Daily Rome Shot 415

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Daily Rome Shot 415

Daily Rome Shot 414, etc.

Today’s Fervorino.

Use your phone’s camera!

Posted in Sermons | Tagged ,
1 Comment

Another embarrassing letter from a bishop about “Traditionis custodes”… or rather about “Custodies Traditiones”!

UPDATE 12 Feb:

I’ve bene told that the Bishop of Hamilton threw out 3 seminarians for ATTENDING a TLM. They have moved to another diocese.

UPDATE 11 Feb:

This came in from a reliable reader. It is highly anecdotal but there is clearly something to it. I share it out of fairness to the Bishop.

Interestingly, “Father” Lobsinger, offered the Vetus Ordo in the parish church and was part of a regular rotation of priests for the EF community in Kitchener. He, as bishop, has offered the Vetus Ordo as a Low Mass in private.

 

The worst role in the church has to be “auxiliary bishop”.

That said, he could have said, “No. You write it.”


 

From the Diocese of Hamilton, in Canada.

NB: This is from an auxiliary bishop who seems to be also the Vicar General.   He has the coveted MDiv degree from a Canadian school and has also served as the organist for the Kitchener Rangers Junior A hockey team.

Read carefully, this letter doesn’t seem to promulgate any particular law.  These are strong suggestions reflecting someone’s personal preferences.  That doesn’t mean that people and priests cannot be bullied and marginalized even more.  They can always hurt you more, something evident over the last few years.

Note the variant spelling at the top. Spelling?  Total wreck.  “Custodies Traditiones”.  Clearly whoever wrote this and signed it doesn’t have the slightest clue about the issue.

I’d like to think that this is someone’s idea of a prank, but it does have that inflated chancery feel about it.

About that point of using only English…

I wonder how the Francophone communities in the Diocese like that?

About that point of the Missae Defunctorum

No member of the faithful can be required to attend one kind of Mass or another kind of Mass for a certain number of times or length of time in order to be eligible for a funeral in a particular Rite. Let’s say you are a Latin Church Catholic. You’ve lost your driver’s license for whatever reason. Happily, two blocks away there is a Byzantine Catholic Church. You start to go there. Then you die. You, by previous request, and your loved ones in the present, can ask to have your funeral at either that Byzantine church or at your old Latin parish which you could not reach without a car. No one can say you can’t because “She hasn’t been at St. Canute’s for a while!”

Another example. What if you are a snow bird who spends part of the year in Arizona and part in Canada?

This is a matter of the Church’s “constitution”, which might be a confusing point for Americans and maybe less so for Brits.  They have a constitution too, but is isn’t written down in one document called the Constitution.  It’s hard.

Now, however, you have to know where to look for constitutional principles, things extrapolated from the law.

The Church has constitution. It isn’t written down in the form of a document called a Constitution. Libs have a sort of holy grail of getting a Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis, a written constitution. Then, boy Oh BOY!  Let the Reign of Terror begin!

A minimum number of Masses you have to attend before you are eligible to be buried in a legitimate Rite of the Church cannot be legislated. It is a violation.

Another example, easier. People can’t be required to know Latin in order to attend a Latin Mass, or Vietnamese to attend a Mass in Vietnamese. Priests can be required to be able to pronounce things properly to celebrate in a language, but they can’t be required to have mastery of that language. Heck, there are any number of priests who say Mass in Spanish but they can’t preach. Priests whose native tongue is English perhaps have no idea what the prayers they read aloud regularly really say, what they mean.

In any event, there is a lot of sloppy overreach in the above. Not to mention the other things.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA, Traditionis custodes, You must be joking! | Tagged ,
21 Comments

11 February – Now one of the saddest days of the year

Nine years ago today, during a consistory with Cardinals, Benedict XVI read in Latin the shocking “Declaratio” that he intended to renounce “ministerio Episcopi Romae… the ministry of Bishop of Rome”.

Nine years.

Posted in Benedict XVI | Tagged
12 Comments

I was shocked, shocked, to see Claude Rains as a priest who says Mass as it ought to be said. 

A friend of mine notified me about this episode from the old Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

This show, involving horse race betting, seems to be from the 1961 season. Hence, the portrayal of the moments of Mass remained the pre-Conciliar form… by a nose.

And, I’m shocked to find that it deals with gambling.

One thing that I noticed was the fairly accurate portrayal of Catholic elements. Of course people knew their stuff back then, unlike those who make TV shows today. For example, in the otherwise excellent show Blue Bloods, if there is anything having to do with a priest or the Church, it is invariably cringeworthy.   I suspect the advisors were Jesuits.

In this episode, they did a pretty good job of it, though I must admit that they got a little scrambled at 5:30 when Mass is moving from the Creed to the Offertory, and at the Orate Fratres.  Some Latin coaching was needed.

NB: Be thoroughly delighted by the Rains’ and Ed Gardner’s contrast of accents: English v. Queens.  Together, they are decidedly not the Queen’s English.  Just the sort of thing I imagine Hitchcock intended.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
10 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 413

 

When you shop on line with Amazon please use my affiliate links.
You might bookmark them.

US HERE – UK HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Daily Rome Shot 413

UPDATED – But, apparently, the REAL problem in the Church today are those Catholics who want the Traditional Latin Mass – VIDEO

UPDATE 13 Feb 22:


Originally Published on: Feb 9, 2022

I have had experience with Canadian Sulpicians. I was unimpressed. No. I’ll revise. I was very impressed, but not in a good way.

Frankly, I think a lot of the problems in the Church in these USA stem waaaay back to Sulpicians seminaries. Just a working theory.

BUT.. this is Paris, and a church that I rather like, for the fact that it was built by Sulpicians who seem to understand what it is to be Catholic. No more, it seems. How very sad.

Apparently the REAL problem in the Church today are those Catholics who want the Traditional Latin Mass. This isn’t troubling at all.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, The Religion of Peace, You must be joking! | Tagged , ,
13 Comments

ASK FATHER: Does the commingling of the piece of the Host with the Precious Blood merely signify the Resurrection or is it a mystical reality?

On Sunday during ZedNet a question came up about the fraction rite at Mass with the commingling and how it signifies the resurrection of the Lord by the fact that it is the rejoining of the Body with the Blood of the Lord.  Does this commingling merely signify the Resurrection or is it a mystical reality?

I must admit that my heart quailed.   The fraction rite is stupendously complex.   This is the moment when the priest breaks the Host in half, then breaks a small piece off of one half, says a prayer and (in the Vetus Ordo) making the sign of the Cross three times with the small piece over the uncovered chalice with the Precious Blood, drops the particle into the Precious Blood.  There follows the three-fold Agnus Dei and rite of Peace.

The history of this rite goes back to the earliest Eucharistic practices, because it is one of the four elements of what the Lord did at the Last Supper: He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it. With extreme brevity, the fraction rite eventually merged with the placing of the fermentum, a piece of the Eucharistic Host from the previous Mass, into the chalice.  This was symbolic of the continuity of the Mass but also, practically, softened the reserved piece for consumption.  A piece of the Host broken during Mass was also reserved for viaticum.   In Masses of the Bishop of Rome, there was great ceremony involving linen bags and very large patens which had to be carried by two subdeacons.  Patens eventually became small as the hosts became smaller and the rite simplified, so that chalice and hosts were brought to the altar together.   Too complicated to explain here.

Because we are liturgical beings  by inward inclination (cf. Aquinas) and by formation (“We are our rites!”) even the practical gestures and objects used during Mass have acquired symbolic, even mystical, meanings, even multiple meanings.  So it is with the fraction and commingling.

So important and complex is this fraction rite that, in the traditional Pontificale Romanum, the bishop is to instruct the men he has just ordained to the priesthood to study and reflect on the whole of the Mass but especially the Consecration, the Fraction, and the Communion.

His expletis, Pontifex sedens cum mitra et baculo admonet eum, dicens:
Quia res, quam tractaturus es, satis periculosa est, fili dilectissime, moneo te, ut diligentur totius Missae ordinem, atque Hostiae consecrationem, ac fractionem, et communionem, ab aliis jam doctis Sacerdotibus discas, priusquam ad celebrandum Missam accedas.

Because this matter, which you are about to conduct, is so very perilous, dearest sons, I warn you, that you diligently learn the order of the whole Mass, and the consecration of the Host, and the fraction, and communion, from other already learnéd priests, before you undertake to celebrate Mass.

My oh my, what a difference.   Having read that, think about how St. Ignatius of Loyola waited a whole year before saying his first Mass.  You get the idea from what the bishop says in the traditional Pontifical that it is somehow important for priests to know how to say Mass and that they don’t do anything wrong.

NB: The “reformers” who glued together the Novus Ordo screwed around with these three interconnected moments in significant ways.  Coincidence?   Certainly not.  Holy Church, in her long acquired wisdom, came to underscore these moments.  The Snipper-Pasters had been told at their own ordinations that these were of particular importance.   And they knew that by changing the way we pray, what we believe will eventually change as well.  But they changed the way we pray – for us, and certainly not by clamorous popular request – because of their own beliefs, foisted on the rest of the Church in contravention of what the Council Fathers mandated.   But I digress.

The fraction rite has taken on several mystical meanings, apart from the fact that we imitate what the Lord Himself did in the upper room and at Emmaus.  One meaning of the breaking or division of the Bread points forward to Communion, with which the fractio panis is interconnected.  Another idea is the sacrificial wounding of the Lord such that His Soul and Body separated in death.  In the breaking He is seen at the Lamb that was slain for our sins (cf. Isaiah).  This points backward to the two-Consecration and the symbolic, mystical separation of the Body and the Blood even though they are both present in both species.   The commingling of the Body and Blood reinforces that this is not just food and drink but sacrificial food and drink.

Another view was that the three parts of the Host represented the Holy Trinity.  Another that they were like the Mystical Body of Christ in its present three modes, Churches Militant, Suffering, Triumphant.   The Angelic Doctor says, almost at the end of the Summa Theologica: “The breaking of the host denotes three things: first, the rending of Christ’s body, which took place in the Passion; secondly, the distinction of His mystical body according to its various states; and thirdly, the distribution of the graces which flow from Christ’s Passion…” (IIIa, q.83, a.5 ad 7).  So, the pieces of the broken Host can also be seen as in His earthly state, in His state in the tomb, and then gloriously Risen.  If the breaking of the Host is seen at the death of the Savior, then the ritual reunion of His Body with the Precious Blood in the chalice can certain be seen as the Resurrection.

To the question: At this moment in Mass, what are we witnessing?

That depends.  Which of these various interpretations are we going to adhere to?   One of them?  None of them?  All of them?

Let’s keep clear in our minds the fact that sacramental reality is not less real than what our senses discern.  Our senses bring to us the signs through which we discern mysteries, indeed, Mystery.  This is a complex undertaking and one that will make the heart quail a bit, even as we long to encounter it.  It is an encounter with the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, mystery both fearful and alluring.   It is encountered both through what we sense and what we cannot sense, the critically important apophatic dimension of sacred liturgical worship (which is nearly always denied in the Novus Ordo by the artificial construction of the rite itself with its heavy emphasis on options and didacticism).

Are we, in the moment of the Fraction, witnessing the actual Passion of the Lord and then his Resurrection in the commingling?   I suppose that depends on our ability to be still, our long-term discipline in giving ourselves to the rites which are being given to us by the High Priest Himself.

In all the words and gestures of Holy Mass Christ is speaking, He is acting.  He speaks and acts through us, in our different roles, the baptized and the ordained.  The realities which are symbolized in the rites are being made present to us and us to them, particularly through the fact that the Lord in His Ascension to the heavenly Temple, outside time and space, now renews His Sacrifice to the Father.  His doing so makes it possible for His Church to do so, even simultaneously in time and in many places.

What do we experience at these jam-packed moments in Holy Mass?  It is going to be a continuum.  For some, much.  For others, nothing.

A great deal depends on our full, conscious and active participation at Mass.   This was a thing before the Second Vatican Council, of course.  It wasn’t cobbled up during the Council.

For example, in touching up my memories about the fractio panis I came across this great paragraph in vol. 2 of A. Croegaert’s The Mass, in the English translation [US HERE – UK HERE] which got its imprimatur in 1958 and was published in 1959 (i.e., before the Council):

The greater the soul’s capacity by charity to receive grace, the more abundantly will that grace be poured into it in holy communion. That is why preparation for communion is so important – even more important than thanksgiving. We must prepare for communion by being sorry for our sins (in acts of contrition, the prayers at the foot of the altar), by confessing our faith (in the Mass of the Catechumens), by accepting sufferings and sacrifices, mingling them, like the drop of water in the chalice of wine, and offering them in Christ’s great sacrifice (in the offertory and consecration). We must long to be united as closely as possible in victimhood with Christ himself that we may be offered with him to the glory of the Father (communion). By active participation in the various phases of the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the soul is gradually prepared to be abundantly filled with the graces poured out in holy communion: such intelligent, devout and active participation in the Mass itself is the best – and natural – preparation for communion. As this great rite draws near, the church supports this preparation by suitable ceremonies and prayers which in the mass extend from the lesser elevation to the Domine, non sum dignus.

Do you see how active participation is conceived?  It is actively interior.  It is actively receptive.   This is why at about the same time as this English translation was prepared, Pius XII wrote that the highest manifestation of active participation in Holy Mass is in the moment when a person in the state of grace receives Holy Communion.

Another reason for reception on the tongue rather than taking by the hand.

I also checked the second volume of Jungmann and the second volume of Nicholas Gihr’s The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained.  [US HERE – UK HERE]

Bottom line, certain mysteries are strongly suggested in the different moments during Mass.  Sometimes one may occur, and at other times another.  This probably comes from what we are willing to contemplate and also how our angels or the Holy Spirit in our inner temple may be urging us.   But, unless we know with the help of spiritual direction that we are in a period of profound dryness, a kind of dark night when God has withheld consolations and promptings, if we are getting little or nothing out of these moments… something is amiss.

Hence, I am delighted that you asked this question.  It reveals something of your inner disposition and active participation at Mass.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged ,
7 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 412, etc.

Today’s Fervorino from the daily Mass stream.

Posted in Sermons | Tagged ,
1 Comment

test

Restricted

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
50 Comments