OH THE HUMANITY!

Vuvuzela or Vuvuzelas or Noise Makers From HellFrom CMR comes this serious and disconcerting story.  Me emphases and comments:

First it was contraception, then abortion. Now the Pope wants to ban something else…Vuvuzelas. [Picture me in my grief.] News reports indicate that Pope Benedict XVI, a former Nazi Youth and former head of the office formerly known as the Inquisition, is now banning the popular musical instrument which brought millions joy during the World Cup. [I would have thought this thing provoked head-pounding despair and suicide after prolonged exposure.]

When Pope Benedict XVI visits England he is expected to draw large crowds but the Vatican’s ban of vuvuzelas has not come without considerable controversy. (In case you don’t know what vuvuzelas are click here)

"Is the Catholic Church just against all fun?" asked one devout Catholic who said he was going to buy a Vuvuzela in protest. "I read somewhere that even Popes back in the…like 1300’s used Vuvuzelas all the time or something. So this edict is totally hypocritical."  [Oh the humanity!]

Some quick polling on the issue showed that American Catholics were split as they are on so many issues. 20 percent of Catholics were for the ban because it is the loudest most annoying sound on Earth, eight percent of Catholic were against the Pope’s condemnation while the rest had never watched a soccer match so had no idea what a Vuvuzela was.

So vehement is the outrage against the Pope’s stringent ban that a new group was established called "Catholics for Vuvuzelas." [Vincenzoooooo?!?  Where are you?] The group, which already has 453 Facebook friends, is believed to be a splinter group of "Catholics for Free Choice." The headline banner of the site reads "My Lips, My Choice."

"The Pope has no right to decree that I can’t use a….whatever that thing is," said one woman who was raised Catholic. "It’s bad enough that the Pope wants to tell us what we can do in our bedroom but to tell us what musical instruments we can use? No way."

When asked if she thought she’d go to Hell for using a vuvuzela she asked, "What’s Hell? I’m not familiar with that term."

One church in California was intending to hold a Teen vuvuzela Mass playing the song catalogue of Peter, Paul and Mary but they canceled the Mass because the guitarists and tambourine players who typically play at the Teen Mass felt slighted and many other said that the vuvuzela was the most annoying sound in the world.

One Teen Mass coordinator said that he believes if someone feels they can get closer to God by using a vuvuzela then they should use it. "Who is the Pope to outlaw someone’s spiritual free expression, man?"

He said he went to see his pastor shortly after the shocking announcement and his priest told him that everyone must ultimately follow their own conscience when it comes to vuvuzelas.

A spokesperson for the United Nations said they may consider funding the distribution of vuvuzelas to Third World countries. Of course, they’ll also put condoms inside.

Posted in Lighter fare, Picture Me In My Grief | Tagged
36 Comments

Archbp. of Westminister’s aide calls Britain ‘hedonistic wasteland…geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death’

UPDATE 2 Sept 1834 GMT:

His Hermeneuticalness, Fr. Finigan, weighs in.

________

From The Guardian with my emphases and comments:

Archbishop’s aide calls Britain a ‘hedonistic wasteland’

Riazat Butt, religous affairs correspondent
1 September 2010 12.02 BST

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Westminster has distanced himself from an aide who said gay rights  and the commercialisation of sex had turned Britain into a "selfish, hedonistic wasteland" and "the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death". [First, is that true? Second, if that is true, was it right to say it in that position?]

The comments from Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs at the diocese of Westminster and an adviser to the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, have angered gay rights and secularists groups and provoked embarrassment among the Catholic hierarchy weeks before the pope visits Britain.

Senior figures, including Lord Patten of Barnes, have been keen to stress that the UK, while secular, is not anti-Catholic and that the pope is not flying into hostile territory.

Adamus told the Catholic news agency Zenit there was an "aggressive anti-Catholic bias towards the church and the pontiff" in this country that exceeded even countries that violently persecuted Christians.

"Historically, and continuing right now, Britain, and in particular, London, has been and is the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death.

"Our laws and lawmakers for over 50 years or more have been the most permissively anti-life and progressively anti-family and marriage, in essence one of the most anti-Catholic landscapes, culturally speaking, than even those places where Catholics suffer open persecution." [Our readers in the UK will have to chime in on this.]

He also talked about marriage and the role of men and women, urging Catholics to "exhibit counter-cultural signals against the selfish, hedonistic wasteland that is the objectification of women for sexual gratification." [Isn’t this the sort of thing that one should hear from bishops rather than just from bishops’ aides?]

"Britain in particular, with its ever-increasing commercialisation of sex, not to mention its permissive laws advancing the ‘gay’ agenda, is such a wasteland."

A spokesman for Nichols said the views expressed by Adamus "did not reflect the archbishop’s opinions". [?]

Ben Summerskill, from the gay rights group Stonewall, said the comments were "gratuitously offensive". ["gratuitously??]

He told the Independent: "The gratuitously offensive comments being made by the archbishop’s adviser are hardly likely to promote sensitive debate about respect for religion in the 21st century. [What a curious way to reframe the context.] You would think that, given its present status, the Roman Catholic church in Britain would be slightly more sensitive about wagging its finger at other people".

 

So, the Church has had sinners as members, therefore the Church shouldn’t raise it’s voice in public.

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice | Tagged
50 Comments

QUAERITUR: Swiss Eucharistic Prayer

From a reader:

This morning at Mass the priest used the 3rd Swiss Eucharistic prayer.  Is that licit?  What are the other Eucharistic prayers that are allowed other than 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the one for Masses with Children?  Can you shed some light on this one?  Currently, I believe Mass this morning was valid but not licit.  Am I right?

For the USA, in 1994 the then-NCCB approved a translation of the "Eucharistic Prayer for Various Needs and Occasions".

This prayer had its origin in a prayer composed in the 70’s for a Swiss synod.  It has some variations based on different themes: "The Church on the Way to Unity," "God Guides the Church on the Way of Salvation," "Jesus, Way to the Father," and "Jesus, the Compassion of God." It is printed as one prayer but it is really four different prayers. 

But, from what you wrote, yes… it was licit.   This Swiss prayer was approved for use in the U.S.A.  I don’t know about other countries.

I don’t use it.  I won’t use it.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box | Tagged
13 Comments

QUAERITUR: self-communication from the chalice

From a reader:

I have a question about self-communication. I was at a monastery this weekend for a retreat and a monks allowed the laity to receive the Chalice. How they did it was a bit odd though. A lay brother took the chalice and set it on a table and stood by it. The communicants would go up. The brother would say "Blood of Christ" and the communicant would take the Chalice themselves and receive the Precious Blood and put the Chalice back down. The brother never held the Chalice during distribution. I didn’t receive this way because I wasn’t sure if it was permitted (and since I received the Host I didn’t think it was necessary). Is this considered self communication or am I being too scrupulous?

 

That is self-communication and it is not permitted.

The "Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America" state:

 

44. The chalice may never be left on the altar or another place to be picked up by the communicant for self-communication (except in the case of concelebrating bishops or priests), nor may the chalice be passed from one communicant to another. There shall always be a minister of the chalice.

 

This describes what is necessary in the USA.  I am reasonably sure that the norms are pretty much the same everywhere.

 

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

A different take on “active participation”

I hear there was recently another attempted ordination of a wymyn in Arizona.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
15 Comments

WDTPRS POLL: sanctuary design for Pope Benedict’s visit to England

UPDATE: 1 Sept 17:52 GMT:

I see that England’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald has linked to this post.  Perhaps you readers might reciprocate and contribute well-considered and respectful comments in the discussion over there as well.

__________

I dunno…  I need a WDTPRS POLL on this.

Damian posted this at his place.

This image of the sanctuary for the Beatification of John Henry Newman by the Pope at  has just been published on the papal visit website.

What do you think?

design for Pope Benedict's Mass at Cofton Park, England, for the Beatification of John Henry Newman

There are more photos at the papal visit website if you want more angles.

Please pick the best response and then give your reasons in the combox, below.

{democracy:77}

 

Posted in POLLS | Tagged
137 Comments

Looking again at “active participation”

In Faith Magazine there is an article about active participation in the liturgy.  Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.

 

‘With hearts and hands and voices’
full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy

by Rita Thiron [Who is, I believe, in charge of the liturgy office for the Diocese of Lansing.]

On Dec.4, 1963, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the bishops of the world passed the first of 16 documents that would be promulgated by the Second Vatican Council. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, was one of the four “constitutions” which defined vital issues of church teachings and practice.  [I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible too.  But the Holy Spirit didn’t write the Bible.  The Holy Spirit was surely involved in the Council and also in conclaves, but to what degree all the decisions are guided is hard to say.  At the very least (though I don’t want to place improper limits) the Holy Spirit certainly guides us away from utter disasters.]

    This constitution called for a reform of the liturgy. It did not mandate innovations, [The Council Fathers actually imposed that no changes be made unless they were truely for the good of the people.] but restored ancient practices. [Sadly some of the things scholars thought were ancient practices weren’t actually true.] It urged that “the rites be revised carefully in light of sound tradition and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” (SC 4)

    The constitution began with a theological review of the nature of liturgy and its role in the life of the church. (1-13) It called for the improved liturgical formation of the clergy and the faithful (15-19) and carefully detailed the principles which would guide the reform. (21-46) The chapters that followed gave specific norms for the reform of the Mass, the sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours, the liturgical year, and more.

    And in all these important efforts, what was given highest priority? What was the goal to be considered before all else? It was the full, conscious and active participation of the people in the pews!

The church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations, called for by the very nature of the liturgy. Such a participation by the Christian people … is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

  In the reform and promotion of the liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else. For it is the primary and indispensible source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit …. (SC 14, …)

  Indeed, that phrase, “full, conscious and active participation,” appeared no less than 31 times in the Constitution on the Sacred LiturgyWhat does this phrase imply? The council envisioned that we would be participating in the liturgy with our whole mind, heart and bodies!

… Pastors must therefore realize that when the liturgy is celebrated something more is required than the mere observance of the laws governing valid and lawful celebration; it is also their duty to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (11)

    For centuries, the faithful “attended” or “heard” Mass in Latin. They devoutly listened as the priest recited texts in Latin. Only in the early 20th century were personal missals published to provide translations. And language was not the only barrier to participation. Frequently, the architecture itself separated us from the altar by great distances or communion rails. Often, the faithful simultaneously prayed the rosary or other devotions while Mass was being celebrated and they hungered for familiar clues like the ringing of bells. 
   
How did the Second Vatican Council bring about our greater participation?
   
First, it encouraged “liturgical formation with zeal and patience.” (19) The bishops knew that we would better participate if we understood the depth of the mystery being celebrated, [I am glad for the reference to mystery, though I think we can’t really can’t understand the "depth of the mystery".  What we really need to understand is that there is mystery.] the structure of the Mass, and the richness of the traditions behind our current practices[Understanding…. That was not just promoted by the Second Vatican Council.  Those hand-missals were part of this, from the time of the Liturgical Movement.]

    Second, they reminded us that liturgies are never private functions – they involve the whole body of the church, near and far, visible and invisible. (26) The liturgy is public and communal by its very nature, but it also concerns individual members in different orders and offices who exercise a variety of liturgical roles – bishops, priests, deacons, lectors, cantors and more. [for example, lay people in the congregation.]
    Third, the liturgical books themselves were reformed to promote active participation. The people were given more “speaking parts” and encouraged to take part in acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs. (30-31) Music, especially, allowed us to give fuller expression to our prayer.
    And the texts of these books were to be marked by “noble simplicity.” [A concept which lead to some real disasters when misapplied.] They were to be “short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; [Something else that was abused, since repetition is a key element of liturgical prayer.] they [were to be] written within the people’s power of comprehension and, as a rule, not require much explanation.” (34) Most importantly, the liturgical books were to be translated into the vernacular so that the people could pray in their own language, just as they had for centuries before Trent. These translations were to be approved by each country’s conference of bishops and the Holy See. [Interesting.  No citation for that.  The fact is that the Council required that Latin be maintained as the language of the liturgy while granting that in some instances some use of the vernacular could be helpful.  The Council also required, for the sake of active participation, that we retain Gregorian chant and that pastors make sure they flocks could both sing and speak in both Latin and their mother tongue. Cf. SC 54]
    Fourth, since we pray with our whole bodies, we participate fully, consciously and actively with postures and gestures. We kneel, we sit, we stand, we process, we bow our head, we make the sign of the cross. These common postures and gestures are a sign of our unity when we are gathered for the Sacred Liturgy – they both express and foster our intention and spiritual attitude. (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 42) [Catholics did all those things before the Council as well.]
    Silence, too, is a means of participation. [I am glad silence was included.] In silence, we recollect our sins and gather our prayers in the Introductory Rites. In silence, we reflect on the readings. In silence (or in song), we reflect on the great gift of Holy Communion. (GIRM 45)
    We participate, too, simply by listening attentively to the readings and the prayers and then responding to them with “Thanks be to God” or “Amen” or other acclamations. [Again, the writer does very well to include this.  I would say that our first instance of active participation is through listening.  That includes listening to the sacred music which should really be settings of sacred texts of the Mass itself.]
    Too often, some will complain that they “don’t get much out of Mass.” The obvious response is “What did you put into it?” We never come to liturgy to be entertained, or worse yet, to judge the music or the homily. [Well… of course we are going to judge those things…. if we are actively participating and paying attention.  Am I wrong?] We are not there as strangers or silent spectators. [Nor were Catholics merely silent spectators before the Council.  And many who come to the newer form of Mass are just silent spectators.] We come together as a Christian community to encounter the living God.
    The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (48) best describes our participation. We are “instructed by God’s word and nourished at the table of the Lord’s body, we give thanks to God by offering the immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him. We offer ourselves as well, through Christ the Mediator, so that we may be formed day by day into an ever more perfect unity with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.”

A good effort, all in all.  I was pleased that silence and listening were included.

One of the things I think we need to stress is that the rite itself is neither going to assure active participation nor block it.  Many who attend the older form of Holy Mass today participate far more deeply and actively than many who attend the Novus Ordo. 

We need a sound liturgical catechesis for both forms of Mass and we need a sound ars celebrandi of both forms as well.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
35 Comments

E-Mail issue

A note to friends who also read this blog: I have had an email problem. 

While on the road this weekend, my internet provider changed outgoing server settings.  Result: I could not send anything out. 

It took a while to get things going, since on the provider’s website there was conflicting information on different pages.  I called support for a clarification but got someone about as smart as a box of hammers, which resulted in lost time.

To make a long and irritating story short, friends, my email is working properly again.  

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on E-Mail issue

It is hardly ever killing time

On domestic flights one of two things will fill my time.

I either fall more or less instantly to sleep – rather in the manner of Capt. Aubrey – or I read.

Todayen route I was able to devour the latest number of The Weekly Standard (blessings on the reader who arranged it’s mail box advent each week). This is rich fare for the brain and joy for those who like snappy prose sprinkled with good quotes and quotables.

Here is a bit from Edward Short’s review of a biography of Elizabeth, the late Queen Mum.

Regular readers will know why I share this:

Elizabeth never granted interviews to newspapers. She agreed with Walter Bagehot that "above things our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it… Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic."

Posted in On the road, SESSIUNCULA |
38 Comments

Wholly Ours

In a conversation with a friend today it became clearer and clearer to me how the Second Vatican Council’s document on liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, is entirely the property of … on the side of the traditional/conversative argument.

The usual narrative which has predominated over the last decades is that Sacrosanctum Concilium is the driving force behind liberal reforms.

Sacrosanctum Concilium is a conservative document which was hijacked.

It is wholly ours.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA, The Drill | Tagged
116 Comments