JUST TOO COOL: An intriguing Biblical archeology find

A polymath friend of mine presently deployed overseas send the most interesting links.  Today he clued me in on this from Live Science:

Dance floor where John the Baptist was condemned to death discovered, archaeologist says

Archaeologists claim that they have identified the deadly dance floor where John the Baptist — a preacher who foretold the coming of Jesus — was sentenced to death around A.D. 29.

The Bible and the ancient writer Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-100) both describe how King Herod Antipas, a son of King Herod, had John the Baptist executed. Josephus specified that the execution took place at Machaerus, a fort near the Dead Sea in modern-day Jordan.

Herod Antipas feared the growing influence of John the Baptist among the population and so he executed him Josephus wrote. The Bible, on the other hand, tells a far more elaborate tale, claiming that Herod Antipas had John the Baptist executed in exchange for a dance.

[…]

A courtyard uncovered at Machaerus is likely the place where Salome’s dance was performed and where Herod Antipas decided to have John the Baptist beheaded, wrote Győző Vörös, director of a project called Machaerus Excavations and Surveys at the Dead Sea, in the book “Holy Land Archaeology on Either Side: Archaeological Essays in Honour of Eugenio Alliata” (Fondazione Terra Santa, 2020). The courtyard, Vörös said, has an apsidal-shaped niche that is probably the remains of the throne where Herod Antipas sat.

After King Herod’s death his kingdom was divided among his sons and Herod Antipas controlled a kingdom that included Galilee and part of Jordan. He controlled his kingdom at times from Machaerus. .

Archaeologists discovered the courtyard in 1980, but they didn’t recognize the niche as being part of Herod Antipas’ throne until now, Vörös wrote in the article. The presence of the throne next to the courtyard solidifies the conclusions about the dance floor, Vörös wrote.

The archaeological team has been reconstructing the courtyard and published several images in the book showing what it looked like around the time of John the Baptist’s execution.

[…]

More fascinating information and photos HERE

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
1 Comment

Daily Rome Shot 41

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
3 Comments

ASK FATHER: Is the Sacrament of Confirmation valid if the minister uses an instrument, such as a stylus or a swab?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

My son’s Confirmation is this Sunday and I just found out that the Bishop will be using a Q-tip because of Covid-19. Is this still valid? Thank you for all that you do. I find your blog very helpful.

I have dealt with this question before and, in fact, this question is a little dated.  I’m working through a massive back jam of email.

However… though I have dealt with it before, it merits more attention.

Is the Sacrament of Confirmation valid if the minister uses an instrument, such as a stylus or a swab?

In the past, the answer was resoundingly NO, it would be invalid.

BUT WAIT!  Here comes the Congregation for Divine Worship in a response to the USCCB saying that it is valid.  HERE

“The use by the minister of an instrument (gloves, cotton swab…), does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.”

Okayyyyyy…. hmmmmm…..

The problem with this is, of course, it really requires more than, “Because we say so!”, to resolve this.

I haven’t seen the entire response from the CDW.

Before saying anything else, we all know that the CHURCH – actually, the Vicar of Christ – gets to decide how sacraments are celebrated.  She can make changes to gestures and words that do not violate the divine origin of the sacraments or their essence, their essentials.   For example, a Pope can change the words, the form, for the Sacrament of confirmation.  Paul VI did that.

That change did not invalidate the previous, traditional form, a fact upheld by the CDF.

Back to the issue: Can an instrument be used in anointing a confirmand with chrism?

Some time ago when I posted on this, I also posted details from the amazing painting about the seven sacraments by the 15th c. Rogier van der Weyden.  In that painting, you clearly see the bishop using an instrument to anoint hands at an ordination and also to anoint the sick.  No problem there.  Anointing of hands is not of the essence of the sacrament of Orders and laying on of hands is not of the essence of anointing of the sick.  However, you also see the bishop anointing with an instrument for Confirmation.

BUT…. from the time of the Council of Trent, use of an instrument was forbidden.

In the traditional form, the bishop laid his hand on the head of the confirmand and then anointed the forehead with Chrism using the thumb of his right hand.  In an emergency, another finger could be used, but an instrument could not.   Paul VI lifted the obligatory laying on of the hand saying that the touching with the thumb in anointing accomplished that gesture as well.

Manuals reflected this.

Sabetti-Barrett’s 1919 edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis,  says (in Latin):

669.  Query. – Question 2.  How is the [Confirmation] anointing to be done?

Response. It must be done with the right thumb of the Bishop in the manner of a cross on the forehead of the one confirmed.  However, the anointing would be valid if it were done by a different digit of the Bishop, and even if it were a digit of the left hand, because it would be an imposition of the bishop’s hand.  But a Bishop would sin, were he to do that without necessity, because he would be departing from the universal praxis of the Church; albeit it does not seem that an inversion of the aforementioned ceremony would reach the level of grave guilt. – Cf. S. Alphons. n. 165

Question 3.  Whether anointing can be done validly by means of an instrument?

Response. NEGATIVE., and the reason is, that the immediate imposition of the hand of the Minister would be lacking, which is absolutely required from what has been said.  On this in the new Code (1917):
§2. Anointing is not to be done with any instrument, but it is imposed properly by the hand of the minister on the head of the confirmand.

Prümmer in the 1953 Manuale Theologiae Moralis says:

156. 3. The anointing must be done with the thumb of the right hand, and not with a stylus or another instrument, as has already been said.  If, however, the bishop has a bad thumb, he can licitly anoint with the thumb of his left hand or with another digit.

We grant that THE CHURCH gets to determine how the sacraments are to be administered.

If there is going to be a change, the Congregation really doesn’t get to do that.

Keeping in mind that the touching of the head of the confirmand by the bishop with his thumb is, in effect, also the imposition of his hand, removing the touching with the hand is a serious problem.

Regarding imposition of the hand Ludwig Ott, in his section on Confirmation, reminds us that

There is no official dogmatic decision regarding the essential matter of the Sacrament of Confirmation.  Theologians are divided in their opinions.

a) Some, invoking the testimony of Holy Scripture (Acts 8,7; 19,6; Heb. 6,2) hold that the imposition of the hands alone is the essential matter (….) Cf. D. 424.
b) Other, appealing to the Decretum pro Armenis (D 697), the teaching of the Council of Trent (D 872), the Roman Catechism (II, 3,7), the traditional of the Greek Church and the teaching of St. Thomas…. declare that the anointing with chrism alone is the essential matter (St Bellarmine, …).

Ott explains that the latter view is erroneous and says:

The majority of modern Theologians, concurring with Church practice, see the essential matter in the imposition of the hands together with the anointing with chrism on the forehead.  That the imposition of hands belongs to the sacramental sign is evident from the clear testimony of Holy Writ and Tradition….

However, the 2020 CDW response seems to ignore the opinions of theologians which the Church has, hitherto, rested on for a contrary opinion.  I don’t think Tradition can simply be left aside.

It seems to me that what the CDW said is really hard to sustain.

Also, I believe that this really a question for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (validity of matter and form of the sacrament).  The CDF answered the question about the validity of the traditional rite after Paul VI’s changes.  That’s the venue.

Moreover, because this has to do with the validity of the sacrament, it seems to me that, just as Pius XII did in 1947 with his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum ordinis about the rite of Ordination and the traditio instrumentorum, just as Paul VI did in his Apostolic Constitution Divinae consortium naturae in 1971 for Confirmation, a papal document, an Apostolic Constitution should deal with this.

So… what to do.

These days, because of the Wuhan Devil, confirmations have been postponed or cancelled.

However, if you want to be absolutely sure about the matter of anointing, which is in effect the laying on of the hand which is of the essence of the sacrament, then choose the TRADITIONAL rite when possible, or at least find out ahead of time if an instrument is going to be used.

Salvo meliore iudicio, of course.   If someone out there knows something clear or really helpful for this, I’d like to see it.  Write to me HERE

Just as an end note…

I find it deeply disturbing that in a time when…

  • demonic activity is on the rise and
  • when access to the sacraments is being sharply limited,
  • when big tech is exercising terrifying new control over information in conjunction with the news media and a political party which embraces the ghoulish evil of abortion and hellish gender twisting,
  • when the world seems to going absolutely insane around us,
  • when the Left is exerting massive force to silence any opposition with violence, both physical and psychological…

… there should come a statement from the Holy See which seems to contradict Tradition with regard to the sacrament of Confirmation, the sacrament that makes us sturdy and firm in the face of challenges.

PRAYER TO ACTIVATE YOUR CONFIRMATION

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

“Let y’all know!” The “Noveritis” Epiphany chant announcement of 2021’s movable dates and feasts

At Epiphany we Latins have – traditionally – chanted a solemn proclamation of the key liturgical dates or movable feasts for the new year of salvation, just begun.

This underscores how these dates and seasons are all interconnected.

The liturgical year is a reflection of and on the mystery of our salvation.  And, never forget, the mysteries shape us. We are our rites.

Some liturgical dates are movable. For example Septuagesima, in 2020, fell on 9 February. This beginning of Pre-Lent doesn’t fall on the same date every year because the date of Easter changes each year.  In 2021 Septuagesima will fall on 31 January.

“But Father! But Father!”, you libtards are surely sputtering.  “What does this chant sound like? Do it in English like the spirit of Vatican II wanted!   But you won’t because YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

Vatican II commanded that Latin be retained.

We will use Latin on real Epiphany, of course.

Here is what it sounds like, in case some deacon or priest out there, less familiar with chant, wants to give it a shot.  It sounds rather like the Exultet, sung at the Easter Vigil.  The Noveritis is a little awkward in parts.

You can find a printable PDF of the Noveritis 2021 HERENB: It has Ascension Thursday on the correct day!

Fathers.  Here is how to sing the Noveritis for 2021, on Epiphany.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Save The Liturgy - Save The World | Tagged , , ,
Comments Off on “Let y’all know!” The “Noveritis” Epiphany chant announcement of 2021’s movable dates and feasts

ASK FATHER: Why don’t trads want Permanent Deacons to be in traditional liturgy?

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

From my brief experience, it seems that most traditionalist parishes are not interested in the permanent diaconate. This seems odd to me, since permanent deacons would be readily available for Solemn Masses, and many parishes are not able to have solemn masses as frequently as they might like. Promoting the permanent diaconate would alleviate that problem. Why does there seem to be such apathy to well trained permanent deacons in traditionalist circles?

“Not interested… apathy…”.

I’ve heard downright hostility sometimes.

This both baffles me and it doesn’t puzzle me at all.

First, there is a problem with understanding that permanent deacons are not less deacons than transitional deacons.  A man who is ordained to the diaconate is a deacon.   Period.  A deacon is a deacon is a deacon.    Hence, they can take the role of DEACON in a Solemn Mass, as well as the role of Subdeacon.

Second, there is the problem of the formation and performance of permanent deacons.  I have zero doubt… ZERO… that the men who offer themselves to be permanent deacons are good men, well-intentioned.  Alas, over the last decades, many of them have not been given adequate formation.  Some were given terrible formation, including a lot of confusion about the role of their wives, if they are married.

On the other hand, I have also known a few permanent deacons whom I would have made BISHOPS!

Third, with a few exceptions in my experience, permanent deacons seem to know very little about liturgy, and what they do know depends on the quality of formation they received… often deficient.  There’s plenty of bad to go around in this matter since the priests with whom they are assigned generally know just about as much.

I am all for permanent deacons being involved in Traditional Liturgy.  THEY ARE DEACONS.  But there is a huge challenge on both sides of the altar rail.

For some people, their hesitancy or hostility toward permanent deacons seems to come from the fact that most permanent deacons are married.  In the matter of continence for permanent deacons, I refer the readership to the thoughts of canonist Ed Peters, who has written about the matter.

Ideally, all men pursuing permanent diaconate should be well-schooled in the Church’s sacred worship.  There should be as high an expectation for them to know their Roman Rite as there is for priests and bishops.   Of course, there’s the rub, isn’t it?

If the Roman Rite is, at least juridically, in two forms, any cleric in the Roman Church who doesn’t know both forms is quite simply ignorant of his own Church’s sacred worship.  That’s dreadful.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, Save The Liturgy - Save The World |
15 Comments

Daily Rome Shot: 40

Photo by Bree Dail.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
2 Comments

“Ten years from now you’ll put on a jacket and find a mask in the pocket. …”

Some people wonder why I say prayers in Latin against the Wuhan Devil.

I had a text from a priest friend which put things in perspective.

“Ten years from now you’ll put on a jacket and find a mask in the pocket.

‘Oh man, what a weird year that was,” you’ll chuckle to yourself.

Then you’ll pick up your machete and continue across the wasteland, keeping to the shadows to avoid the roving gangs of cannibal raiders.”

Posted in Lighter fare, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices |
6 Comments

Globalist and population control climate change activist @TonyAnnett doesn’t like it when we pray for protection against Satan

Who is Tony Annett?

I’ve mentioned him before. For example HERE.

Anthony Annett worked for many years in the communications office of the International Monetary Fund and is big into “climate change” stuff even with the UN.

Take a look at this.  HERE (It’s a real trip.)

He is thick with the modernist Jesuits.  HERE

He is involved with Columbia University’s Earth Institute where he is “Climate Change and Sustainable Development Advisor”.   A former director of the Earth Institute is Jeffrey Sachs.

Tony Annett is a globalist with Soros ties.    As such, he is no doubt also an advocate of population control and, more than likely, population reduction, along with the Jeffrey Sachs types and others who have insinuated themselves into Catholic corners.

As such, he wants any one whom he fears to be silenced.

In the Illustrated Dictionary of Lefty catholics his photo will appear at the entry for “bully”.

So, Annett is pretty much wrong about everything and he is likely aligned with globalist agendas that are, frankly, evil.

I have been reciting the Ch. 3 Title 11 “Exorcism Against Satan and Fallen Angels” on a regular basis and, lately, asking God to multiply its effect for all things, places and people involved in the certification of the vote for President of the United States.  I’ve been asking God to drive away all demonic influence from the Enemy, who would perhaps tempt people to lie and who can, de exorcists, really screw around with electronics.  I’ve been asking Mary, Queen of Angels, to bid countless Holy Angels to protect all those people, etc., from the attacks of the enemy and to prompt anyone who has lied or cheated to admit it openly.

Ever since I started praying for an end to demonic influence Tony has been a little agitated.

He has attacked me a few times on Twitter and has provoked some others to do the same.

Here is his latest.

Everything Tony wrote in that Tweet is a lie.

I am hardly a renegade.  It is crystal clear that there has been serious election fraud in some key places.  I have permission from the bishop to recite the Ch. 3 exorcism and I do so also at his request for the diocese itself.

And my appreciation of what an exorcism is outstrips little Tony’s foggy notions by orders of magnitude.

Again, I’ll point out that HE is the one who is upset about my praying the exorcism to protect people from demonic influence, to ward off temptations to lie and to cheat.

Tony Annett doesn’t want me to pray that people not be tempted by the Devil to lie.

If that seems backwards to you, you would be right.   His mind is producing scrambled, erroneous results, which veers close to the definition of insane.

A few of his recent tweets, so you have a sense of how this guy’s mind works.

And… apologies for this dreadful image, which I realize you won’t be able to un-see…

Go take a look at his Twitter feed for a while. Scroll down and get a really good look.  It is a workshop in extremism.  It’ll give you a quick view of a lot of the players in the globalist religion and how they are intertwined.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
17 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 40

Photo by Fr. Z

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
2 Comments

Daily Rome Shot 39

Photo by Bree Dail.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
Comments Off on Daily Rome Shot 39