Fr. Z's Blog | Formerly entitled: "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" – Clear, straight commentary on Catholic issues, liturgy and life by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf o{]:¬)

ASK FATHER: Peter’s Pence these days. Alternatives?

Posted on 19 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal this morning about how the Peter’s Pence collection largely funds the Vatican deficit. I am a stickler for finance and am forced to run a very lean household (single income in a high cost of living area) and expect that charitable groups and the Church should do the same. Is it acceptable to tithe to other religious orders or charities in place of the Church?

Yes. Contribution to Peter’s Pence is entirely voluntary. You can contribute to the good of the Church in other ways.

I will mention that, in justice, it is important to support the church where you receive services. That’s only fair.

As far as other entities are concerned, you can choose as you please. I hope it pleases you to choose also the TMSM. I also like Military Chaplains. I wouldn’t mind something thrown in my direction, either!

As far as Peter’s Pence is concerned, this gives us a chance to bone up on what it is.

The Supreme Pontiff can use the money that comes from the faithful for whatever reasons he desires. I believe that it has mostly been used by Popes for poverty or disaster stricken groups or evangelization. I supposed that the details are usually dealt with by the Papal Almoner and by the IOR (“Vatican bank”).

The Vatican’s description is HERE.

Here is an interesting drop down menu.

Interesting. None of those are investments in movies about infamous homosexual Elton John. Nor are they about investment in real estate in Chelsea, London. I guess they lost money on that. I have to ask: How to you lose money on real estate in London?

Some people are noticing this Peter’s Pence thing. Note below.

The Wikipedia article says:

In 1871, Pope Pius IX formalized the practice of lay members of Church and “other persons of good will” – providing financial support directly to the Roman See. In general, contributions go to the local parish or diocese, who then provide contributions to support higher level offices. Collections for Peter’s Pence go directly to Rome. Pius IX approved this practice in the encyclical Saepe venerabilis, issued on 5 August 1871. The money collected is today used by the pope for philanthropic purposes.

At present, this collection is taken each year on the Sunday closest to 29 June, the Solemnity of the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in the liturgical calendar. As of 2012, the United States has donated the largest amounts, giving some 28% of the total, followed by Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Brazil and South Korea. US donations totaled $75.8 million in 2008, $82,529,417 in 2009, $67,704,416.41 in 2010 and $69,711,722.76 in 2011.

I understand that Peter’s Pence is way down now. The Wall Street Journal says: “The assets of Peter’s Pence now total about €600 million, down from about €700 million early in the current pontificate, largely on account of unsuccessful investments, said the people familiar with the funds’ use.” And, …

“But for at least the past five years, only about 10% of the money collected—more than €50 million was raised in 2018—has gone to the sort of charitable causes featured in advertising for the collection, according to people familiar with the matter.

Meanwhile, about two-thirds of the money has been used to help cover the budget deficit at the Holy See, these people said. The Holy See consists of the central administration of the Catholic Church and the papal diplomatic network around the world. In 2018, the budget deficit reached roughly €70 million on total spending of about €300 million, reflecting chronic inefficiencies, rising wage costs and hits to investment income.

Donations to Peter’s Pence have dropped notably in recent years, to over €50 million in 2018 from over €60 million in 2017, these people said.“

This is a rather grim situation.

We are obliged to support the Church and her work with material means. However, contributions to Peter’s Pence are always voluntary.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, The Drill | Tagged Peter's Pence
6 Comments

ASK FATHER: Frustrated by a lack of reverence, liturgical discipline. Am I in the right church? Is this Really God’s house?

Posted on 19 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

This is my first letter to you. I am old and grew up with the old Mass. I have tolerated the NO for years and years. But it has grown steadily worse. Today’s Sunday Mass (in England) was like a protestant Sunday school. The priest is from Africa. He is very jolly but lacks the gravitas at Holy Mass. There is a big focus on little children. There is a reading out of parish lottery results there is clapping. The sermon is unintelligible due to his African accent. It is mostly full of platitudes that could be heard in any protestant church. I kneel before I receive Holy Communion , everyone else receives on the hand standing. I feel frustrated and unfulfilled by a lack of reverence. By a lack of liturgical discipline. I wonder if I as a Catholic am in the right church? Is this Really God’s house.? Is His sacrifice truly acknowledged on the altar?. Does Christ really act through the priest? I know that He does but there is no sense in the priest or the people of these realities. Should I stop going to Sunday Mass for the benefit of my Faith? Or should I suffer in silence? I pray to God to bring back the Latin Mass And the preaching that went with it.

Your frustration is palpable. I’m frustrated just reading about it.

This is part of the problem with the Novus Ordo, I’m afraid. There are so many options, too many opportunities for the priest to impose himself on the Mass. At the same time, the priest is in a tough spot because the Novus Ordo pretty much requires him to perform. Add to that the versus populum altar and you have massive potential problems.

Some men do better with that pressure than others.

At the same time, I’ve heard an awful lot of platitudes and cliches come out of priests who say the Traditional Mass.

Let’s put it into perspective. Yes, it is God’s house. I am sure that the Masses are valid, and His Sacrifice is renewed on that altar, though it doesn’t seem as if it is being acknowledged. Yes, Christ really acts through the priest, though the priest may not act like it.

Consider that last point.

What an amazing proof of the love of Christ that He permits Himself to be commanded and manipulated, called and handled, by the crass and the clever, the holy and impious, the negligent and the scrupulous.

Pray for your priest. Ask his and your Guardian Angels to gang up on him and nudge him in the right direction. It is probable that this is what he was taught to do and doesn’t know better.

Don’t stop going to Mass. You don’t have to go there exclusively. You can also go elsewhere.

Suffering in silence is commendable. Offering your pain in reparation for sins against Our Lord and Our Lady is meritorious.

You can also make your concerns known, in charity and with tact.

You can give yourself a break and go somewhere else, too. You can do that.

Finally, many people here in these USA also have problems understanding the priests from other countries. It seems to me that some of these priests are probably really frustrated with themselves! They must know that they are hard to understand. It could be that some of these men would do well to seek some help with “accent reduction / improvement training”. Yes, that it is a real thing. I know what it is like to live in another country and have the pressure of preaching in a language that isn’t my native tongue. I worked on my pronunciation.

I am reminded of how England became Christian in the first place. St. Augustine of Canterbury was born and raised in Rome. So daunting was his mission that on the way to England he turned around and begged Pope Gregory to recall him. No dice. Augustine arrived in Kent and was, probably, pretty hard to understand by the average Kentish denizens. With the highborn, he could probably use Latin, but not so with Hengest the fuller. I’ll bet they were pretty frustrated with each other for a while. Eventually, it worked out.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged accent reduction
19 Comments

ASK FATHER: A blessing for guns

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

One of our parishioners posted this image on his facebook page and I commented, “Hey, if you have guns you want blessed, let me know.” Low and behold he took me up on the offer. That is why I asked if there was a blessing of guns.

This is great!

There are blessings for all sort of tools and a gun is just a tool. They are, in themselves, morally indifferent. They can be blessed. We can ask God to be especially mindful of their safekeeping, for their proper function, that they not be used for evil purposes, and, in the case of your guns, bows, trebuchets, etc., that each projectile fired with them may find your intended marks.

There is no specific blessing in the Roman Ritual for blessing guns. However there is a blessing “for all things”.

After the usual introduction, the blessing prayer is…

Deus, cujus verbo sanctificántur ómnia, bene+dictiónem tuam effúnde super creatúram istam (creatúras istas – PLURAL, of course); et præsta, ut quisquis ea (eis) secúndum legem et voluntátem tuam cum gratiárum actióne usus fúerit, per invocatiónem sanctíssimi nóminis tui, córporis sanitátem, et ánimæ tutélam, te auctóre, percípiat. Per Christum Dóminum nostrum.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Going Ballistic | Tagged blessings, guns
6 Comments

WDTPRS: O Antiphons – 18 December – O Adonai

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The O Antiphons: 18 December – O Adonai

LATIN: O Adonai, et Dux domus Israel, qui Moysi in igne flammae rubi apparuisti, et ei in Sina legem dedisti: veni ad redimendum nos in brachio extento.

ENGLISH: O Lord and Ruler the house of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Sinai: come, and redeem us with outstretched arms.

Scripture References:
Exodus 3
Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:6

Relevant verse of Veni, Veni Emmanuel:

O come, O come, thou Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times didst give the law
In cloud and majesty, and awe.

“Adonai” is “LORD.” It was the Hebrew word that the Jews used when they found the four-lettered word for God’s name which they held to be too sacred to pronounce aloud. The four letter word for God’s Name, the Tetragrammaton, is still venerated by us to the point that Holy Church asks us not to use it in liturgical song.

Christ is Lord, Lord of Creation. We sang this yesterday in the antiphon “O Sapientia“. Christ is also Lord of the Covenant with the People He chose.

The Lord made covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. He guided them and all the People. He gave them Law. He protected and feed them. The Lord delivered them from bondage to Pharaoh and unending slavery. He went before them with arm outstretched.

This was all a pre-figuring of the great work of redemption that Christ would work on the Cross. He redeemed us His People from Satan and the eternal damnation of hell.

He once appeared clothed in the burning bush that was not consumed by fire.

He is about to appear again clothed in flesh in our liturgical celebration of Christmas.

He will appear again one day in the future to judge the living and the dead.

He appears to us each day in the person of our neighbor.

What amazing contrasts we find in our Lord! He came in thunder and lightening to give the Law on Mt. Sinai. He comes now in swaddling clothes. He will come again in glory. He comes humbly in the appearance of Bread and Wine.

He still goes before us with outstretched arm and our foes are put to flight at the sight of His banner!

Shall we hear the Benedictines of Le Barroux sing the O Antiphon and Magnificat?

Posted in ADVENT, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged O Antiphons
2 Comments

Read every word of this.

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

[…]

[Teresa] Piccola [wife, mother, pro-life activist] would undergo the solemn rite of exorcism once per week for more than 18 months, in sessions lasting up to three hours. On those days, she and the deliverance team (which included the clinical psychologist and a group of laymen who were there to pray and support — at times, physically — the exorcist in his work) would always begin by going to Mass. After Mass, they would pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet. Piccola said she was unable to pray this prayer, and the inability to do this would grate on her — the demonic seeking to drive her to despair before the rite of exorcism would even begin.

After additional prayers of protection for the group, the exorcist would lead them in the Litany of the Saints. It was here, Terese said, that the demons that possessed her would begin to manifest themselves. Later, they were to learn that such manifestations would indicate which saint would come to assist her during the rite.

“When sessions first started, I was in and out of awareness,” Piccola continued. “It’s hard to explain, but I was not actually unconscious. I think the closest thing to compare it to is when you take a medication before a surgical procedure and it puts you in a twilight state.”

“During sessions, when the demons would manifest, I exhibited strength beyond my capabilities, my eyes rolled back, my voice changed — these are all accurate depictions in the movies,” she said. “I would often feel or hear these things happening, but the demons would have control over my body and I couldn’t stop things from happening.”

“I felt trapped inside myself, and that was terrifying,” Piccola said. “In the very beginning, I was frightened by it, but then I realized nothing was happening that God didn’t allow, so this gave me peace. I learned how to keep my thoughts hidden so I could pray to Jesus, Mary and the saints during my sessions.”

Piccola said God allowed her to participate in the spiritual battle in a limited way.

“I only remember bits and pieces of the first few sessions,” she said. “Then it shifted, and I noticed I had much more awareness of things. Once prayers began, I had no ability to move or respond except when father spoke directly to me, but I could hear and see things. As my relationship with the Lord grew, and I surrendered more intentionally, I had more control over my movements and words, even exposing things that I could sense with the demons.”

Piccola described, again, how helpless she felt at times, when her body was no longer under her control.

“The demons would seize my body and voice to manifest,” she said. “No matter how hard I tried to regain control, I would just exhaust myself. My voice would change as certain demons manifested, and I could feel it change in my vocal chords.”

“Sometimes it was so painful as the force to expel sound was great,” she said. “I often knew when some major movement was about to happen. I could somehow sense it and would try so hard to fight against it, but then suddenly I would thrust up or my head would shake back and forth aggressively. There were times when I thought my body would just break apart.”

[…]

Dear readers, certain sins attract the attachment of demons. This is real.

That was an excerpt.

Read every single word of THIS.

Stop. Go. Now.

Posted in Hard-Identity Catholicism | Tagged exorcism, possession
7 Comments

Head of Pontifical Academy FOR LIFE would hold the hand of person committing suicide. FAIL

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I read with horror the other day that the head of the Pontifical Council for Life, Archbp. Vincenzo Paglia, said that he would hold the hand of a person committing suicide. This is the same Archbp. Paglia who is behind, and included within, the infamous homoerotic fresco in the cathedral of Terni, Italy, where he was once the bishop.

From the Catholic Herald:

Answering a question about assisted suicide and whether a Catholic or a Catholic priest can be present at someone’s death by assisted suicide, Paglia told a small group of journalists that he would be willing to do so, because “the Lord never abandons anyone.”

“In this sense, to accompany, to hold the hand of someone who is dying, is, I think a great duty every believer should promote,” he said, adding that believers should also provide a contrast to the culture of assisted suicide.

“I believe from our perspective, no one can be abandoned, even if we are against assisted suicide because we do not want to do death’s dirty work,” he said.

Sure, we hope that no one feel abandoned, unless perhaps it is by the permissive will of God that the person make in that state a great act of faith, hope and love. In our human perspective, in charity, we should, yes, accompany people. But we don’t accompany them to sin mortally. We can’t condone their choice of homicide. Suicide is a subcategory of homicide.

Willelm Card. Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht took Paglia’s position to pieces at CNA. Eijk is an expert on the issue of euthanasia.

Cardinal Eijk also addressed the issue of an eventual funeral for people who opted for assisted suicide or euthanasia.

“If a patient asks the priest to administer him the sacraments (confession or anointing of the sick) and plans a funeral before the doctor ends his life upon his request or he commits suicide, the priest cannot do so,” Eijk said.

He added that there are three reasons for this prohibition.

The first one is that “a person can receive the sacraments only when he is in a good disposition, and this is not the case when a person wants to oppose the order of creation, violating the intrinsic value of his life.”

The second reason is that the person “who receives the sacraments puts his life in the merciful hands of God. However, who wants to personally end his life wants to take his life in his hands.”

The third reason is that “if the priest administers the sacraments or plans a funeral in these cases, the priest is guilty of a scandal, since his actions might suggest that suicide or euthanasia are permitted in certain circumstances.”

Eijk also explained that a priest can celebrate the funeral of a person who died by assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia in only some circumstances, though suicide is always illicit.

“Since ancient times, the priests accepted to celebrate funerals of people who committed suicide or asked for euthanasia in cases of depression of any other psychiatric diseases. In these cases, because of their disease, the freedom of the people is diminished, and so ending the life cannot be considered a mortal sin,” Cardinal Eijk sais.

He adds that the priest must “prudently judge whether he is in front of a case of diminished freedom. If so, he can celebrate the funeral.”

To combat the pro-euthanasia trend, the Church must “announce that God made the human being in his image in his totality, soul, and body. The Second Vatican Council constitution Gaudium et Spes described the human being as ‘a unity of soul and body.’ This means that the body is an essential dimension of the human being and is part of the intrinsic value of the human being. So, it is not licit to sacrifice human life to end the pain.”

[…]

I find what Paglia suggested to be wrong-headed in the extreme even if it can be imagined that his heart was in the right place.

Posted in Four Last Things, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Pò sì jiù, You must be joking! | Tagged euthanasia, suicide, Vincenzo Paglia, Willelm Card. Eijk
1 Comment

SHOPPING ONLINE? Please use my link!

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

SHOPPING ONLINE using Amazon? Please use my link!

When you use my link to shop via Amazon, I get a small percentage of anything purchased. It adds up. It is a significant element of my income. I can’t see who orders what. Once you enter Amazon through my link, during that session I’ll get credit for whatever you get.

US HERE – UK HERE

Here are a some ideas, also for gifts.

Audible Gift Memberships

Kindle Unlimited Membership Plans

Shop Amazon Gift Cards. Any Occasion. No Expiration.

Shop Amazon – Most Wished For Items

Shop Amazon – Top Gift Ideas

Shop Amazon Warehouse Deals – Deep Discounts on Open-box and Used Products

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off

ASK FATHER: Is the will really “fixed” at death or do we get another chance?

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is death truly definitive in terms of divine judgement? There is a priest who spoke on the Patrick Coffin show (Fr. Chris Alar) that says that after we die we are given a chance to choose God or reject him, so that someone who took their life wouldn’t be damned. Is this true? But I thought that the will was fixed at death. I know you are very busy, Father, but I would be very grateful for a response.

Hell, which is not-God and un-bliss, is something chosen by the one who is damned and that choice is irrevocable.

To understand why it is irrevocable, it helps to understand why angels cannot change their minds. With extreme brevity, angels have no bodies and, therefore, they have no passions which can lead them into errors. Angels don’t have appetites which pull them now here and now there, as ours do. Angels don’t learn through senses. They know directly. There is no process for them. Angels can make mistakes, but when they make errors, they stay wrong. They can’t change their minds because they have no passions or appetites to draw them to another good.

We can change our minds now because we have bodies. When our soul separates from our body we will no longer have the appetites and passions which can draw the will to change. In life, the habits that form from following appetites and passions can be corrected. Not so after death.

The precise moment of total separation of the soul and body is hard to latch onto. I am reminded of the first part of St. John Henry Newman’s Dream of Gerontius. The soul of the dying man, soon dead, describes the separation of soul from body. It is deeply moving.

Nevertheless…

At death, our soul and body separate. Our soul continues to operate, as it should do, but without the influences of the body and without bodily senses. We will be much like angels in that state. Just as angels cannot change their minds, and are locked into their state, so too it will be with us.

We will be locked into our state at the time of the separation of our soul from our body. We will either be locked onto God or onto not-God, onto bliss or un-bliss. There will be no competing appetites to draw us from one to the other and no new information coming in through the senses. Death is like the kiln that bakes the clay into its final form. Now, we can shape the clay. Once it goes through the kiln, we can’t reshape it. Hence, after the resurrection of the flesh, we will remain locked in to God or to not-God. That won’t change even when our souls get bodies again.

After the separation of the soul from the body, we don’t get another chance to change our minds. We are locked in.

This is why it is important to stress certain things in our preaching and catechism.

First, people tend to die the way they lived. Yes, there are deathbed conversions. That is a grace that we cannot, must not, presume that we will receive. We form life-long habits. That is why it is important to PRACTICE DYING every day. If you want to be a good piano player, you have to practice. If you want to die well, and you ARE going to die, you should practice dying. Dying to self, dying to the world, even to the good things of the world, is preparation for a good death. Mortifications are good for us. They are called “mortifications” for a reason: they make us die a little, to self and the earthbound.

Next, sometimes loons gripe at the Church with the idiot accusation that we are obsessed with sex. No, we are obsessed with keeping people out of Hell. While it is true that carnal sins are not as serious as sins of pride and so forth, carnal mortal sins nevertheless are sufficient to damn us for eternity. If we talk about sexual issues a lot, its because these urges are so strong and the pleasures so great that they can easily lead the soul to lock onto not-God, lock onto excluding ourselves from God. Not so many people are intensely locked into those terrible sins of the spirit, but many are indeed locked into the pleasures of the flesh, sins now so common and pervasive that they are hardly considered any longer. But, those sins are enough to damn us. I repeat: they are enough.

Finally, we should take death and sin seriously to the point that we often pray, as the Litany expresses and forms in us, that God will preserve us from a sudden and unprovided death, a death without access to the last sacraments. And here I return to my constant theme these days: we are our rites. We are our rites. We are our rites, when we pray the Litany with its petitions and those petitions in turn form us and shape our desires to stay close to the sacraments and use them well.

When we finally get serious about doing something about the state of the Church, that’s when we will get serious about our sacred liturgical worship of God. That’s where we are formed and shaped and instructed about dying and the promise of Heaven. Thanks to the love and mercy of God, we have a Church because we are going to die. We have our sacred liturgical worship precisely because we are going to die. This is the overarching reason for all that we do: passing through the mysterious gate of death and entering into the bliss of Heaven and into the sight of God, not through a glass, darkly, but face to face in an eternal transformation in His glory ever more and ever more to be the images He created us to be.

Let nothing endanger that.

GO TO CONFESSION.

Also, check out

The Human Soul by Abbot Anscar Vonier

US HERE – UK HERE

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Four Last Things, GO TO CONFESSION | Tagged De novissimis, death, Four Last Things, judgement
9 Comments

“We can’t deny Communion! We mustn’t ‘politicize’ the Eucharist!” False argument.

Posted on 18 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

There is a good piece today at The Catholic Thing which looks at denial of Holy Communion to obstinate public supporters of abortion. The writer brings up the example of the late Archbp. Rummel of New Orleans who, in the early 60’s, desegregated all Catholic schools. Segregationists were furious, loudly protested that God wanted segregation, and threatened blowback. The Archbishop excommunicated them. Today, no one – NO BISHOP says, “I wouldn’t have done what Rummel did because I can’t read the soul of those segregationists.” Today, no one – NO BISHOP – says, “I wouldn’t have condemned members of the Nazi party in the 1930s because I can’t see their souls. Von Gallen was wrong.”

Get this…

[…]

Plenty of people at the time seem to have been convinced that Rummel’s excommunications would be “pointless,” that he was just “making things worse” and “exacerbating the tensions in New Orleans.” Perhaps he did. But no one dares say it now. No one condemns Rummel in retrospect with the claim that “there were other equally important priorities in the Church – not just that one issue alone.” [That’s what the Left, the Fishwrap types, always do. They reduce the right to be born into a minestra of other social issues. But before all other issues, the right to be born in the first place must take precedence. It is patently unfair to accuse those to emphasize the right to be born of not caring about other issues.]

People do say how, however, rather vehemently, that the Catholic bishops of Germany should have “done more,” been “less accommodating,” and excommunicated more people during the Holocaust. But wasn’t excommunicating the entire Nazi leadership in 1931 and banning Catholics from joining the party “politicizing the Eucharist”? [Exactly.] They banned Catholics from joining a political party! How could they “look into the souls” of each of those German citizens to judge why they were joining the National Socialists? Perhaps they just believed in the “worker’s movement” (the Nazis were, after all, as their name indicated, national socialists)?

I sometimes ask my students, “Did the German bishops violate the ‘separation of Church and state’ when they excommunicated members of the Nazi Party?” No, they all agree. “Would an American bishop be violating the ‘separation of Church and state’ if he dared to excommunicate a Catholic politician who had repeatedly and publicly supported access to abortion up to the moment of birth – including late-term, ‘partial-birth’ abortions?” Most don’t like this. “Why one and not the other?” “It’s different,” they claim.

[…]

It’s not.

Virtually every bishop says, “I can’t read the soul of Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, so I won’t apply can. 915 if they come to my diocese.”

The criterion for denial of Communion rests NOT being able to “see the soul” of another person. The criterion is the open, known, obstinate, public words and actions of that person. If a person has committed public scandal in a grave matter, that scandal has to be publicly addressed by the Church’s shepherds. That’s why we have cann. 915 and 916.

These days the spine-challenged wring their hands and croon that we have to all get along and be nice and not upset anyone. We have to tone down the rhetoric. We can’t deny Communion to anyone because that will make people sad.

Ten years ago, I wrote a piece, still pinned in the list of pages at the bottom of this blog’s main page, wherein I state that we cannot “tone down the rhetoric” and “just get along” when it comes to a critically important issue: abortion. I made a connection to the civil rights movement. HERE

I suggest that you read the whole piece over at The Catholic Thing. Remember it when someone says that we shouldn’t politicize the Eucharist.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Canon Law, Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill | Tagged abortion, can. 915
12 Comments

PODCAzT 180: Kwasniewski on how Vatican II reversed the order of priority, exalting “active participation” over proper liturgical worship of God

Posted on 17 December 2019 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I found a great article at LifeSite by Peter Kwasniewski which screamed to be made into a podcast. Sometimes I do this with good articles to make sure the content is more available to those who are pressed for time or have a hard time reading. You can listen.

The piece in question is “How Vatican II elevated worshipers’ ‘active participation’ above worship of God”

Peter argues that the concept of “active participation” elevated by Vatican II really turned on its head the principles of liturgical reform at the heart of Pius X’s efforts to renew liturgical worship. Pius X was the first to use the concept of “active participation” in a document. He argued that when liturgical worship is well and truly carried out with sacredness and dignity, then the people will be conformed to it and their participation will be fuller, active, etc. So, first and foremost, the rites must be fostered. However, Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium says that that, first and foremost, the active participation of the people must be fostered. That reverses the logical order. Of course both are going on at the same time, in actuality, but there is a logical precedence. Vatican II and so-called experts subsequently reversed it. Peter makes a good argument.