07/07/07 – Summorum Pontificum 11 years on – WORK HARDER!

Today is the 11th anniversary of the release of the text of the “Emancipation Proclamation”, Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI’s great gift to the whole Church.  It went into effect on 14 Sept 2007.

I’ve called this important Motu Proprio a key element of Benedict’s “Marshall Plan“.

It is working.   Just today, for example, I read a pastoral letter of a diocese which evinces a measure of underlying anxiety: it smacks of concern that, perhaps, people are being attracted to a more traditional way of receiving Communion, and it pushes lots of standing and sticking out of hands and not preaching about Confession.  Interesting.

While Benedict wrote that the two forms of the Roman Rite shouldn’t be mixed, he also clearly indicated that there should be, would be, a “mutual enrichment”.  It was his desire to “jump start”, as it were, the organic development of liturgical worship which the post-Conciliar sudden imposition of an artificially created rite had snuffed out.  What he called “mutual enrichment” I call “gravitational pull”.  As it turns out in the observable world, the greater an object’s mass, the greater its gravitational force.  The more profound and denser “mass” of tradition is producing the stronger gravitational pull on the less profound “mass” of post-Conciliar innovation and liturgical antinomianism.

Does that mean that the gravitational pull is not mutual?  Hardly!  I think that many traditionalists celebrate the older, traditional rites with great devotion now precisely because of our sad experiences since the Council and precisely because they have recovered an accurate application of the important Conciliar message about “active participation” from the wreckage of the intervening decades.

Great strides have been taken in the last 11 years.   The number of places where the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite has grown.  Importantly, many young priests have learned and are learning their traditional rite.  This will have a long-term effect on how they understand themselves as priests.  In turn that will change how they say Mass and preach, which will produce beneficial knock-on effects in their congregations.

It’s all about revitalizing our Catholic identity.  If we don’t know who we are as Catholics, we can’t be effective as Catholics in our families or the public square.

In the next few years we will see a sharp downturn in the numbers of people going to Mass and in the number of priests and, probably, churches available.  We have to start thinking about this.  What are we going to do?   I know one thing: where tradition is tried, tradition seems to succeed.

We need to think inside the box so that we properly think outside the box.  Our sacred liturgical choices matter enormously for our future.

WE ARE OUR RITES!

Say a prayer today for Benedict XVI.  Support your priests and bishops in their good initiatives to restore tradition for the benefit of the whole local Church you belong to.  Promote traditional worship wherever possible.  Work harder!

¡Hagan lío!

Posted in Benedict XVI, Hard-Identity Catholicism, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices | Tagged , ,
35 Comments

ASK FATHER: It’s getting hard to find suitable godparents

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Thank you for your blog and work. I have frequently found it informative and encouraging.

My wife and I, God willing, expect our third child shortly, but have been in difficulty over selecting suitable godparents.

A married relative would seem ideal, except that I know he dissents from the Church on same-sex marriage and gender theory. Is it permitted to use him and his wife? Would it be prudent? It’s rather challenging to find appropriate godparents and this relative would be a good candidate in other respects.

Congratulations on your growing family!

It seems to me that holding such odd ideas and dissenting from the Church’s teachings would, to my way of thinking, instantly disqualify a person from being a godparent to my child.

It seems that, as families get smaller, and as people move more frequently, and as fewer of our relatives and friends practice their Catholic Faith, it is getting harder and harder to find good godparents.

What to do?

Can. 872 says that there should be a sponsor “insofar as possible” (quantum fieri potest).

This means that a sponsor/godparent isn’t required for the validity of the sacrament.

Nevertheless, it is important to have at least one. Can. 873 makes provision for two, but no more than two.  It also says that if there are two, there must be one male and one female.

Also, keep in mind that, although the present Code is silent on this point, if you have someone in mind who isn’t in the area or who can’t make it to the baptism, the Church has traditionally provided that a proxy can stand in.  This can be done for confirmation as well.  The Code does, however, provide by can. 1104 §1 a proxy for marriage… though that’s for the exchange of matrimonial consent and not for the other important part.

You might talk to your parish priest about this.  It may be that this has come up before and that there are solid people in the parish who have stood in when necessary.

FATHERS!  It could be useful for parishes to provide a roster of good, faithful, committed Catholic parishioners willing to serve as godparents for those, like our interlocutor, who are in a bind.

Perhaps some lay people, with their priest, could start up an apostolate, a Confraternity St. John the Baptist for Baptismal and Confirmation Sponsors.  St. John the Baptist, after all, is the patron saint of godparents.  Although, alternatively, perhaps the apostolate could be named in honor of St. Vito of Corleone.  In a pinch the pastor could run his finger down the list of potential sponsors while muttering, “I’ll give you a sponsor you can’t refuse.”

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

Progress of the Vatican Cricket Team

Here is something fun, from a reader and friend in London (slightly edited):

The Vatican Cricket Team and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 11 combined to form a Christian Team which played against a multi-faith team made up of Jews Muslims, Sikh and Hindus at the nursery ground at Lord’s today.

The Christian team batted first and in 20 overs scored a mammoth 185 for 4 wickets, which the multi-faith team could not best.

The Vatican team also played against Stonyhurst College yesterday and won.

It’s scheduled to play another game tomorrow at Windsor Castle against the Queen’s Guards, with Her Majesty hosting the team to tea afterwards.

It was a good afternoon of cricket and good spirits. Gin and tonic mainly. With dropped catches by the Christians followed by shouts for ‘excommunication’ of the poor fielder.

Here’s a video I made for Your Reverence.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged
12 Comments

6 July 1535: St. Thomas More’s ‘dies natalis’

Today is the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Thomas More, killed by the monstrous Henry VIII in 1535.

I direct the readership’s attention to a super article at Public Discourse by Matthew Mehan on the last and often misquoted words of St. Thomas:

“I die the king’s good servant, and God’s first.”

Mehan explores, among other things, More’s thoughts on conscience.   Conscience is a burning problem in the Church today.  Mistaken notions about conscience are causing great confusion about reception of the sacraments.  Couple confusion on conscience with the mania of setting aside truth for the sake of being “pastoral” (or “pas-tór-ee-al” as some say) and we wind up undermining the whole of the Faith.

Only what is true is truly pastoral.

May St. Thomas help us in these confusing times.

UPDATE:

Tonight… this great classic.

US HERE – UK HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
4 Comments

ACTION ITEM! The “Birettas for Seminarians Project” Continues

action-item-buttonPope Francis wants some “lío”.  “¡Hagan lío!”, right?  I’ve got some “lío” right here.

Some time ago I started a project whereby seminarians could contact the great John Hastreiter at Leaflet Missal Co. with their hat size. Meanwhile, you readers get in touch with the same John and you buy a biretta.  John then sends the biretta out.  You remain anonymous to each other.

Thus, the Biretta For Seminarians Project.

I just received a note from John:

I have 23 men on the waiting list for a biretta.

TWENTY-THREE men waiting… waiting… waiting….

YOU, dear readers, have to date supplied 170 birettas to seminarians.  Kudos.  Some thank you notes from seminarians with spiffy new birettas HERE and HERE.

Very often I met seminarians who received your birettas.  They always tell me with big smiles about receiving them.

Seminarians and potential donors…

Contact John in “church goods” at Leaflet Missal in St. Paul – 651-209-1951. 

The phone navigation system at Leaflet isn’t great.  Be patient.

If John is away, leave a voicemail with your phone number and he will call you back ASAP.

DO NOT WRITE TO ME TO ASK FOR A BIRETTA!  (If a seminarian can’t get that straight then… how are your grades?!?)

There is also a SATURNO FOR CLERICS Project.  Ask John about that, too!

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Seminarians and Seminaries | Tagged ,
2 Comments

POTUS, SCOTUS and “Judicial Humility”: a useful tip from @Judgenap

UPDATE:

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Check out the WSJ piece about the group to which Judge Amy Coney Barrett belongs.

___
Originally Published on: Jun 29, 2018

I’ve been looking at the list of the SCOTUS candidates from which the POTUS will choose a nominee.   There are some great people on that list.  You can see why the Left is having a spittle-flecked nutty.

Today I heard on the news that the POTUS is consider a couple of women from that list, which seems about right.

One which got my attention is Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by the POTUS to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

During Barrett’s hearing before the Senate, she was attacked on religious grounds by Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Durbin (D-IL and decidedly PRO-ABORTION catholic who has been barred from Holy Communion by Bp. Paprocki.)   The US Constitution has in Article VI a No Religious Test Clause (c. 3).

Coincidentally, in this video another name on the SCOTUS list, and someone people are talking about right now, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is asked about what Dicky and Di did to Barrett:

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

I wonder if they will reprise their previous bigoted performance.

Meanwhile, Judge Andrew Napolitano said something really interesting the other day about the POTUS’s vision for a SCOTUS Justice: they have to have “judicial humility“.

On FNC he said:

NAPOLITANO: I think, he’s going to narrow the list of 25 down to three. I think he will interview those three personally, and I think he will choose which one of the three he wants, and go with that person.

MACCALLUM: Who do you think those three are?

NAPOLITANO: He — I don’t know honestly, who they are. But I know their characteristics. They are all pro-life, they all believe in something called judicial humility, which is the recognition that the judiciary is the third branch of government. That the presidency and the Congress are more important. That they set public policy that it’s not the job of judges to set public policy, but just to interpret the law and to apply the Constitution to the laws that the Congress has written. A sort of deference if you will to the primacy of the other two branches.

As it turns out, judicial humility is a real thing, a term.   It also includes the issue of stare decisis. My searches on the interwebs produced some interesting reading, for example, something from Yale Law Journal, which includes:

The judicial humility10 this Essay seeks to reveal in Justice Thomas’s work has five core features: first, an insistence on reaching and pronouncing the correct interpretation of the law even when one disagrees with the result;11 second, persistence in the correct interpretation despite potential or actual backlash; third, a recognition of one’s own limitations and a resulting commitment to doctrines and practices that subordinate self to law; fourth, a willingness to admit mistakes; and finally, a foundation in faith.

Footnote 10 reads:

It may be helpful to distinguish this kind of judicial humility from judicial restraint. Judicial restraint might lead a judge to proceed incrementally toward correcting a law, lest the judge exercise too much power or appear “activist.” Judicial humility requires something a bit different: most basically, it requires a subordination of self to some higher authority. In Justice Thomas’s case, the subordination of self is to law, specifically to the original meaning of the Constitution. The judicial humility reflected in his opinions therefore is not a form of minimalism; nor does it reflect or require self-doubt or timidity. Indeed, Justice Thomas has stated that “too many show timidity today precisely when courage is demanded.” Clarence Thomas, Francis Boyer Lecture at the AEI Annual Dinner: Be Not Afraid (Feb. 13, 2001), http://www.aei.org/publication/be-not-afraid[http://perma.cc/N5VX-8W3K].

Justice Thomas’s humility contrasts with the kind of judicial “humility” that Chief Justice Roberts praised as a justification for stare decisis during his confirmation hearings. See Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. To Be Chief Justice of the United States Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 55 (2005) (statement of John G. Roberts). Justice Thomas rejects constitutional stare decisis.  He has described the Court’s leading formulation of the doctrine as “a product of its authors’ own philosophical views . . . , and it should go without saying that it has no origins in or relationship to the Constitution and is, consequently, . . . illegitimate.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 982 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (referring to the stare decisis doctrine articulated in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)). For Justice Thomas, subordination of his “own philosophical views” to the law means returning to the original Constitution, not to the views of earlier Supreme Court peers. Thus, his judicial humility differs from judicial restraint or minimalism, and is compatible with the claim that he behaves as an “activist” judge regarding precedent. It is not compatible, however, with the claim that he is deliberately cruel.

The idea is this: It is by humility that Justice Thomas seeks to read the original intention of the Constitution.  Humility lead Thomas to be an originalist.

Ave Maria Law Review also has an interesting piece about judicial humility.    Be sure to read the conclusion.

Do a search on Amy Coney Barrett and stare decisis and you get some really interesting reading material.  For example, “Originalism and stare decisis” in Notre Dame Law Review.    See a page of selected works: HERE

There is going to be a huge fight over this appointment.   I suspect that she could be on the short list of candidates.

Posted in The Coming Storm, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
22 Comments

German Bishop condones sacrilegious Communions

Libs do whatever they want, seemingly with impunity.

The UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald, reports that the recently appointed Bishop of Würzburg has allowed all Protestants married to Catholics to receive Holy Communion at jubilee Masses for married couples in his cathedral.

What difference does it make that it is a marriage anniversary if the Protestant doesn’t believe what Catholics believe? It is still an openly condoned desecration of the Eucharist and an insult to believing Catholics.

So it is an anniversary. So what? Again, I think that many priests and even bishops do not believe what the Church teaches about the Eucharist. Instead, Communion is the moment when someone puts a white thing in your hand while you sing a song and you feel good about yourself.

Last week the Archbishop of Paderborn approved Communion for Protestant spouses “in individual cases” after a period of discernment.

Germany.

Please consider, dear readers, acts of reparation for this open disrespect.

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
13 Comments

Jesuit-run Amerika props up new Socialist Dem candidate from NY. The Red Sun still rises in the East.

You’ve probably heard that recently a twenty-something Socialist (well… Communist) trounced a congressional veteran of some twenty years in a Dem primary.   He ignored his campaign until too late. She’s a Communist and pro-deviation who got out the young (aka sorta thick and mostly uneducated) vote.

Now Jesuit-run Ameriʞa – ever the pipe of the Left and deviancy – has slobbered over her and provided space for her op-ed about her Catholic faith, etc.

What could possibly go wrong?

It is not the first time this Jesuit-run publication has sported a Socialist.

Here is a good exercise for you.  Read the Ameriʞa piece and then read the examination of the Ameriʞa piece over at blog of Acton Institute by Rev. Ben Johnson.  He identifies the self-contradictions in the young ladies Catholic self-proclamations.

Of course the first one that will occur to even the slightly well-informed Catholic is the quote from Pius XI (so long on the masthead of The Wanderer):

“No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

So, she is either one or the other. Which is it?

We may have good reason to question Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s understanding of Catholic teaching in a way that Jesuit-run Ameriʞa is unwilling to do.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
14 Comments

“Rome, we have a problem.” Ed Peters on … surprises?… in new document on Consecrated Virginity.

TIMING is everything.

Right now the US Association of Consecrated Virgins is in their annual meeting.

THAT’s when this happens?

Some time ago, Holy Church decided to revive a state in life, a vocation, that was once identified and lived in the early Church: the Order of Virgins… a life of consecrated virginity for women.  However, over time, it became apparent that the criteria and purpose of this vocation needed some clarification. Hence the Holy See finally issued a document.

What could go wrong with the identifying the criteria for virginity?  Right?

Distinguished canonist Ed Peters has taken a look at the new document from the Holy See about consecrated virginity.   I’ve only briefly perused it and not yet commented.  However, in a nutshell he states a problem with it that I noticed.  It’s sort of a big one.

Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago punts on one problem, fixes a second, but greatly worsens a third

With papal approval the Roman dicastery in charge of consecrated life has just published an important document on consecrated virginity, Ecclesiae Sponsae Imago. Now, according to the plain terms of ESI, the Blessed Virgin Mary, archetype of virginity consecrated to God, would not be eligible for admission to the order of virgins, but Mary Magdalene, model for women who, Deo gratias, set aside a promiscuous life, would be eligible.

Something, I suggest, is seriously wrong with such norms.

Did you get that?

Peters has more to say.  HERE

I think I’ll let him say it.

He does bring up something that I have long advocated: an Order of Widows.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Our Catholic Identity, Pò sì jiù, The Drill, What are they REALLY saying? | Tagged , , , ,
26 Comments

Benedictine Brick by Benedictine Brick

Reminders.

First, there is a great photo of the building going on near Norcia, Italy, where the mighty Beer Monks are constructing their new lives after the horrible earthquakes.  I like this photo:

What is really exciting is that the Monastery has been made by the Holy See an independent priory, sui iuris, and the first official conventual prior is Fr. Benedict Nivakoff.  From the monks HERE.

There are also the wondrous Benedictine nuns in Missouri, who are building their church.

Please consider donating in honor of a priest’s vocation.  HERE!

They are in the last phase of building, and you can still get in on sponsoring even objects for worship.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
2 Comments