.

The idea was logical, but lead to a lot of confusion…. and perhaps even presumption.  Now we see indulgences in a binary way: they are complete or they aren’t, and if they aren’t, then God knows how much, and we don’t.

Back to your question.

The Church grants indulgences on her authority to bind and to loose, given to her by Christ.   By an indulgence, as we read in the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, 1, they are acquired “through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ and the saints.”

Holy Church is the dispenser of all of the merits of Christ and of all graces. The Church, especially in the person of Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiff, has been given Christ’s own authority to bind and to loose. Thus, the Church can determine that performing certain determined works of piety and of charity, for others, can satisfy some or all of the temporal punishment some people, living or dead, must expiate.

So, in consideration of the needs of the day, the differences in cultures, etc., the Church determines how indulgences are conceded.

Just a bit more on indulgences for those who may not quite get it.

By performing certain works (such as saying prayers at certain times in certain places, performing works of mercy, etc.), the merits of Christ and of the saints can substitute for the penance another person ought to perform in justice. Thus, justice is tempered by mercy. We are given the chance to participate in God’s application of mercy to the living and the dead by uniting our own actions to those of Christ on the Cross, paying the price for the sins of others.

Certain expiatory actions can remove all of the temporal punishment or some of it based on our own dispositions and based on the determination of the Church.

So, the Church can say that work X will remove part or all of the temporal punishment.

For our part if our disposition is adequate we can, by performing the work, gain a full – plenary – indulgence (remission) or only a partial remission.

Indulgences are great works of mercy.

They are not hard to gain for others.

They are wonderful things to help our selves be aware of our own need to do penance in this life.

They practices can become good habits which dispose us to receive the sacraments well and properly.

They set a good example for others.

They take away suffering of others.

What can be better than that?

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , ,
7 Comments

God loveth a cheerful giver.

Hoc autem qui parce seminat parce et metet et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet.  Unusquisque prout destinavit corde suo non ex tristitia aut ex necessitate hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus.  2 Cor 9:6-7.

I saw this video on the site of MLB.com with a biretta tip to CMR.

If you can’t see the video, CLICK HERE:

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged ,
13 Comments

Card. Burke: Vatican puppetmaster?

From Italian journalist Marco Tosati on the Vatican Insider of the Italian daily La Stampa comes this.

Raymond Leo Burke, the “great puppeteer” of American appointees

The appointment of Chaput to the Diocese of Philadelphia confirms Burke’s role as the Pope’s trusted man in the US
marco tosatti
rome

The nomination of Charles Chaput, Native American bishop from Denver, to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia confirms Raymond Leo Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, as Benedict XVI’s top advisor in the United States. One of the first signs of his role as a bridge between the influential United States Conference of Bishops and the pontifical apartment was the appointment of Timothy Michael Dolan as successor to Cardinal Edward Egan in New York.

Dolan, who is currently conducting a vigorous and efficient battle against the increasingly anti-Catholic positions of the New York Times (which a few months ago refused to publish his reply to a polemical article against the Church) is certainly in sympathy with Burke, and with the American bishops who must face new initiatives from the Obama presidency every day.  [“Efficient” is perhaps more a more optimistic adjective than I would have chosen.]

Raymond Leo Burke tried to warn anyone in the Vatican who wanted to listen (as well as those who turned a deaf ear) that Obama would be a disaster for traditional values – family, marriage, abortion, and so on – but no one believed him. [That seems to be the case.] Bertone was optimistic, and L’Osservatore Romano, the voice of the Secretary of State’s office (and, especially at this time, the Secretary of State himself), had given an impressive welcome to the first African-American President.

Burke, a man accustomed to calling things as he sees them, and “saying” more than “praying,” [I don’t believe that is an accurate characterization. in the first place.  Moreover, in the Italian original we find “abituato a dire pane al pane”, which is part of a saying “dire pane al pane e vino al vino”, which is like saying “call a spade a spade”.] showed no hesitation in expressing his opinions, to the point where the Secretary of State received [beware] a courteous request to stop releasing interviews that were negative and critical toward the new President. [I don’t know who did this translation but it is not great.  The Italian says that a request arrived from the Secretariate of State.  Rather different, no?]

Perhaps someone will start to believe Burke, now that the American ambassador to Rome (just like his colleagues around the world) has, at Washington’s behest, become a promoter of gay parades and other events – even in Pakistan – where Benedict XVI is represented in a vulgar and offensive manner.

But someone (or Someone with a capital “S”) in the Vatican holds the frankness and clarity of vision of the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, in high esteem.

Someone knows – and benefits from – his deep knowledge of people and things overseas, and his ability to identify solutions in terms of candidates for dioceses that are gradually freeing themselves [sigh… liberersi… “fall vacant”, not “freeing themselves”…], in a Church still shaken by the financial and public relations aftershocks of the paedophilia scandal.

Charles Chaput was initially supposed to be appointed as Archbishop of Chicago, [Oh?] replacing the ill Cardinal George in the great lakeside diocese. But fortunately, the head of the diocese still feels able to manage his role with dignity and efficiency, when his illness is not acting up. Thus it is not at all certain when he will need to be replaced.

This uncertainty has not escaped many in the Curia: it is believed, especially by Burke, that Chaput will shortly be assured a diocese that will rather rapidly (some sources say a Consistory will be held at the end of this year or the beginning of the next) [I’ll believe it when I see it.] win him the cardinal’s berretta. [How does a cardinal’s berretta or beretta differ from that of an ordinary priest or bishop?  For proper liturgical use of the beretta, try this.]

According to rumours flying around, behind the Leonine Wall during John Paul II’s pontificate, and in the first years of Benedict XVI’s pontificate, one of the great “puppeteers” of the appointment of overseas bishops was the current prefect of the Pontifical Household, Archbishop James Michael Harvey. He seems to still be hanging onto the role, but – if one believes certain sources – it has been greatly reduced with the arrival of Raymond Leo Burke. The next few months brings a deadline for many American bishops; then we will see what influence the new prefect for bishops – Canadian Marc Ouellette – and Burke himself will have in changing the episcopal face of the Stars and Stripes.

This chatty Italian style doesn’t transfer well into English, unless you are 16.  And in many points – I  pointed to a few – the translation was just plain wrong.  But the essential message is clear.  Marco Tosati believes that Card. Burke is guiding the important appointments for the USA.

I direct you back to two proposals I made about the appointment of bishops.

PROPOSAL 1: Stop, now, and say a prayer to the guardian angels of those who must make these decisions.

PROPOSAL 2: If your diocese is presently “sede vacante“, for each minute of gossip and even of speculation – which will go on anyway – spend 10 in prayer.

These are difficult times.  The devil is abroad and has great wrath.  The appointment of bishops is always important and difficult.

The bigger the see, the more important the choice, as we have seen to our great consternation.

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

QUAERITUR: How to get a user icon/image/avatar for comments?

From a reader:

I notice that some commenters have a icon or photo next to their handle. How does one go about acquiring this? Do you have to order a certain tonnage of Mystic Monk?

Yes.  That exactly right.  The more Mystic Monk Coffee or Tea you buy, the quicker and the cooler icon/avatar you get.   Think of the kid’s cereal scams of yore.

Seriously, I believe people can get a Gravatar image to appear, if you get an account and upload the image.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes | Tagged , ,
26 Comments

Countering “woolly-minded relativism” with Classical Studies

I recently posted about a new liberal arts college for England.

Thanks to rogueclassicism I found an article on the site of Times Higher Education which will be of interest to many of you.  My emphases and comments.

Reading Aristotle can roll back the tide of relativism

By Matthew Reisz

A leading educational researcher has called for a revival of “classical education” that goes beyond television documentaries, popular books about Socrates, GCSEs in ancient civilisation and the promotion of Latin as part of an International Baccalaureate.  [Promotion of LATIN.]

Speaking at the Institute of Ideas Education Forum this week, Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby, argued that we are not “on the verge of a second Renaissance”.

The enthusiasm for Classics among politicians such as Boris Johnson or Michael Gove was largely a result of misty-eyed nostalgia for their own “public or grammar school education”, he said.

What this tended to miss out were the things that made the classical tradition genuinely important. Prominent among these was ancient philosophers’ commitment to “objectivism” – “seeing things as they really are” – and an attendant “recognition of the need for a constant struggle against subjectivism, superstition and backwardness”[Is it too late for public education?  I wonder.]

The core values of today’s universities, continued Professor Hayes, are “counter to the classical spirit”.

We find “a woolly-minded relativism that allows management to have their values, marketing (to have) another (set of values), teacher training departments another, academic faculties another”, with “lecturers left to try to ignore or subvert these while pursuing their own values. This subjective muddle keeps going because there is no challenge to it.”

It is here that some of the great classical authors can play a vital role, Professor Hayes said, arguing that students should be “trained in the tradition of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

Plato destroys relativism in two pages,” he continued. “Classics teaching often focuses on accuracy of translation, which means that even those who know Greek can miss the point.

What really matters is the rigour of thinking, which is a central feature of Greek philosophy. That is the aspect largely missing from current education and that most needs emphasising at the present time.”

Professor Hayes is due to develop his analysis in greater depth on 23 July as part of the Institute of Ideas Academy, a three-day residential event that aims “to take a stand for the value of the content of education instead of fixating on object and process”.

“A better understanding of a classical education,” he suggested this week, “would require us to demand it for all pupils and students” – provided it is based on “the defence of objectivity, criticism and intellectual detachment against subjectivity, compliance and the promotion of popular fads and fashions“.

In a warning against tokenism, he concluded: “What is on offer in schools today and any development of it, without the classical outlook of struggling to ‘see things as they really are‘, will be mere dressing up. We might as well have potential students turning up for interview in togas.”

matthew.reisz@tsleducation.com.

And learn Latin, too.  Lots and lots of Latin.

Note that this is coming from secular educators.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , , ,
15 Comments

I want one

From FNC comes this great story.

Terrafugia Flying Car Cleared for Landing in US

A flying car retailing for $227,000 could be on roads in a matter of months — and customers are already lining up to be the first to get their hands on one, its maker claims.

Just over a week ago, the Terrafugia Transition passed a significant milestone when it was cleared for takeoff by the U.S. National Highway Safety Administration. It’s taken Terrafugia founder Carl Dietrich just five years to realize his dream, with some media outlets reporting that the Transition could now be on U.S. roads by the end of next year.

Last year, the project was headed for trouble after authorities demanded design changes costing Terrafugia somewhere in the order of $18 million.

Fortunately, Dietrich’s company then won a $60 million contract with the Defense Department to develop a flying Humvee.

Despite the fact the price of a single vehicle has been pushed to about $230,000 from the starting order price of $170,000, up to 100 customers have already paid a $10,000 deposit for a Transition.

The next stage for Terrafugia is global domination, with the first stop outside the U.S. being Europe.

The Civil Aviation Authority told the UK’s Daily Mail that the U.S. clearance meant it would be “relatively easy” for the Transition to get clearance from the European Safety Agency, based in Cologne.

“The bulk of the work has already been done in the U.S.,” said Jonathan Nicholson, of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority. “Safety standards are very similar between there and Europe.”

Terrafugia says more than 20 Britons have already expressed interest in owning a Transition.

The two-seat plane is made of carbon-fiber and aimed primarily at the U.S.’s 600-strong “fly-in” communities. It can lift off from almost any long straight road and, once in the air, has a top speed of 115 mph.

On landing, its wings fold up in 15 seconds, with power then routed to the rear wheels, giving it a top land speed of 62 mph and size dimensions equivalent to a large sedan.

“It’s like a little Transformer,” Mr Dietrich said.

The Transition will be available to those with a light-aircraft license and requires as little as 20 hours of training to fly.

I am not sure how to add this to my amazon.com wishlist.

Seriously, I admire the ingenuity of some entrepreneurs.  These guys figured out how to make this thing and then figured out how to get it approved by the feds.

In a way, since this story came on the day the last Space Shuttle landed, I find this thing consoling.  Private industry, entrepreneurs.  Where would we be without them?

Still, this thing would be a lot of fun.

UPDATE:

Now that I am thinking about this…

Where’s my jet pack?

It’s the 21st century and its about time we have jet packs!

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged
21 Comments

26 July – Feast of Grandparents

On the last page of today’s L’Osservatore Romano, at the very bottom corner of the page, there is a note about “Celebrations in the Vatican” which caught my eye.  At the parish church of the Vatican, St. Ann, on the memorial of St. Ann mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 26 July in the post-Conciliar calendar, there will be a celebration in honor of “i nonni… grandparents”.

Angelo Card. Comastri, Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica and Vicar General of Vatican City will lead the Angelus and a “supplica” to St. Ann along with a prayer for families.  In the afternoon, Paolo Card. Sardi, Patron of the Sovereign Military of Malta, will preside and there will be prayers for all the grandparents and older people in the world.

There is so much going on around Christmas that the family thing is sort of squeezed in.  But here in the middle of the summer, at least with the post-conciliar calendar, we have a family reminder.

Jesus was in a family.

Posted in Brick by Brick, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
6 Comments

Bp. Nickless (D. Sioux City) issues guidelines for Communion under both kinds and also EMHC’s

I have written before about His Excellency Most Rev. R. Walker Nickless, Bishop of Sioux City.   You may remember his outstanding pastoral letter.

Bp. Nickless has issued Guidelines and Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion
Under both Kinds and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
.

Let’s have a look at a few of the high points, with my emphases and comments.

Guidelines and Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under both Kinds and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

Diocese of Sioux City

I.            Introduction

“On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples…”[1] When our Lord thus “offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine, and under the symbols of those same things gave [Himself] to the apostles,” [2] He gave the Church the Eucharist as the unchanging memorial of His death and Resurrection. The Church always and everywhere has faithfully celebrated this memorial with the utmost reverence and devotion:

The most venerable Sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered, and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord… is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God’s people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the Body of Christ is perfected. [3]

In fact, “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist.  This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church.”[4]  At the very heart of this Eucharistic mystery is the sacrifice of the Holy Mass. It is through the celebration of Mass that the faithful, along with the sacred ministers, worship God the Father, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit; and, particularly through sacramental communion, the faithful take part more fully in the Eucharistic celebration. “Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.”[5]

Just as Christ gave the Eucharist to the Church under the double sign of bread and wine, “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds.”[6]  Therefore, “Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.”[7]  Namely:

[T]his belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration, the true body of our Lord and His true blood, together with His soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine; but, indeed, the body under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine… the same body, however, under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread… and the soul under both… and the divinity furthermore…. Therefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either species, as under both.[8]

Therefore,

The Holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit… and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laity, and clerics not officiating, are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation.[9]

Moreover, as I taught in my pastoral letter, Ecclesia semper reformanda, “We must renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass.”[10]  Such a renewal obviously entails that we love and receive the great gift of the Eucharist with the same gratitude and joy, in obedience to the Church, our holy mother, regardless of whether we may be blessed to receive Him under the species of bread alone, or of wine alone, or of both together.  Holding firmly this true and Catholic faith, and the same belief in the Real Presence of our Lord “truly, really, and substantially”[11] under either form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, together with all the clergy of this diocese, I encourage the faithful “to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.”[12]

To that end, I now offer the following guidelines and norms to govern the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds and the expectations for all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the Diocese of Sioux City.[13]

II.            When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

The time when Communion is distributed under both kinds has never been universal, i.e. everywhere and at every Mass.[14]  The faithful who receive the Eucharist, receive the fullness of Christ’s Body and Blood, soul and divinity, under either species (of bread or of wine).  There are appropriate times to invite the faithful to receive our Lord under both species, and other appropriate times to offer Holy Communion to the faithful only under the species of bread.  Holy Communion under both kinds may freely be offered:

a.      In addition to those instances specified by the specific ritual books, such as at Ordination, Confirmation and other specific rituals when this permission is granted, there are several instances when the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted:[15]

a. for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;

b. for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass;

c. for the community members at their conventual Mass (religious orders), for seminarians, and for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

b.      The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states:

i.        The diocesan bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as its own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.[16]

Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City

1.      Where there is a large number of faithful present and the gathering is taking place in a building or venue other than a church, Communion is to be offered only under the species of the Consecrated Host. Exceptions to this norm may be granted only with the explicit written permission of the diocesan bishop.

c.       The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America states, “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”[17]

a.  Priests in the Diocese of Sioux City might consider using intinction or offering Holy Communion only under the species of bread, so as to avoid such an “excessive use” of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City

2.      In parishes, chapels, and institutions in the Diocese of Sioux City, Communion under both kinds is permitted on those times specifically instructed in the ritual books, i.e. Confirmation, Ordination.

3.      Communion under both forms may also be distributed at Masses on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

a.      This should be done in such a way so as to avoid the “excessive use” of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Communion may be briefly prolonged, so as to use fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

4.      Communion under both forms may be distributed at daily Masses at the discretion of the priest who is celebrating the Mass[Interesting.  Not the pastor of the parish, but the celebrating priest.]

III.            The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

a.      By virtue of his sacred ordination, the bishop or priest offers the sacrifice in the person of Christ, the head of the Church. He receives gifts of bread and wine from the faithful, offers the sacrifice to God, and returns them the very Body and Blood of Christ, as from the hands of Christ himself. Thus bishops and priests are considered the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In addition, the deacon who assists the bishop or priest in distributing Communion is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. When the Eucharist is distributed under both forms, the deacon ministers the chalice.[18]

b.      Bishops, priests, and deacons distribute Holy Communion by virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord.[19]

IV.            Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

a.      An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC) is one instituted as an acolyte, or one of the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.[20]

Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City

5.      Guidelines for Selection of Candidates:

a.      The Pastor shall oversee the selection of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

i.      Pastors are encouraged to collaborate with other parish or school staff members in recommending candidates to serve as EMHC.

ii.      Once persons have been selected to serve as EMHC, the pastor shall submit these names on the proper form, with a letter of request to the Office of Worship, which will coordinate the bishop’s approval and mandate[The bishop, not the pastor, decides.]

iii.    To avoid unnecessary confusion, all requests must be made in writing to the Office of Worship on the proper form with all of the necessary information. All requests will be processed at the beginning of each month. Any requests sent in after the first of the month will be processed the following month. The letter of request must include the full name of the person requesting the permission and the type of role that the person will fulfill (school, parish Masses, homebound/hospital/nursing home).

b.      EMHCs should only be selected, approved, and mandated according to pastoral need.

c.       Both men and women may be chosen as EMHC, to administer communion both at Mass, and to the sick and dying.  Those who are invited to serve in this ministry shall be:

·        aged 18 or older (i.e., have completed their eighteenth year),
·        baptized and confirmed Roman Catholics,
·        regularly sharers in the Eucharist,
·        of exemplary Christian character,
·        committed to the faith,
·        devoted to the Eucharist,
·        respected by the community,
·        demonstrably interested and involved in the community’s life,
·        in good standing according to the law of the Church,
·        spiritually sound,
·        and capable of adhering to all of the Church’s procedures for EMHCs.

Those chosen must make a public profession of faith and be deemed responsible to carry out the mandate entrusted to them.

[…]

b.      Guidelines for the Use of EMHCs:

i.        EMHCs may distribute Holy Communion at Mass only when the ordained ministers present are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion, or when the very large numbers of the faithful present would excessively prolong the celebration if only the ordained ministers distributed Holy Communion.[21] A brief prolongation in the distribution of Holy Communion is not a sufficient reason to have more Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion than necessary.[22]

ii.      “To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated – especially, extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants (they are not to enter the sanctuary until after the priest-celebrant has received communion); and the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful.’”[23]  [That’s the tricky point, isn’t it?]

a)      The time of distributing Holy Communion should be proportional to the length of the rest of the celebration.  [I would perhaps ask what that proportion is.]

[…]

V.            Procedures During Mass

a.            The EMHCs should not approach the altar before the priest-celebrant has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest-celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for the distribution to the faithful.[24]

i.      The deacon may assist the priest in handing the vessels containing the Body and Blood of the Lord to the EMHC.[25]

b.            When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.

i.      When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains; he may be assisted, if need dictate, by other deacons and priests.” When there are Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with the permission of the diocesan bishop.[26]

Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City

6.      EMHC are granted permission to consume the remaining Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution upon returning to the altar.

7.      The practice of consuming the remaining Precious Blood in the place of distribution or at the credence table or in the sacristy is not permissible.

VI.            Communion to the Sick and Homebound

[…]

b.      The Eucharist may only be carried to the sick and dying in a pyx.  It is never to be carried in any other container, such as a handkerchief, envelope, etc.  [I wonder if there are guidelines for the material the pyx is made of.]

c.       It is not proper for EMHCs to the sick and to the dying to be given the consecrated host for this purpose during the Communion Rite of Holy Mass.

[…]

d.      Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must take the Eucharist directly from the church to the individuals who are to receive.  The Eucharist must never be taken home overnight to be distributed to the sick or dying the next day, and must never be kept in one’s vehicle nor anywhere else but a tabernacle.

[…]

VII.            Communion to the Sick and to the Dying in Hospitals

VIII.            Other Functions of Extraordinary Ministers

a.            Ash Wednesday

i.        EMHCs may distribute ashes on Ash Wednesday according to the “Order for the Blessing and Distribution of Ashes” found in chapter 32 of the Book of Blessings.

b.            Saint Blaise

i.        EMHCs may also bless throats on the feast of St. Blaise (Feb. 3) according to the “Order for the Blessing of Throats on the Feast of Saint Blaise” found in chapter 51 of the Book of Blessings.

IX.            Conclusion

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the great King of hope and mercy, desires that all His faithful children persevere diligently in the holy and saving Catholic faith.  His greatest gift to us is the Most Holy Eucharist.  Praying fervently that the whole Church may grow daily in devotion and in her duty to safeguard and proclaim the sacredness of the Eucharist, I now promulgate these revised norms for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds in the Diocese of Sioux City, and for Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.  All previous versions notwithstanding.  Given from the Chancery of the Diocese of Sioux City on this 24th day of June, 2011, the Solemnity of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist.

_______________________________

Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City

_______________________________

Deacon David A. Lopez, Ph.D.
Chancellor

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , , ,
55 Comments

Of Robocop and Great Caesar’s Ghost!

This is a cool story about a cool coin.  From The History Blog.

Robocop’s Brutus Coin for sale

One of the first entries I ever wrote for this here blog back in June of 2006 was about an EID MAR denarius, a silver coin commemorating the murder of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March, 44 B.C., struck by assassin Marcus Junius Brutus. That particular Brutus coin had been returned to Greece by a British coin dealer who had purchased it from two Greek looters.

Now a different EID MAR coin is coming up for sale at Heritage Auction’s Long Beach Signature World & Ancient Coins auction the second week of September. This one is in far better condition, a glossy extremely fine, and has the best metal quality of all known EID MARs. The others were struck from slightly base silver which is porous and thus highly susceptible to deterioration. This denarius was struck from sound silver.

Even more important from my perspective, once belonged to the one, the only Peter Weller, immortal Robocop, Classics professor and host of the best show the History Channel ever stumbled on, Engineering an Empire. He’s not its only illustrious owner even though he is its awesomest. The coin has been in a number of widely-published collections with clear auction records all the way back to the 1930s, so unlike the Brutus coin that British dealer owned for such a short time, this one has an iron-clad ownership history and won’t end up confiscated by an irate government.

The EID MAR coin has been voted the greatest of ancient coins by numismatists because of its rarity and immense historical significance. The coin was struck by a moving mint that traveled with Brutus’ and Cassius’ army in northern Greece in late summer of 42 B.C., just a month or two from Brutus final defeat and suicide at the Battle of Philippi. The obverse features a profile of Brutus after he was acclaimed “imperator” by his troops.The reverse depicts the pileus, the freedman’s cap indicating a manumitted slave, with a dagger on each side representing Brutus and Cassius as the liberators who freed the Republic from Caesar’s tyrrany with their knives. It is incribed “EID MAR” for the Ides of March. Director of Ancient Coins for Heritage David S. Michaels notes that this is the only Roman coin which mentions a specific date and the only one to commemorate a murder. This was so remarkable a minting that ancient historian Cassius Dio mentioned it in his Roman History.

“Brutus stamped upon the coins which were being minted his own likeness and a cap and two daggers, indicating by this and by the inscription that he and Cassius had liberated the fatherland.”

There are only 75 EID MARs left that we know of, probably because they were rounded up and melted down by Augustus and Marc Anthony after the final defeat of the conspirators.

That is so cool.

WARNING… lot’s of gore in this video.

[wp_youtube]7FvgP5hO99o[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Just Too Cool, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , , , , ,
3 Comments

The slippery slope: from decriminalization to social acceptance

From First Things:

The Present State of Our Polygamous Future
Jul 20, 2011
Joe Carter

In an interview on the science in science fiction, novelist William Gibson noted, “[T]he future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.” What Gibson meant was that the innovations in science fiction could already be found—at least in embryonic form—in our current ideas or technology. Much the same could be said about future social and legal norms concerning the institution of marriage—they are already here, they’re just not evenly distributed yet.

A prime example is the social and legal acceptance of polygamous marriage. [Not to mention contrary-to-nature acts.] The legal bulwark against polygamy was the first to go, dismantled by the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas. “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self,” claimed Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, “that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

As Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in the minority opinion, the decision could be used to legalize bigamy and would be a “massive disruption of the current social order.” Last week the New York Times featured a story about a polygamist who is suing the state of Utah to overturn its anti-polygamy law that proves Scalia a prophet:

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.
One man’s slippery slope is another’s ladder of progress. Homosexual activists needed over thirty years to go from Stonewall to Goodridge. But they have paved a clearer path for polygamists. And, unlike gay marriage, polygamy already has a long-standing cultural precedent. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.

The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of “serial polygamy.”

Advocates for same-sex marriage often refer to polls showing the social acceptance of homosexual relationships as a justification for expanding the definition of marriage. From this we can adduce, a fortiori, that since polygamy has an even stronger claim to historical and cultural acceptance, it should be included in the new expansion of marriage “rights.

The appeal to “rights” also undercuts any reason to give special preference to same-sex relationships over polygamous ones. The precedents established in Lawrence and Goodridge are equally applicable to polyamorous relationships and homosexual couplings. As Scalia noted in his dissent, as long as polygamists are not violating established laws or committing child abuse, states no longer have the authority to regulate their living arrangements.

With this decriminalization comes the inevitable push for acceptance. It happened with homosexual relationships and it will happen with polyamorous ones too. And why should society deny a man the right to marry all the women he loves? What reasons do those who favor gay marriage have for excluding polygamy? Having rejected all arguments from nature and reason when they were used against their position, what do they have left to justify their discrimination? [Eventually they will push for a acceptance of bestiality and “marriage” with young children.  Once they head down this path, they will try to decriminalize and then push for acceptance.]

The answer is nothing but arbitrary personal preference. Those who truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry someone of the same gender have undercut the grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same. If a man can marry another man why should he be barred from marrying two or three or four men if he chooses? [Or his dog?  Or his kid sister?  After all, we can’t be species-ist. The degrees of consanguinity – arbitrary, right?  The establishment of an age for consent is arbitrary, right?  It is only a matter of time before some sickos push for the decriminalization and acceptance of these, and their choices will be aided and defended by liberals.]

Unfortunately, many advocates of same-sex marriage are coming to the same realization, and instead of reconsidering their position, they merely shrug. They agree that allowing one requires allowing the other. But for them, polygamy is at worst an unfortunate but necessary tradeoff on the path to normalizing same-sex unions.

As usual, the progressive legal scholars are ahead of the curve. Six years ago Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, made an eloquent case for the legalization of polygamy:

When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.Turley was far too morose in his assessment. It took less than a decade for Kody Brown—the polygamist plaintiff mentioned in the New York Times article—to get a reality TV show. In late 2010, TLC premiered “Sister Wives,” featuring Kody, his four “wives” (he’s legally married to only one woman), and their sixteen children. The promotional material on TLC’s website invites us to “Follow the Brown family and see how they attempt to navigate life as a ‘normal’ family in a society that shuns their polygamist lifestyle.”

After watching the entire first season I can testify that the Brown family is rather “normal”—at least by the standards of our twenty-first century “anything goes” culture. Sure, they’re a bit weird. But who isn’t nowadays? And by society’s moral logic, if you get to know someone and they seem nice and normal then you can’t condemn their lifestyle choices. As long as their flagpole is attached to a well-kept cottage, why shouldn’t they be able to let their freak flag fly?

My fellow Christians are already leading the apathetic shrug of “tolerance.” As one woman wrote on the TLC website:

First off I am not a Mormon, I am Baptist, and let me tell you, those who judge these people remember you shall be judged as you judge. This family is happy, these women all agreed to the arrangement. It is no different than a man having 4 mistresses and children by them. This way they all know about one another, there is no lying, no cheating, there is acceptance and an abundance of love. They need to be left alone to raise their children. God Bless the Browns and keep them safe.
That just about says it all, doesn’t it?  [Yes.  And there is no end to how dumb some people can be,]

The social acceptance of polygamy is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed throughout society. At least not yet.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

Posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
40 Comments