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: My lapsed son to have a “humanist” marriage. Can I attend?

Posted on 23 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

My Son, who has lapsed from the Faith, is soon to be ‘married’ in a humanist ceremony. I and my wife have been invited but I am conscious of giving credence to the event. I am committing a sin by attending the ceremony.

Hmmm. A “humanist” marriage. One wonders what sort of ceremony that might be.

These matters are best discussed with a trusted priest close to your situation.

There is no canonical prohibition against attending an invalid wedding, but one must use the virtue of prudence to determine whether to attend or not.

Would attending – after expressing to your son your disappointment that he has abandoned his practice of the Faith – be a means to keep the door open to his return to the Faith, or would it be seen as tacit approval of the unfortunate situation?

Would refusing to attend demonstrate the seriousness with which you take his apostasy, or would it shut the door off to any future reconciliation?

Marriage, in our contemporary world, has become a cultural battlefield. Satan hates good, solid, Christian marriage and will do everything he can to undermine and discredit it.

This makes it all the more important that we do all we can to raise our children to understand the importance of marriage, the importance of choosing a good, faithful, Catholic marriage partner and and the need to follow the Church lead to prepare for and to contract marriage. We must do all we can to support young people who marry, and to assist married couples who struggle in their marriages.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged matrimony
21 Comments

ASK FATHER: Invalidly married woman enrolls in RCIA

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

My next door neighbor (unbaptized) has enrolled her 5 year old daughter in CCD classes at a local parish to have her baptized and receive her first holy communion. She decided to also enroll herself in RCIA and be received into the Church simultaneously with her daughter. However, she hit a snag in that she was informed that in order to proceed, her husband (not religious but supportive of her decision to become Catholic) would need to receive a declaration of nullity for his first marriage. His first marriage ended in a very ugly fashion with him getting custody of his two older sons because their mother was verbally abusive. Being that her husband did not himself decide to become Catholic and not wanting him to have to resurrect some very painful memories going through the annulment process, she instead dropped out of RCIA but has kept her daughter in CCD. I spoke with a deacon I know well who said the parish was wrong to tell her that her husband’s first marriage must receive a declaration of nullity.

Who is correct here?

The deacon is wrong. The parish is right.

The deacon should be informed that he is wrong, lest he continue to spread error. He probably means well, but he is wrong.

Marriage is a covenant involving two people, a man and a woman. It’s either wholly correct or wholly incorrect. It can’t be correct on the part of one spouse, and incorrect on the part of the other. To be married, a man and a woman have to be capable of marriage. To be capable of contracting marriage, both parties must be free to marry; neither one can be married to another.

In this case, because the non-religious husband is already married to his first wife, the Church starts with the presumption that that first marriage is valid. When he and his first wife said, “I do, until death do us part,” we presume they meant it. Since he is already married, he cannot enter into a subsequent marriage. Civil divorce has no power to overturn a valid marriage.

For him to be married validly to the next door neighbor woman in the query, the Church would have to determine that his first marriage was somehow invalid. Only if that can be established and the presumption of validity overturned could this second marriage been considered a valid one.

Were the next door neighbor in this case to be baptized and confirmed, she could not be admitted to Holy Communion. She is currently living in an irregular marriage, which is an objective state of sin.

We don’t welcome people into the Church halfway.

Her marriage situation will have to be rectified before she could be admitted, wholly and entirely, into the Church. This doesn’t mean that she is forbidden to go to Mass or other parish events. But, she does so as a non-Catholic (i.e., no Communion).

Marriage choices have consequences, deep and lasting consequences. We can’t simply wish away difficult situations. Nor can we, in the name of being “pastoral”, ignore the hard truths that some situations present.

Lying to folks about their situations does not bring them closer to the Lord, who is the God of Mercy and Truth. No Truth… no Mercy.

We all can hope and pray that the husband in question loves his second wife enough that the discomfort of investigating his prior attempt at marriage will be a sacrifice he is willing to make.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged divorced remarried, marriage, matrimony, RCIA, second marriage
16 Comments

ASK FATHER: Father told me not to genuflect when passing tabernacle during Mass

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I was serving at Mass in the OF today, and before Mass, my priest approached me and told me that, when crossing from one side of the altar to the other, I was not to go to the foot of the altar and genuflect, instead instructing me to cross behind the altar and bow to it with my back to the tabernacle. He claimed that this was part of the extraordinary form, and since one cannot pick and choose sections you like, you cannot add something from the extraordinary to the ordinary, but rather the two must remain separate, either offered in full, or not at all. He claimed there were canons that prohibited the mingling of the two. He further mentioned, upon my mentioning of the OF’s very scanty rubrics as regards the movement of servers, that what is common practice has the force of law, and what I did is not common practice, so ought not be done. Was he incorrect about any of the above, and if so, where can I find proof to the contrary?

Firstly, it is probably the best course of action to be obedient to Father.

There may be reasons for why he laid down such rules. He may be under “heat” from the chancery or other quarters to “stamp out” the wild and flagrant abuse of showing respect to the Blessed Sacrament during the course of the Mass. (Don’t laugh.)

That said, the rubrics of the Ordinary Form of the Mass prescribe genuflection upon entering the sanctuary where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, and upon leaving the same sanctuary, as well as after the consecrations.

The General Instruction states,

“If the tabernacle with the Most Blessed Sacrament is present in the sanctuary, the priest, the deacon, and the other ministers genuflect when they approach the altar and when they depart from it, but not during the celebration of Mass itself.”

It’s a really stupid rule, but it is the rule in the Ordinary Form.

Yet another reason to promote the Extraordinary Form.

In the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass, the abuse of incidentally genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, and showing respect to Our Sovereign Lord and Majesty, is on the same scale as using a gold safety pin, instead of an aluminum one for the maniple on a ferial day of Lent.

Both of these abuses should be corrected severely, dealt with harshly, perhaps by imposing a penance of two ice cubes in the server’s post-Mass glass of lemonade instead of three.

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

ASK FATHER: Lace during Lent

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I was wondering what the rules are if any about wearing lace albs or cottas [surplices] by priests during Lent. Is there a prohibition on lace being worn during Lent?

I don’t think there is. I haven’t found any proscription – or prescription – of lace during Lent. However, it could be argued that it makes sense to back off with decorations of all kinds during Lent. If we don’t put flowers on altars, perhaps we should also back off on other decorations as well.

If it’s all lace all the time, you really have no where to go when Annunciation comes during Lent, or St. Joseph, or Holy Thursday and Easter. Right?

His scriptis, wearing lace in Lent wouldn’t be wrong, provided – as always – that it isn’t exaggerated (i.e., comprising too much of the alb or surplice), that it is in decent condition, etc.

On a personal note, I don’t use lace very often. If I am a guest and it is laid out for me, sure. When important feasts come along, great. I have some really nice albs and surplices with lace, but for most Sundays and weekdays, I use a plain alb with little or no decoration… except some wrinkles… linen is tough to keep smooth, a less ornate surplice.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged alb, lace, surplice, vestments
9 Comments

WDTPRS 22 Feb: Cathedra of Peter (2002MR)

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today is a fine opportunity to reflect of the will of the Savior that the Church He founded should have as a necessary element the Petrine Ministry.

Also, I wish all those who belong to the Ordinariate of the Chair of Peter a fine feast day.

COLLECT:

Praesta, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus,
ut nullis nos permittas perturbationibus concuti,
quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti.

There is nothing especially difficult about the grammar and vocabulary of this prayer, though it is theologically profound. NB: the solidasti is really solidavisti, a “syncopated” form.

I’m sure some of you can come up with your smooth but accurate versions.

SUPER OBLATA:

Ecclesiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine,
preces et hostias benignus admitte,
ut, beato Petro pastore,
ad aeternam perveniat hereditatem,
quo docente fidei tenet integritatem.

This is harder than the Collect. From the point of view of vocabulary, trying to get the right sense of admitto helps to establish the “mood” of the prayer. Admitto carries the weight of “suffering” or “allowing” something to enter into one’s presence. “Admit” is more eloquent than just “receive”. Admitto immediately lends a sense of God’s highness and our needy lowliness, waiting upon God’s good pleasure. Grammatically, you have to get that quo docente right, or nothing else works. I think the trick here is to avoid taking quo docente as an ablative absolute (which is what beato Petro pastore clearly is) and instead see it as an ablative of “agent”.

SLAVISHLY LITERAL RENDERING

O Lord, we beseech Thee,
kindly suffer to receive the prayers and sacrificial offerings of Thy Church,
so that, blessed Peter being Her shepherd,
and, by whom as he is teaching holds fast to the integritry of the Faith,
She may attain to the eternal inheritance.

POST COMMUNION:

Deus, qui nos,
beati Petri apostoli festivitatem celebrantes,
Christi Corporis et Sanguinis communione vegetasti,
praesta, quaesumus,
ut hoc redemptionis commercium
sit sacramentum nobis unitatis et pacis.

Commercium is a loaded word. It means “exchange”. It has a theological, not a mercantile sense, of course. Bread and wine were chosen by God, from all gifts He gave us, to be transformed into His Body and Blood.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

O God, who with the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ,
has nourished us celebrating the feast of the blessed Apostle Peter,
grant, we beseech Thee,
that this sacred exchange of redemption
be for us a sacramental sign of unity and peace.

We chose from among those gifts of bread and wine, those concrete gifts which we offered at this particular Mass. They were a symbol of something from to be offered ourselves, to be returned to the one who gave them. God accepted them, and transformed them through His Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ. Then gave them back to us, so that we, through them might be transformed more and more into what they are. This is an amazing interchange of gifts, God always having logical priority over the giving and the given. Thus, in the process, we are united to God and each other in a marvelous sacred “exchange”.

As a bonus… here are a few photos of St. Peter’s shot some years ago on this Feast of the Cathedra of St. Peter.

It is pretty dark in the Basilica, so steady is the name of the game. Here is a shot through the columns over the main altar toward the apse, where you can see the candles arrayed around the magnificent bronze by Bernini.

A closer view.

The bronze Cathedra is decorated with lighted candles only once a year, today.

The black bronze statue of St. Peter attributed to the marvelous Arnulfo di Cambio was always dressed up in his cope and tiara, with a ring on his finger and pectoral Cross on two days, 29 June and today. Then the modernists in the Fabrica started fooling around. Too triumphalistic. They started cutting out elements. But all of them were back the day I shot these except for the griccia alb, which I can live without I guess. I don’t know if it is back this year or not.

And ….

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter
7 Comments

22 February 1980 – The Miracle

Posted on 22 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I was at the University of Minnesota when the US Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union at the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics. I was particularly tuned in, because quite a few Minnesota players were on the team.

From History:

U.S. hockey team makes miracle on ice

In one of the most dramatic upsets in Olympic history, the underdog U.S. hockey team, made up of college players, defeats the four-time defending gold-medal winning Soviet team at the XIII Olympic Winter Games in Lake Placid, New York. The Soviet squad, previously regarded as the finest in the world, fell to the youthful American team 4-3 before a frenzied crowd of 10,000 spectators. Two days later, the Americans defeated Finland 4-2 to clinch the hockey gold.

The Soviet team had captured the previous four Olympic hockey golds, going back to 1964, and had not lost an Olympic hockey game since 1968. Three days before the Lake Placid Games began, the Soviets routed the U.S. team 10-3 in an exhibition game at Madison Square Garden in New York City. The Americans looked scrappy, but few blamed them for it–their average age, after all, was only 22, and their team captain, Mike Eruzione, was recruited from the obscurity of the Toledo Blades of the International League.

Few had high hopes for the seventh-seeded U.S. team entering the Olympic tournament, but the team soon silenced its detractors, making it through the opening round of play undefeated, with four victories and one tie, thus advancing to the four-team medal round. The Soviets, however, were seeded No. 1 and as expected went undefeated, with five victories in the first round.

On Friday afternoon, February 22, the American amateurs and the Soviet dream team met before a sold-out crowd at Lake Placid. The Soviets broke through first, with their new young star, Valery Krotov, deflecting a slap shot beyond American goalie Jim Craig’s reach in the first period. Midway through the period, Buzz Schneider, the only American who had previously been an Olympian, answered the Soviet goal with a high shot over the shoulder of Vladislav Tretiak, the Soviet goalie.

The relentless Soviet attack continued as the period progressed, with Sergei Makarov giving his team a 2-1 lead. With just a few seconds left in the first period, American Ken Morrow shot the puck down the ice in desperation. Mark Johnson picked it up and sent it into the Soviet goal with one second remaining. After a brief Soviet protest, the goal was deemed good, and the game was tied.

[…]

There’s a pretty good movie about this amazing event.

Click!

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged hockey, olympics
1 Comment

ASK FATHER: Father sprinkles water with fingers into chalice

Posted on 21 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Is it liturgically correct for a priest to dip their fingers into the water pitcher and then shake them off into the chalice as a means to add water to the chalice before the consecration?

Liturgically correct?

Not really. I believe the Latin says “infundit… he pours” not “he sprinkles/scatters” a little water into the wine. Yes, a meaning of infundo is “impart” and, poetically, even “cast”, but “cast” is not the commonsense meaning. In this rubric is means “pour”. I’ll admit that, with some cruets, given the elastic tendency of the water’s surface, surface tension, sometimes you have to “cast” or “flick” or “tap” some water into the chalice, but that’s still pouring. Taking water on your fingers and flicking it or dripping it in isn’t pouring.

That said, Father is clearly being careful not to put too much water into the wine, which is a good thing.

CLICK TO BUY

At the offertory the priest is to add a small quantity of water to the wine in the chalice. Small. There must not be the least doubt that what is in the chalice is wine. In other words, put in too much water, and you don’t have wine anymore. The addition of too much water breaks the substance of the wine.

In the manual of dogmatic theology by Tanquerey, that tonic for the soul, I found the opinion that “quinta pars aquae ad vinum corrumpendum non sufficiat … a fifth part of water isn’t enough to break [the substance of] the wine”, and thus render it invalid matter for consecration.

Bottom line, we want to have just a tiny bit of water put into the wine. Ideally, drops. And we want to make sure that they don’t simply adhere to the inside of the cup of the chalice.

Scruple spoon with friends,
to provide scale.

This is why at the offertory careful, diligent priests will use what is nicknamed a “scruple spoon”, a tiny dipper-shaped tool with with they dip up a tiny quantity of water from the cruet to put into the wine in the chalice. The idea is that you never have to worry that, for reasons of surface tension of the water or the shape of the cruet or the unsteadiness of hand of the priest or deacon, too much water might be inadvertently added to the wine.

Priests must take care to avoid the the Ketchup Bottle Technique of Chalice Preparation™ when the water in the cruet is being stubborn. You know the poem by Richard Armour (not Ogden Nash):

Shake and shake
the catsup bottle
first none’ll come
and then a lot’ll.

Lot’ll = bad.

When that happens the priest should start over.

Why?

I’ll tell ya’ why.

Because we are Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists and we never never never fool around with the validity of matter of sacraments.

That’s why.

Let Scruple Spoons abound! Promote the New Evangelization!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged infundo, offertory, scruple spoon, water
14 Comments

Pope Donald

Posted on 20 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It seems that, the presidency not being enough, The Donald is running for Pope.

This is from A-CNN:

Converted Trump Now Running for Pope

In shocking news first reported a week ago, businessman Donald Trump has converted to Catholicism and has now declared his candidacy for Pope. Today’s announcement coincides with critical statements Pope Francis made about Mr. Trump not being a Christian. Mr. Trump just held a rally outside of New York City. Although video is not available, A-CNN has just acquired the audio transcript which we are providing below:

Thank you….thank you. You know, when I first started this campaign, people didn’t believe me. First they said, he’s not converting, he’ll never convert. Then I converted. Then they said, he’ll never get baptized, he won’t want the water to mess up his hair. But then I got baptized. Then they said he won’t get confirmed, and I got confirmed. And then they said he’d never run for pope. Well here I am, and I’m running for Pope; and I’m doing very well I must say.

(Cheers, applause)

I don’t have to do this, when you think about it. I really don’t. I’m rich. I’m really, really, rich. I built a great company; a tremendous company. I employ thousands and thousands of people. So my friends, they ask me, they say Donald, you have everything you can dream of. You’re rich, you have an amazing wife, an amazing family, you’re very successful, why run for Pope? And I say, you know what? I have to run. My Church needs me. The Catholics need me. I have to make the Catholic Church great again. I have to.

(Cheers, applause)

You know, it’s a sad thing to say, but the Church is in such bad shape; terrible shape under Francis. The Catholic Church doesn’t win anymore. We just don’t. When is the last time Catholics won anything? Lepanto? When was that, the 1500’s? We don’t win anymore. But, let me just say, Under a Trump papacy, we are going to win again. We are going to win so much. We are going to win so much you are all going to be sick of winning, ok? But right now, it’s terrible. Just the other day, I see the Pope is praising Martin Luther. Martin Luther! Can you believe it?

(Boos)

Our Pope is over there praising Martin Luther; meanwhile millions of Hispanics are converting to Protestantism in Latin America. It’s true. We are losing millions and millions of people to the Protestants and our Pope does nothing. He does nothing. And I have nothing against the Protestants. Many of them are good people. I employ thousands of Protestants. I used to be a Protestant. But their leaders are just too smart for our leaders. We have people in power in the Church today who have no idea what they are doing. They are incompetent. All our leaders do is “dialogue.” We don’t convert anymore, we “dialogue.” What the hell is dialogue? Excuse me, but shouldn’t we be converting these people? If we have the Truth, why aren’t we converting them? But we don’t convert, we “dialogue”, and we lose millions and millions of these people to Protestantism. They are saying if the head of the Catholic Church thinks it’s ok to be Protestant, why convert? Why do we need to convert? Let him convert. Let the Pope convert. That’s what they’re saying. They’re laughing at us. There is no respect there. No respect. When I’m Pope, they are going to respect us again, let me tell you.

(Cheers, applause)

Another thing I hear a lot about is 2 Vatican. Have you heard of 2 Vatican?

(Crowd yells “Vatican II!”)

Vatican II? Is it Vatican II? Vatican II, 2 Vatican, who the hell cares. It stinks right? No matter what you call it, it stinks.

(Cheers, applause)

I was just looking at the numbers the other day, folks. Before Vatican II – tens of thousands of vocations to the priesthood and religious life in this country, thousands of baptisms, first communions, confirmations. Thousands and thousands of converts. Catholic universities all over the place, and I mean real Catholic universities, not the universities today that call themselves Catholic. Tens of thousands of Catholic schools with all kinds of nuns. There were so many priests the parishes were overflowing, ok? You couldn’t walk down your street without bumping into a priest, that’s how many of them there were. The Faith was exploding, it was really amazing, it was unbelievable. And then…. You have Vatican II.

(Boos)

Then you have Vatican II and they change everything. They change everything! You have the best Church in centuries, a flourishing Church, a vibrant Church, a converting Church, and they change everything. Now how stupid is this? How stupid?

(Boos)

You know people try to criticize me and they say I speak too plain and too simple. Look, I have a great education, I finished top of my class at the Wharton School of Finance, the top school in the country. I have a huge vocabulary. It’s huge. It really is. But when I see something like this, there really is no other word for it. I have to call it stupid. Because it is. It’s stupid. There’s no other word for it.

(Cheers, applause)

So they’re succeeding. The Church is succeeding, and they change everything. So then they say in Vatican II that the priests aren’t really the priests. I mean, we’re all priests, right? Isn’t that what Martin Luther said? We’re all priests? The Pope’s buddy, Martin Luther?

(Boos)

Then they try to say, oh but there’s a difference. The priests in the collars, if they even wear collars anymore. I saw a priest the other day; he was in a turtleneck and a cardigan. He looked like Mr. Rogers. Who the hell wants a priest that looks like Mr. Rogers? Who wants that? I don’t know. Anyway…so the priests in the collars can say the Mass and they can hear the confessions, but in every other way, we’re all priests. Men, women, kids, maybe even Muslims. I don’t know, can Muslims be priests under Vatican II? I have no idea. I wouldn’t be surprised folks, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s crazy.

(Boos)

So then they say we’re all priests and what happens to the priesthood? Plummets. Numbers go through the floor. Why be a priest if everyone can be a priest? Makes no sense. So now, if you’re a priest you can do what? Consecrate and absolve, right? Consecrate and absolve. So what do they do? Now they have “Communion Services.” They call them “Communion Services” ever heard of that?

(Boos)

The priest consecrates a bunch of hosts and then a layperson, usually a woman up at the altar in a pantsuit. Probably Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were Hillary.

(Laughter)

You ever notice today that all the nuns dress like Hillary? When did that happen? When did nuns start dressing like Hillary? It’s scary. It’s really scary.

[…]

Read the rest there. It’s a hoot.

I can actually hear his voice.

BTW… A-CNN is associated with The Remnant. Fr. Z kudos. That’s pretty funny.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged Donald Trump, The Remnant
26 Comments

REVIEW: Movie “Risen” is a “resurrection mystery” and a reflection on death

Posted on 20 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Click me!
NB: That A.D. bit there.
Heh.

I went to see Risen yesterday.

It starts like a mystery novel/show, but not a murder mystery. It’s a resurrection mystery.

Its starting point is the mystery surrounding the whereabouts of the body of Jesus of Nazareth, which could become a dangerous political flashpoint for the embattled Pontius Pilate on the eve of a visit from the Emperor Tiberius.

The main character is, of course, the Body of the Risen Lord. But the other main character is that of a Roman military Tribune, Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), who is tasked to find the body of the crucified Nazarean after his fanatic disciples steal it during the night… or so they think. The politics and the tension between the Jews and Roman is portrayed pretty well.

This movie was not made by Catholics. As such there are a few points that are not quite right, but you can look for them yourselves. I don’t like to post spoilers or too many detail.

Before the release, when I posted about the lead up of this film on this blog, a commentator posted that he thought there was an irreverent scene involving the Eucharist. I contacted the distributors at that time to clarify the situation. Having seen it myself, I didn’t find any irreverence toward the Eucharist. The scene involves a meal wherein the Apostles are eating. They are tearing apart pieces of bread that they pass around. It isn’t an explicitly Eucharistic moment, as far as I can tell. However, had I been consulted during the making of the film about that scene, I would have advised that they do it a bit differently so as not to create even the slightest appearance of Eucharistic irreverence.

There is a “Shroud of Turin” moment.

I eventually remembered where I saw Clavius’ subaltern … Draco in Harry Potter. Growed up, he did. I hope he, as an actor, can eventually shake off feckless characters and that he won’t be forever typecast.

Along the way, and I think this isn’t too much of a spoiler given that everyone knows going into it that the Roman Tribune is going to become a believer… Peter takes to Clavius along the way. I wonder if this isn’t a subtle Protestant way of dealing with Christ’s entrusting of the “keys” to Peter, to downplay the Catholic understanding. Latin clavis means “key” (think of French “clef” in music). Clavus, by the way, is “nail”. The name “Clavius” wasn’t common for Romans. The name of the famed Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius has nothing to with an ancient Roman name. It is a Latinization of a German name Clau. I think the movie was originally named “Clavius”. I suspect that “Risen” will resonate more with Christians of various non-Latin stripes. I may have over-analyzed that. Maybe they just wanted a Roman sounding name.

The way that the Apostles are depicted … differently from other movies. I thought their directorial choices for Bartholomew were regrettable. I was distracted by that. Furthermore, in their zeal I think the makers succumbed occasionally to the temptation of syrupy piety. But… hey… I often tell audiences and readers that a little syrup in your piety doesn’t hurt anyone. Lastly, the depiction of the Ascension… what does one say? I wasn’t wondering how they were going to handle that, once I realized that they were going to give it a go. The Lord walks into the sunset with rising music and a kind of sonic bomb. I made notes during the film. At that point I jotted: “Really, guys?”

That said, the film has a lot going for it. Don’t shy away because it has a few bumps.

The acting is good. Fiennes’ Clavius is a decent chap in a horrid job and place who really wants The Truth, no matter what. He is, therefore, the foil to Pontius “What is Truth?” Pilate (Peter Firth… nothing wrong with his acting either). Trying to get to The Truth about the Lord’s Body sets him on a course that will overturn his worldview.

The movie was fairly authentic in its depiction of the Roman stuff. As a matter of fact, past films almost always depict the Roman legionaries – such as those of X – Fretensis – as being viciously cruel beasts, even in an over the top caricature. I have never bought that. I don’t think Romans were any more cruel than any other soldiers of any other army. Some of the men in the movie show some concern for the locals, even for one of the thieves dying with Christ. Were they sweethearts one and all? Of course not. But they weren’t, to the man, monsters.

Finally, it seems to me that this movie is a good reflection on the fact that all of us are going to die. It is a reflection on death. It asks the question: What is going to happen to me when I die? And I am going to die. Is it the grave and corruption? Is that it? Or is there more? After the long slog in this vale of tears, will there be refreshment, light and peace? Or the pit?

Clavius himself, near the beginning, is world-weary. He is doing what he is doing so that some day he can have some worldly quiet and peace. He wants “a day without death”. The movie revolves around the day death died. The peace which he really longs for is not of this world and the grave is not the goal, as the poet said. There is a sort of turning point moment in a line that Pontius Pilate has when viewing a corpse. You’ll hear it when you go. You will see how the beginning and the end tie together in this regard.

A note for taking children: There are some awful dissolving corpses on view a few times. They get across the fact that it is pretty unpleasant dealing with them. They don’t linger over them, like a horror film, but they are there. The movie is full of cadavers, which is, after all, part of the point of a film called “Risen”.

That’s enough.

See it for yourselves and chime in.

Here are a couple trailers. And click the ad on the sidebar while it’s still there!

Posted in REVIEWS | Tagged movie, movie review, review, Risen
9 Comments

ASK FATHER: Excommunication of lay people for attending women’s fake ordination?

Posted on 20 February 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

A local Protestant affiliated hospital in my city hosted a so-called WomanPriest recently. She purported to confect the Eucharist in their chapel. This “event” received zero publicity (to my surprise). The usual small gaggle of grey haired unitarian-ish UCC/ELCA/Episcopalians were in attendance, I understand. She no more confected the body and blood of Our Lord than does the Episcopalian female priest on staff at that institution. (Of course this Roman Catholic WomanPriest is an excommunicate).

My question is: Are there canonical penalties for LAY Catholics who attended this, and received so-called communion?

(Yes, the local ordinary has been informed.)

In 2007 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, alerted the faithful to the fact that any woman claiming to get ordained and any bishop attempting to ordain a woman would be subject to the penalty of excommunication. The CDF, by this decree, elevated the attention of the Church to these sad instances, which are grave threats to the integrity of the priesthood and of the faith.

The attachment of a penalty of excommunication to the bishop who attempts to ordain and also the to the woman who attempts to get ordained makes it clear that this is serious matter. A priest or deacon who participates in these fiascoes open himself up to possible penalties.

The lay faithful, too, should stay far away from this nonsense.

While no specific penalty is declared for laity who attend, a wise and prudent bishop should consider the possibility of imposing censures should this become a particular problem in his diocese.

Apart from ecclesiastical penalties, simulating sacraments is a grave sin which certainly displease Our Lord.