ASK FATHER: Exposition on a “makeshift” altar and lay testimonies

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I was at a CRHP (Christ Renews His Parish) “evangelization of the faithful” retreat not long ago, where parishioners give their
testimony and conversion stories to other parishioners. One such testimony of about 30 minutes took place at a podium to the side of a makeshift altar, while the Eucharist was exposed in a monstrance on the altar. No priest was around at the time. This is apparently the usual practice for this frequently recurring retreat. I explained the situation to our priest, and voiced my concerns. He is a Novus Ordo pastor of a huge parish near ___ and, as far as I can tell, a faithful priest. He said it was fine and that was the way it was done. Could this possibly be correct? I thought when Jesus was exposed on the altar, then only worship and adoration should be going on at that time. Thank you very much for clarity on this subject, and for your priesthood and blog. You are in my prayers twice every day.

The rules for exposition in the post-Conciliar manner of things are rather vague.  However, there can be readings, hymns and sermons during exposition.

However, in the spirit of mutual enrichment we might take a clue from the traditional way of doing things.

Even in the most solemn way of exposition the Blessed Sacrament, 40 Hours Devotion, during the Mass celebrated in the midst of 40 Hours, sermons were only “tolerated” and it would have been unthinkable for the sermon not to have been by a bishop or priest.   The moment of the “tolerated” sermon would have been fully liturgical, no question.

It seems to me that a “makeshift” altar and testimonies by lay people are not the sort of context that the custom of exposition foresees.  It seems rather to lessen attention on the Blessed Sacrament, doesn’t it?

This in no way diminishes the sincerity or utility of testimonies.  But, perhaps they should be given before exposition, rather than after.  And the monstrance needs something more than a “makeshift” altar, don’t you think?

Don’t get me wrong.  Sometimes, for Eucharistic processions, we set up “makeshift” altars.  But in general they are beautiful, even sometimes over the top.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
12 Comments

Fishwrap’s MSW v. EWTN – paragon of self-parody

At Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) Madame Defarge (aka Michael Sean Winters – Tricoteuse of the New catholic Red Guard – aka Wile E. Coyote of the catholic Left) has produced another masterpiece of irony.

Madame, who wants to watch his opponents guillotined or wants them to lose at least the livelihoods – in mercy – and who thinks that converts shouldn’t be allowed a voice in the Church, really hates EWTN.

You can guess why.

Anyway, to the irony….

He wrote:

There is nothing to be done about Fox News, but EWTN pretends to be Catholic. Is there no ecclesial mechanism for insisting that it not distort Catholic teaching so egregiously? Is there to be no accountability for its star’s hateful rhetoric?

It’s EWTN that pretends to be Catholic.  ROFL!   MSW is concerned about distortions of Catholic teaching?  This from a writer for the FISHWRAP?  Fishwrap never loses an opportunity to push the ordination of women and the normalization of sodomy.  If there were a primary example of an egregious dissenting publication in these USA, it would have to be the NCR.   As a matter of fact, in past they were ordered by the local bishop where it is produced and published not to use the word “Catholic” in their title, but they basically gave him the finger and did – and do – whatever the hell they want without any regard for authority.

And here is MSW lamenting that there is no mechanism to stop distortion of Catholic teaching.

Then there is his accusation about “hateful rhetoric”.   Please.   Friends, take a moment and go over to Real Clear Religion and read Nicholas G. Hahn’s 2013 piece specifically about the venom that Winters pours out on anyone he disagrees with.  HERE

Here’s a taste.

A cursory review of Mr. Winters’s posts reveals him to be a habitual name-caller. Papal biographer and theologian George Weigel is “noxious.” Bishop Thomas Paprocki is “pathetic.” The National Rifle Association is “poisonous.” Canon lawyer Ed Peters is “pernicious.” Catholics who opposed Pope Francis’s washing of female feet on Holy Thursday were “insane” and “crazy.” (Although, he may have a point there, as this website’s editor Jeremy Lott also ridiculed fears of this “dangerous bisexual foot-washing anarchy.”)

Winters’s trademark retort to conservatives is to denounce them as “venomous.” Winters’s favorite foe is George Weigel, who he claimed had “special venom” for former Democratic congressman Fr. Robert Drinan. Then, there are the predictable culprits: Vice President Dick Cheney, venomous. The Tea Party, venomous. The Thomas More Law Center, venomous. Audit the Catholic Campaign for Human Development? Venomous. Winters again used the moniker, “venom,” for National Review editors who opined against comprehensive immigration reform. Archbishop Charles Chaput, and others, spat “venom” when they criticized Notre Dame University’s decision to bestow an honorary degree on President Barack Obama. Almost any criticism, for that matter, was “venomous.”

And some of his quips about me are happily enshrined on the right side bar of this blog.

MSW, ladies and gentlemen.  A paragon of self-parody.

Sapienti pauca.

Posted in Liberals, You must be joking! | Tagged , , , , , , ,
15 Comments

More news from Rome concerning communications

As the text messages from across the pond started to come in this morning, I did as I more and more often now do.  With a groan I put on my cheaters and grump, “What fresh hell is this?”

Today I received an article from Avvenire (daily organ of the Italian Bishops Conference) saying that there is a new guy, Andrea Monda, running L’Osservatore Romano and that Andrea Tornielli is nominated to the editorial section of the Dicastery for Communication. One of the presenters of Monda’s recent book was the Jesuit, Antonio “2=2=5” Spadaro.  Monda also worked for Avvenire.

Bolletino HERE.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with these entities, here are some parallels.   Just as Isvestia was the paper of record of the Supreme Soviet, L’Osservatore Romano is the paper of the Holy See.  That would make Avvenire like to Pravda, the official paper of the Party.  The Dicastery for Communication might be something like the General Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press, with various departments under it, such as Goskomizdat (censored printed matter: fiction, poetry, etc.), Goskino (films) and Gosteleradio (radio and TV).   These parallels limp a bit, and I don’t necessary intend to give Isvestia and Pravda a bad name.

Now we have the likes of Tornielli in Rome and Jesuit Martin appointed as a consultor to the Dicastery.

Posted in Liberals, The Coming Storm, The Drill | Tagged ,
12 Comments

My View For Awhile: Penultimate Edition

I’m on my penultimate air trip (I hope) of the year.

Three things to note. First the pilot wanted to board early! Second, there is no tail number on this airplane, hence I’m not sure about who is actually running this show or where we are going. Third, as we are boarding the local air wing is sending its fighters up for a jaunt. Very satisfying. I tried to catch one…

Alas I have to change in my native place, but I checked the history of gates in MSP for my two legs using FlightAware and asked the agent today. They are close enough together that I won’t have to have assistance to get across that sprawling airport. And I think the lounge is just on the way.

So, off to DC. Tonight, supper with priest friends. Tomorrow, big event.

UPDATE:

A view of my native place.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
7 Comments

Development of Doctrine? Fr. Hunwicke breaks it down barney style.

Fr. Hunwicke, at his esteemed page, has a cold look at what “development of doctrine” might mean over the last few years.   Accepting, of course, that doctrine can develop, one can ask the question: how much time does it take?

How and how speedily does the Teaching of the Church “develop”?

[…]

TIMELINE

(1) Familiaris consortio was published in 1981; it repeated the Biblical precepts which for centuries had underpinned the Church’s conviction that the Holy Euchatist ought not to be administered to “remarried” divorcees.
(2) Sacramentum caritatis, 2005, repeated this teaching.
(3) Amoris laetitia is dated 19 March 2016, and was released 8 April 2016.
(4) On 5 September 2016 ‘Guidelines’ published by a group of Argentine bishops reached PF. These guidelines are commonly interpreted as allowing some ‘remarried’ divorcees to approach the Sacraments.
(5) On the same day, PF replied to this group of bishops praising their ‘Guidelines’ and saying “There is no other interpretation”.
(6) On 5 June 2017, PF formally instructed Cardinal Parolin in audientia to have these texts published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as being “Authentic Magisterium”.
(7) They duly appeared in AAS together with the Rescriptum ex audientia Sanctissimi.
(8) Cardinal Kasper, a Great Theologian, subsequently explained that the question was now authoritatively closed. Roma locuta est …

JOHN HENRY NEWMAN …

… gave a rather different, and more painstaking, historical perspective. I expect he was a Silly Fellow, too.

” … the Church of Rome has originated nothing …

” … all through Church history from the first, how slow is authority in intervening! Perhaps a local teacher, or a doctor in some local school, hazards a proposition, and a controversy ensues. It smoulders or burns in one place, no one interposing; Rome simply lets it alone. Then it comes before a bishop; or some priest, or some professor in some other seat of learning takes it up; and there is a second stage of it. Then it comes before a university, and it may be condemned by the theological faculty. So the controversy proceeds year after year, and Rome is still silent. An appeal perhaps is next made to a seat of authority inferior to Rome; and then at last after a long while it comes before the supreme power. Meanwhile, the question has been ventilated and turned over and over again, and viewed on every side of it, and authority is called upon to pronounce a decision, which has already been arrived at by reason. But even then, perhaps the supreme authority hesitates to do so, and nothing is determined on the point for years; or so generally and vaguely, that the whole controversy has to be gone through again, before it is ultimately determined.”

Posted in The Drill | Tagged
3 Comments

ASK FATHER: Even after continuous sacrileges, Bishop forces Communion in the hand

From a priest…

QUAERITUR:

At my parish since March of this year, the Holy Eucharist has been found on the floor 14+ times. Initially, when our Lord was found, I addressed it from the pulpit, asked certain parishioners to watch, inform me of any suspicious behavior, and wrote about the implications in the parish bulletin. When the sacrileges continued, I required all communicants to receive on the tongue until further notice in light of Redemptoris Sacramentum, 92. [“… If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”] A few weeks later, I received a letter from my bishop that stated I must allow parishioners the option to receive on the hand. If parishioners were adamant to receive on the hand, I would give holy Communion on the hand.

However, this past weekend, two sacred hosts were found. Now, I believe the only option is to not distribute holy Communion until the perpetrator is turned in.

Would you know if canonically, I am able to do this?

Please pray for me.

Know of my prayers for you and the Diocese of Madison!

It is hard to imagine how this happens.  At the same time, given our state in the Church after decades of disaster it is not hard at all.  Things will get worse before they get better.

It is also difficult to imagine a bishop not making the connection here.  But it really isn’t, I guess.

Alas, you are in a tough spot.  If the bishop insists that you disobey Redemptionis Sacramentum 92 – I am glad he put that in writing – then you might try one of those old fashioned solutions.   You know the sort I mean, when there are one or two screw up in the platoon, then weekend leave is cancelled for the entire platoon until the screwing up stops.

If the mandate from the bishop is that you must permit reception in the hand, then you might significantly slow down the distribution of Communion.

Have ushers on either side of the priest distributing. As an individual comes up to communicate, require that those who opt to receive in the hand place the Sacred Host in his or her mouth and swallow before the ushers permit the individual to return to the pews.

This will also give the organist time to make it through all 57 verses of “Whatsoever You Do.”

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged ,
35 Comments

A Rorate Mass for UW students

As we come to the close of the year, you are surely thinking about your end of year charitable giving.

Please remember the Tridentine Mass Society of the Diocese of Madison,  a 501(c)(3) organization.  Your donations are tax-deductible.  Click the link for ways to give.

What does the TMSM do?  According to our charter, we have a task of helping the celebration of and expanding the use of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.  We sponsor and organize Masses.  We also give aid to priests who want to use the traditional form.

I was recently contacted by a priest at the St. Paul Catholic Center at the University of Wisconsin in downtown Madison.  The students were asking for a Rorate Mass but they lacked some basic elements.  Enter the TMSM!  We provided some of the useful nuts and bolts and they did the rest.

Here are some photos of the Mass, provided by a student, Derek Ho.  Fr. Andrew Showers was the celebrant.

As you may know, Rorate Masses, celebrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, usually begin in candlelit and end at dawn.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Just Too Cool, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM |
2 Comments

Priest preaches at funeral, world falls on his head – UPDATE – HOMILY TEXT

UPDATE 17 Dec 2018:

Canonist Ed Peters has a post about the text of the sermon that Fr. LaCuesta gave at the funeral for the young man who committed suicide.

The family fueled the usual hyped-up MSM faux reporting.  (NYT … can you believe it?  NYT covered it? was shameless and ultra-lib bedmate La Croix was also dreadfully unfair) The priest’s reputation has been trashed and he was sidelined by the diocese.

Peters received a copy of the text of the sermon.  I’ve read it too.

Peters comments:

[…]

Note, first, how short this homily is. Perfectly in line with canonical and liturgical norms for such cases.

More importantly, and flatly contrary to how LaCuesta’s homily has been portrayed in the media, I don’t see Hell mentioned anywhere, anywhere, nor any language that relegates this poor young man thereto, and instead I see clarion reminders of the mercy of Christ recited at least half-a-dozen times. I see, too, the moral gravity of suicide—itself approaching epidemic proportions among Americans today—directly acknowledged and fears about its eternal consequences candidly admitted, but I also see consoling references to how much more God knows about one’s life than do those even closest to him and how much that deeper, likely mitigating, divine knowledge leaves the rest of us mortals, grieving a suicide, room for real hope. And I see real sympathy for the powerless, abject suffering visited on those left behind by a suicide, on people who would have moved heaven and earth to help a child seriously considering self-destruction, but who are now forever bereft of that chance (save for their prayers for the departed, of course).

And yet these few, balanced, honest, words were twice interrupted by family members for their failure ‘to celebrate the life of the deceased’, and the secular media, always ready to encourage a ‘Let’s you and him fight’ scenario [That’s a huge part of this.] when it comes to Catholics and the Church, fomented a picture of this priest as a heartless thug without citing so much as a single independently-reported word of his homily? Crimeny.

So here’s my suggestion: when the perfect homily for funeral Masses of those who kill themselves is composed we’ll send it right off to all priests ever called upon to deliver one. Till then, parish priests might want to look at Fr. LaCuesta’s homily for some good thoughts and ideas.

Want to read the text of the homily for yourselves?  HERE
______

Originally Published on: Dec 15, 2018 

I was sitting in the Delta lounge at LGA this morning waiting for my flight and, across the room, I saw on soundless CNN something about a priest who made a young person’s suicide “worse”.

It seems that, in Michigan, a priest gave a sermon at the funeral of a young man who committed suicide and that people didn’t like it.   Dr. Peters also wrote about this and the canonical aspects of funeral sermons in relation to this incident.  HERE

I haven’t heard a recording, but from what I can tell, the priest spoke about suicide, which caused pain to the loved ones of the young man.  However, from news reports it also seems that they were upset that the priest didn’t treat the funeral as a “celebration of life”.

For example HERE:

A funeral should focus on the way an individual lived, rather than the way he died, Jeff and Linda Hullibarger said.

That’s why they’re upset at the way a local priest, the Rev. Don LaCuesta at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Catholic Church in Temperance, Mich., handled the service for their 18-year-old son, Maison, who died on Dec. 4. The couple said the priest disregarded their requests for an uplifting homily and instead chose to sermonize on the morality of suicide.

“He basically called our son a sinner, instead of rejoicing in his life,” Ms. Hullibarger said.

[…]

“We heard he was talking about suicide,” Mr. Hullibarger said. “We looked at each other, and said, ‘What is he doing? We didn’t ask for this.’”

[…]

Mr. Hullibarger approached the priest during the sermon to ask that he end it, but he said the priest did not acknowledge him. The couple said they had to again intervene in order to share their own reflection before the recessional hymn, which they had also previously discussed. They asked that Father LaCuesta not accompany them to the cemetery after the service.

No, a funeral is not a celebration of life.  That doesn’t mean that the priest had to dwell on the issue of suicide.

Also, people don’t get to prescribe what priest’s preach about.

Then the father went up to the priest during the sermon… nope.  You don’t get to do that either.

In another news account HERE,

“He basically called our son a sinner, instead of rejoicing in his life,” said Linda Hullibarger, Maison’s mother, the Toledo Blade reports. “It was what he wanted. He said nothing about what we asked him to say.”

Funerals are delicate and funerals of suicides even more so.   However, I have a sense that, perhaps, there may have been a somewhat comprehensive lack of long term catechesis in the lives of the loved ones of that unfortunate young man.

Of course since this is now the Era of Outrage, some are baying for the priest’s head.   And the diocese has not deemed to give the priest much support.

It is entirely possible that this priest went a bit overboard in what he said.  Again, I have not heard or read that sermon.

However, I would not be surprised if some element in this sad story involves those involved having a presupposition that everyone, except perhaps Hitler, goes to heaven pretty much automatically and that’s why funerals are celebrations of life.  No.  Funerals are for praying for the mercy of God on the soul of the deceased, no matter how he dies.

Finally, I hope that family can find some peace without taking out the rage on that priest and trying to ruin his life – a funny way to “celebrate life”.  I also will say a prayer for that young man who took his own life.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Four Last Things, The Drill | Tagged ,
62 Comments

17 Dec: St. Daniel and the Furnace Boys

Some don’t know, and understandably so, that the Church recognizes many great figures of the Old Testament as saints, and she gives them feast days.

They may not appear on the general calendar for liturgical observation, but they are listed in the Roman Martyrology.

As the first part of Advent closes and we move into the heavier Advent days of final preparation we have three ancient Prophets.

On 16 Dec St. Haggai.

On 18 Dec. St. Malachi.

Today, 17 Dec, we have St. Daniel.

Along with Daniel we celebrate Sts. Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, the three boys in the fiery furnace.

Speaking of Daniel, don’t forget the wonderful artwork of Daniel Mitsui, which would make a fine gift for Christmas or Epiphany.  I’ve had one of his recent prints framed as a gift for someone who has been super helpful lately.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
2 Comments

Advent Penance Service Idiocy

From a friend.

WARNING TO MALE READERS: Simply reading the text in the images, below, may compromise your testosterone level.   Imagine what reading aloud might do.

This idiocy was perpetrated on the People of God at a parish. It came with the note:

“Just the latest from a parish – the one with 60 minutes of confessions per month.”

Give us a share of that divine innocence that … what?  that… made Zachary a mute until his boy’s bris?

It must have taken monumental self-control not to break out in laughter.

An hour total time for confessions… total… in a month… and then they do this crap?

Priests and bishops who are probably going to Hell

You would think that this sort of thing would have washed out with the demise of cabbage patch kids.

UPDATE:

But wait!  There’s more.  Another sheet came in.

Posted in GO TO CONFESSION, Liberals, SESSIUNCULA, You must be joking! | Tagged
35 Comments