The Cardinal, the Model, the Miter and the Gay-la. The lesson?

There is a Latin phrase….

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Whoever lies down with dogs, rises with fleas.

If you go these galas and try to deal with them on their terms and turf, it isn’t going to go well.

Card. Dolan made a joke about lending a miter to some supermodel.  The MSM ran with it.

Alas, this whole thing is a mockery.

I read Ross Douthat’s piece in the NYT.  I am digesting it.  However, I would also say to Ross…

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
7 Comments

The “Fashion of the Christ” or “Fellini Rip Off”? Gay-la in NYC

A priest friend wrote to me:

I was surprised no one saw the NY ecclesiastical drag show as a rip off of Fellini

I’m kicking myself right now.

Someone told me that one of the models used a bishop’s real miter, borrowed it for the “show”. I suspect that must be fake news.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
17 Comments

They have to make a joke out of everything. Weird blasphemy calls for reparation.

I now have quite a few emails in my box about the fashion “gala”… “gay-la”?… in NYC inspired by ecclesiastical dress of all kind, aided and abetted by “the Vatican”.

It was a night that would have made any Jesuit swell with pride.

Here is something of the inside story of how the Met’s Costume Institute convinced the authorities in Rome to cooperate.  HERE

I’ve now seen photos from the gay-la.   HERE  I warn you.  It’s the perfect storm of ugly, stupid, vulgar, creepy, sacrilegious and also blasphemous.  It is perverse.  I suspect you can find better taste at ComicCon.

That said, the other day a priest friend of mine sent a document file with texts for a Mass of Reparation for insults against the Most Blessed Sacrament.  It is in a missal prepared by the monks at Le Barroux and was used in France for a couple centuries after the Revolution.

UNDERSTAND: I am not saying that there were abuses of the Eucharist.  However, there were certainly abuses of many things that surround and deal and communicate aspects of the Eucharist.  Those things include abuse of the image of the priesthood and of Mass and of sacred images that customarily surround the Eucharist.

Modern Jethuits will say, “Those are secondary, outward, in the end unimportant time-bound expressions of this or that culture….BLAH BLAH…”.

B as in B.  S as in S.

Undermine those things and you undermine the Eucharist.

So, all the weird going on might not be directly aimed at the Eucharist and – THEREFORE – the Church’s beating Heart, but it is aimed really at the Church’s beating Heart.

They have to make a joke out of everything sacred.  That’s their goal.  Like Satan: make it all seem somehow unimportant.  “Did God really tell you that?”

Meanwhile, all the sophisticated idiots stand around and stroke their chins and say: “Isn’t it provocative?” And they cock their heads just so and snatch another chardonnay from the  passing waitress.

I rapidly fixed a few typos, but someone here might take charge of this – clean it up – and make a really good and useful document out of it.  I’m on the road and can’t tackle it at the moment.

Missa in Reparatione S.S. Sacramento

Antiphona Ad Introitum

Quanta malignatus est in sancto! In terra polluerunt tabernaculum nominis tui Domine. Usquequo, Deus, irritat adversarius nomen tuum in finem? (T.P.Alleluia, Alleluia) Ps.Ut quid, Deus, repulisti in finem? Iratus est furor tuus super oves pascuae tuae? Gloria Patri.

Oratio

Gementes ac dolentes super cunctis abominationibus quae fiunt in domo tua, proptius respice Deus omnipotens: et pro contumeliis quibus in sacramento sui amoris impetitur Dominus Iesus; ipsum fac pro  nobis esse apud te propitiationem. Qui tecum…

Lectio Epistolae beati Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos

Heb. 10_22-31

Fratres22 accedamus cum vero corde in plenitudine fidei, aspersi corda a conscientia mala, et abluti corpus aqua munda, 23 teneamus spei nostræ confessionem indeclinabilem (fidelis enim est qui repromisit), 24 et consideremus invicem in provocationem caritatis, et bonorum operum: 25 non deserentes collectionem nostram, sicut consuetudinis est quibusdam, sed consolantes, et tanto magis quanto videritis appropinquantem diem. 26 Voluntarie enim peccantibus nobis post acceptam notitiam veritatis, jam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia, 27terribilis autem quædam exspectatio judicii, et ignis æmulatio, quæ consumptura est adversarios. 28Irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione duobus vel tribus testibus moritur: 29quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia qui Filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, et spiritui gratiæ contumeliam fecerit? 30 Scimus enim qui dixit: Mihi vindicta, et ego retribuam. Et iterum: Quia judicabit Dominus populum suum. 31Horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis.

 Graduale

Viderunt altare profanatum; et sciderunt vestimenta sua et planxerunt planctu magno. V. Imposuerunt cinerem super caput suum et ceciderunt in faciem super terram et clamaverunt in caelum.

Alleluia

Alleluia, alleluia V.Zelus domus tuae comedit me, Domine, et opprobria exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt super me. Alleluia.

 Tractus

Inimicus improperavit Domino et populus insipiens incitiavit nomen tuum. V.Exsurge Domine iudica causam tuam. Memor esto improperiorum tuorum  eorum quae ab insipiente sunt tota die.

Tempus Paschale

Alleluia, Alleluia V. Zelus domus tuae comedit me, Domine, et opprobria exprobrantium tibi ceciderunt super me. Alleluia V.Improperium exprobraverunt tibi, Domine: nos autem populus tuus, et oves pascuae tuae, confitebimur tibi in saeculum.  Alleluia.

Sequentia Sancti Evangelii

Secundum  Mattaeum

Matt 22:1-14

In illo tempore: 1 And Jesus once more spoke to them in parables; 2 Here is an image, he said, of the kingdom of heaven; there was once a king, who held a marriage-feast for his son, 3 and sent out his servants with a summons to all those whom he had invited to the wedding; but they would not come. 4 Then he sent other servants with a fresh summons, bidding them tell those who had been invited, By this, I have prepared my feast, the oxen have been killed, and the fatlings, all is ready now; come to the wedding. 5 But still they paid no heed, and went off on other errands, one to his farm in the country, and another to his trading; 6 and the rest laid hands upon his servants, and insulted and killed them. 7 The king fell into a rage when he heard of it, and sent out his troops to put those murderers to death, and burn their city. 8 After this, he said to his servants, Here is the marriage-feast all ready, and those who had been invited have proved unworthy of it.9 You must go out to the street-corners, and invite all whom you find there to the wedding. 10 And his servants went out into the streets, where they mustered all they could find, rogues and honest men together; and so the wedding had its full tale of guests. 11 But when the king came in to look at the company, he saw a man there who had no wedding-garment on;[1] 12 My friend, he said, how didst thou come to be here without a wedding-garment? And he made no reply. 13 Whereupon the king said to his servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the darkness, where there shall be weeping, and gnashing of teeth. 14 Many are called, but few are chosen.

Antiphona ad Offertorium

Ad Christum accedamus cum vero corde, in plenitudine fidei, asperse corda a conscientia mala; et consideremus invicem in provocationem caritatis et bonorum operum. (T.P. Alleluia)

Secreta

Deus, qui Unigenitum tuum in cruce pro transgressoribus orantem exaudisti: quaesumus; ut nos qui in altari to ipsum offerimus, pro contaminationibus mensae illius orantes, clementer exaudire digneris. Per eundem…

Praefatio De S.S. Sacramento

  1. V. Per omnia saecula saeculorum.
  2. R. Amen.
  3. V. Dominus vobiscum.
  4. R. Et cum spiritu tuo.
  5. V. Sursum corda.
  6. R. Habemus ad Dominum.
  7. V. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
  8. R. Dignum et iustum est.

 Vere dignum justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere: Domine Sancte, Pater omnipotens aeterne Deus: per Christum Dominum nostrum.

Qui, remotis carnalium victimarum inanibus umbris, Corpus et Sanguinem suum nobis in sacrificium commendavit: ut in omni loco offeratur nomini tuo, quae tibi sola complacuit, oblatio munda. In hoc igitur inscrutabilis sapientiae, et immensae caritatis mysterio, idipsum quod semel in Cruce perfecti, non cessat mirabiliter operari, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Et nos, unam secum hóstias effectos, ad sacrum invitat convivium, in quo ipse cibus noster sumitur, recolitur memória Passionis eius, mens impletur gratia, et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur.

Et ideo cum Angelis et Archangelis, cum Thronis et Dominationibus, cumque omni militia caelestis exercitus, hymnum gloriae tuae canimus, sine fine dicentes:

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis

Antiphona ad Communionem

 Qui oderunt te, Domine, oderam, et super inimicos tuos tabescebam. Surge, et dissipentur inimici tui: et iusti epulentur et exsultent in conspectu tuo. (T.P. Alleluia)

Antiphona ad Postcommunionem

Sacramenta corporis et sanguinis tui, quaesumus, Domine Iesu Christe, illum in nobis zelum accendant, quo eorum contemptores ad paenitentiam perducere valeamus: Qui vivis

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, You must be joking! | Tagged ,
17 Comments

Weird and more weird

Yesterday, I posted about weird.   Now, like the commercial, I say:

But wait!  There’s more!

How about this?

Big fashion gala in NYC with cooperation of the Holy See.

Met Gala’s 2018 Catholic Church theme stirs up controversy on social media

Weird and more weird

Nothing strange about that, compared to the Austrian bishop with the transparent plastic poncho.

And…

Vatican invites Katy Perry to talk about Transcendental Meditation

I believe this is the pop tart who made a name for herself with a bisexual song and a video about canibalism. During the conference, they passed out stuff of a new age theme tinged with satanism.

Weird and more weird

You would think that Malachi Martin was somewhere in the background writing the screenplay for this.

Alas, not.

¡Hagan lío!

 

Posted in You must be joking! | Tagged
29 Comments

I stop looking at news for a couple days and BAMMO! All sorts of weird breaks out.

I stop looking at news for a couple days and BAMMO! All sorts of weird breaks out.As I have been traveling, I have not been following a lot of news, ecclesial or secular.   Today, however, some stories invaded and I paid attention.

I have really limited time at the moment, so I will give you the stories.  There is a connection between them.

This will delight certain Jesuits…

«Ok agli atti omosessuali». In Belgio è Chiesa arcobaleno

A Belgian Cardinal – a disciple of Danneels – says that homosexual acts are okay. He says he didn’t think that before (surrrrrre he didn’t…) but he does now. Ain’t he enlightened?

Vescovo austriaco con casula trasparente in plastica

An Austrian bishop with a transparent plastic chasuble. That’s just plain weird. A special kind of creepy weird. He also wants the ordination of women.

«Il Papa non può ammettere l’intercomunione»

The German bishops are going to the zoo about intercommunion. Some bishops went to Rome for a clarification.  I suppressed a chuckle when I read that.  Rome basically punted… which itself was an answer and not a good one.

How not good an answer was it?

Cardinal Eijk of Utrecht explains the situation…. God bless him!

Cardinal Eijk: Pope Francis Needed to Give Clarity on Intercommunion

Here it is… read this carefully. The above shows that things are flying apart with increasing speed and force. Read Card. Eijk.

COMMENTARY: Failure to give German bishops proper directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church, points to a drift towards apostasy from the truth.

Cardinal Willem Jacobus Eijk

The German bishops’ conference voted by a large majority in favor of directives which entail that a Protestant married to a Catholic may receive the Eucharist after meeting a number of conditions: he must have carried out an examination of conscience with a priest or with another person with pastoral responsibilities; he must have affirmed the faith of the Catholic Church, as well as having wished to put an end to “serious spiritual distress” and to have a “desire to satisfy a longing for the Eucharist.”

Seven members of the German bishops’ conference voted against these directives and sought the opinion of some dicasteries of the Roman Curia. The consequence was that a delegation from the German bishops’ conference spoke in Rome with a delegation from the Roman Curia, including the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The response of the Holy Father, given through the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the delegation of the German Conference, that the Conference should discuss the drafts again and try to achieve a unanimous result, if possible, is completely incomprehensible. The Church’s doctrine and practice regarding the administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Protestants is perfectly clear. The Code of Canon Law says about this:

“If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.” C.I.C./1983, can. 844 § 4 (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) no. 1400).

This therefore applies only to emergencies, especially where there is a risk of death.

Intercommunion is, in principle, only possible with Orthodox Christians, because the Eastern Churches, although not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have true sacraments and above all, by virtue of their apostolic succession, a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist (CCC no 1400, C.I.C./1983 can. 844, § 3). Their faith in the priesthood, in the Eucharist and also in the Sacrament of Penance is equal to that of the Catholic Church. [Well… okay.  This could be tweaked but it is sound.]

However, Protestants do not share faith in the priesthood and the Eucharist. Most German Protestants are Lutheran. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which implies the conviction that, in addition to the Body or Blood of Christ, bread and wine are also present when someone receives them. If someone receives the bread and wine without believing this, the Body and Blood of Christ are not really present. Outside this moment of receiving them, there remains only the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ are not present.

Obviously, the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation differs essentially from the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which implies the faith that what is received under the figures of bread and wine, even if administered to someone who does not believe in transubstantiation and even outside the moment of administration, remains the Body or Blood of Christ and that it is no longer the substances of bread and wine.

Because of these essential differences, communion should not be administered to a Protestant, even if married to a Catholic, because the Protestant does not live in full communion with the Catholic Church and, therefore, does not explicitly share faith in her Eucharist. The differences between faith in consubstantiation and that of transubstantiation are so great that one must really demand that someone who wishes to receive Communion explicitly and formally enters into full communion with the Catholic Church (except in case of danger of death) and in this way explicitly confirms his acceptance of the faith of the Catholic Church, including the Eucharist. A private examination of conscience with a priest or with another person with pastoral responsibilities does not give sufficient guarantees that the person involved really accepts the faith of the Church. [Sound familiar?] By accepting it [the Eucharist], the person can, however, do only one thing: enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.  [And we could talk about what they think about “priesthood” and Mass as “Sacrifice”, but we are already at “NO!” with the previous.]

The draft directives of the German bishops’ conference suggest there are only a few cases of Protestants, married to Catholics, who would like to receive Communion by making use of these directives. However, experience shows that in practice these numbers will generally increase. Protestants who are married to Catholics and see other Protestants married to Catholics receiving Communion will think they can do the same. And in the end even Protestants unmarried to Catholics will want to receive it. The general experience with this type of adjustment is that the criteria are quickly extended.

Now the Holy Father has informed the delegation of the German episcopal conference that it must discuss again the draft proposals for a pastoral document on, among other things, administering Communion, and try to find unanimity. Unanimity about what? Assuming that all members of the German bishops’ conference, after having discussed them again, unanimously decide that Communion can be administered to Protestants married to a Catholic (something that will not happen), will this — while being contrary to what the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church say in this regard — become the new practice in the Catholic Church in Germany? The practice of the Catholic Church, based on her faith, is not determined and does not change statistically when a majority of an episcopal conference votes in favor of it, not even if unanimously.  [For God so loved the world that He did not send a conference.   I once was chatting with then-Card. Ratzinger about German theology.  With a twinkle he related how relieved he was that Peter stopped in Rome and didn’t go to Germany to establish a Church.  “Imagine,” he said, “the mistakes that could have been made and the efficiency with which we would have made them.”]

What the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church say should have been the reaction of the Holy Father, who is, as the Successor of Saint Peter “the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful” (Lumen Gentium no. 23). The Holy Father should have given the delegation of the German episcopal conference clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church. He should have also responded on this basis to the Lutheran woman who asked him on November 15, 2015 if she could receive Communion with her Catholic spouse, saying that this is not acceptable instead of suggesting she could receive Communion on the basis of her being baptized, and in accordance with her conscience. By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful and the unity of the Church is endangered. This is also the case with cardinals who publicly propose to bless homosexual relationships, something which is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of the Church, founded on Sacred Scripture, that marriage, according to the order of creation, exists only between a man and a woman.

Observing that the bishops and, above all, the Successor of Peter fail to maintain and transmit faithfully and in unity the deposit of faith contained in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, I cannot help but think of Article 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The Church’s ultimate trial

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the ‘mystery of iniquity’ in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.”

+Willem Jacobus Cardinal Eijk

Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands

Utrecht, 5 May 2018

Fr. Z kudos.

More good “remedial reading” but in Italian.  This is very good.

In principio era l’azione: il legame tra Amoris Laetitia e l’intercomunione con gli Evangelici

The writer, a good priest, shows the link between the line of thought in Amoris laetitia and the intercommnunion question in Germany and the clear non-answer answer in Rome.

 

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, You must be joking! | Tagged
21 Comments

Registration

I fell behind in approving registrations but I think I’ve caught up.  Thanks for your patience.

Remember: That “about you” section of the registration form is generally a deal breaker if you a) don’t use it b) put something in it so meaningless that I can’t discern that you are a real person or you are not a jerk.

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
Comments Off on Registration

Your Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point made in the sermon you heard at your Mass of Sunday obligation?   Let us know what it was.

I made very rapid points to my tiny congregation in our coastal Sicilian town.  First, taking a cue from St. James, we could all avoid a lot of sins if we would just shut up.  Not only do we have to shut up, we have to put up, in terms of good works.  I also decided on the spot to muse about that image James uses about the man looking in the mirror and then forgetting as not making a serious, interior, real examination of conscience: if you just brush the surface, you don’t know who you are.   Lastly, I pointed to all the talking and singing vocabulary in the prayers of the Mass and how they are connected to joy.  That in turn I connected to the Lord’s teaching the Apostles about serious prayer in His Name.  Prayer, even in serious times, must also be offered in joyful HOPE, since it is offered in His  Name.

On the spot, with LOTs of pain killers.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
12 Comments

Fr. Rutler and Fr. Z on White House Correspondents dinner @whpresscorps

I’ve had lot of email about the recent annual “Correspondents Dinner” in the nation’s swamp.   Hence, I had to look at a few video clips of “roasting” which proves that “liberal comedian” is a contradiction in terms.

What struck me was that these ass-hat journalists, who accuse Pres. Trump of being coarse, or whatever it is that he is, then laughed at the pure dreck that issued from the microphone at the dinner.  Really?  Do they not have mirrors?

The best comment on that farce of a mutual-masturbatory dinner I have seen so far was framed by Fr. Rutler in his weekly column.  Friends, take a moment.  Read it.  [It seems his page hasn’t been update since 1 April, so here it is in full]

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column
May 6, 2018
The exotic concept of spontaneous generation was taken seriously by astute thinkers for a long time before the invention of microbiology. Of course, they knew about the proximate process of birth, but the biological source of life itself exercised such minds as Anaximander six hundred years B.C. and Saint Augustine, Shakespeare, and the philosopher of fishing Izaak Walton, and was at least a puzzle to Darwin.  [For the libs who are tuning in, yes, the English language has words with more than one or two syllables.]

Spontaneous generation was the theory that living organisms could arise from inanimate matter, like fleas born from dust, or mice from salt and bees from animal blood and, in the speculation of Aristotle, scallops coming out of sand. I came across an unintentionally amusing comment from the 1920 proceedings of the American Philological Society published by the Johns Hopkins University Press: “Since insects are so small, it is not surprising that the sex history of some of them totally eluded the observation of the ancients.”

The advent of micro-imagery photography of infants in the womb destroyed eugenic propaganda that this is not a human life. Those who deny that are on the level of those who continued to insist on spontaneous generation after the Catholic genius Louis Pasteur disproved it in 1859.

Cold people who are not only credulous but cruel, admit that the unborn child is human, but say “So what?” At the recent White House Correspondents’ dinner, an astonishingly vulgar comedienne joked about abortion to the laughter of pseudo-sophisticates in evening dress. But even she slipped and used the word “baby.” [!]

Christ used the image of the vine to explain that all life is contingent, not spontaneously generated, but dependent on other lives. “A branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine.” Likewise, those drinking champagne at the fancy dress dinner are related to every fragile life in the womb by a common humanity. To mock that is to de-humanize the self.

On the recent feast of Saint George, there was born in England, whose patron he is, Louis, a prince of the royal house. There were celebratory church bells from Westminster Abbey and a salute of cannons. Rightly so, for the birth of every baby is a cause for rejoicing. That same day another baby, one with a neurological infirmity, was deprived of oxygen support by judicial decree and against the will of his parents, who brought him into the world by pro-creation, as stewards of the Creator and not by spontaneous generation. This was in defiance of an effort by Pope Francis to rescue him by military helicopter. As sons by adoption, little Louis and little Alfie are princes of the Heavenly King, not by spontaneous generation, but by divine will. Pope Leo XIII declared in Rerum Novarum: “The contention that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error.”

I’ve gotta hand it to Rutler.  He tied it together.

And if any of the pseudos in tuxedos read this – I picture them mouthing again and again the polysyllabic vocabulary – get dressed and look in the mirror and contemplate the fact that some day you, like all who were allowed to be born, will breathe your last, your heart will stop and you will go before your judge.

What’s your argument going to be to the Judge then:

“We had a great laugh at a correspondents dinner and really made a name for ourselves!  We had camera time.  You shoulda been there.  We were great.  Yeah… you shoulda been there.”

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Fr. Z KUDOS, Liberals, Mail from priests |
21 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can priest forbid 1st Communion at a TLM at another parish? Wherein Fr. Z calls for “remedial everything”.

ASK FATHER: Can priest forbid 1st Communion at a TLM at another parish? Wherein Fr. Z calls for "remedial everything".From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

There’s a family who attends and is members at an Ordinary Form parish, who would like their child to do first communion in the Extraordinary Form. The EF is held monthly at a different parish. The pastor at the OF parish told them no. [ooops! FAIL.] So…

I’ve not before thought about it, but does one have to have permission for one to do first communion *at all*, or simply wait until kids are seven? Everyone does the first communion prep as a matter of course, but this situation has me thinking about canonical requirements.

And so, could the parents simply have their child receive in a TLM quietly, or would that violate something legal? It would of course be a sort of disobedience towards their OF pastor.

Hmmmm….

First, let’s for now leave aside the muddy issue of parish boundaries and registration in parishes outside one’s parish boundaries, and personal parishes, etc.  Let’s also put aside the issue of First Penance, Confession before First Communion, though the two are usually closely connected.  You are asking about Communion.

It seems that the priest is trying to be diligent about his role as pastor and about a First Communion.  That’s a plus.  Some pastors don’t seem to care one way or another and think that everyone, Catholics or not, manifest public sinner or not, in the state of mortal sin or not, should go to Communion because we are all “welcome”.  Pastors, parish priests, have the obligation of protecting the faithful from error and correcting them when they stray (can. 529). This priest seems to want to do that, though perhaps he is overly zealous.   He would be hard pressed to explain why going to Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form is somehow going astray.

Next, it could be that the pastor doesn’t quite understand his limitations.  Reception of First Communion is not a juridic act.  A person is under no obligation to receive the Eucharist the first time, or any time, from his territorial or personal pastor.  Nor does a pastor, a parish priest, have any authority to forbid his parishioners from receiving First Communion, or any Communion, outside of his parish.

So, it would not be “disobedience toward the OF pastor” to go somewhere else.

BTW… the cynic in me would want to know if the priest objected to 1st Communion only because it was at a TLM or if it was at another place. Also, would that same priest allow an infamous pro-abortion politician to receive Communion who was recently in the news spouting the same?  I would like to know that, too, but I’ll probably never know.

The obligation of preparing children for the Eucharist is primarily with the parents, not with the pastor.  Can. 914 begins with the word “Parentum…” just to drive this point home before anyone get’s bored as they read the rest of the canon.

That said, the pastor of a parish does have the right, under can. 914, to “exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion”.

That applies to what happens at his own parish, not at another pastor’s parish.

Moving along, can. 912 says that “any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion”.  That probably applies to a 7 year old since can. 1323 says that a child under the age of 16 cannot be subject to a canonical penalty and it is unlikely that the pastor could invoke can. 915 because the child is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.

I’d make a crack about bishops admitting pro-abortion politicians to Communion at this point, but that might take us off track.  Forget I wrote that.

And can. 914 says that once they deemed ready, children should be admitted to Communion “as soon as possible”.  In other words, a pastor better have a really good reason not to admit a child to Communion at his own parish.  He does not have the right to oblige anyone to receive at any time at his own parish.  He does not have the right to forbid anyone from going to Communion at another parish, in this or that legitimate Catholic rite, etc.

Does this suggest that the parish priest, the pastor, has zero role in the issue of First Communion?  No.

It is reasonable for parents to give the pastor – if he desires (and he should) – a chance to assess the child’s readiness (cf can. 914).   The parents have the primary duty, but the pastor also has a duty.

Ideally and normally, parents and pastors work together well and cordially in this path of discernment.  The primary say rests with the parents but the the pastor has the duty to double-check and make sure that the parents are right.   If he assesses that the parents are not right about little Stupor Mundi then he would have to explain why.   This is entirely reasonable, especially in this day when we find that more and more and more nominal Catholics haven’t the slightest clue about what the Church teaches.  Also, many catechetical programs for First Communion prep are abysmal.   More on that below.

If the pastor of the parish where Extraordinary Form Mass takes place assesses that little Stupor Mundi is ready, then he can be admitted to First Communion there with as much or as little hoopla as desired.

After that, it would be good inform the pastor of the home parish.

Could parents simply take their children to church and have them receive without consulting their parish priest or anyone at all?

I guess so.  Once they’ve been admitted, they’ve been admitted.  I’d want to know why parents did it that way, however.

I don’t think that sneaking about for sacraments is a good idea.

All of these decisions should be done in the light of day with open and cordial cooperation.  And, this is where I bring up the issue of the child making his confession for the first time before First Communion.  Everything the child does for first sacraments should be up front and should also be of note and special.   Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, it seems to me that first sacraments and sacraments of initiation should come with a measure of solemnity.

Anyway, the canons covering most of this are HERE.

Above, I promised more.

ANECDOTE:  At a parish where I was assigned many moons ago I was asked to take the First Communion kids through the church and explain all the elements to them.  Great!  That should be fun.

It was fun until I saw that not a single one used the Holy Water coming in, made the Sign of the Cross even poorly, or attempted a genuflection anywhere even after I myself did so as we approached the sanctuary and the tabernacle.   Any kids who had been to church even minimally with minimally practicing parents would try these things, even ineptly.  It’s what they saw adults do, right?

Seeing this, I started to explain a few things.

When talking – in the simplest terms – about the tabernacle and Eucharist within, I saw blank faces.  I asked some basic questions along the lines of “Who can tell me what Communion is?”  Blank.  “Who can tell me what the Eucharist is?” Blank. I wasn’t looking for technical or memorized answers.  Just some notion of what they were there for.  One little boy eventually offered “You mean that piece of bread thing?”

This was the week before they were to receive, mind you.

My head did not explode.

We moved the children along. I then asked the teachers the same questions with hardly better results.

I told the pastor what I found out.  He got mad at ME because I had learned that these kids  under HIS charge were in no way shape or form ready for Communion.  And that was at a parish considered to be conservative.

You can see why some families opt for traditional communities, homeschool and the SSPX.

You can see why some priests, even some thought to be conservative, are nervous about the TLM and all that goes with it, including strong catechesis and personal fulfillment of obligations, duties.

“Conservative” can be a relative term, as faithful young priests rapidly find out.

The whole understanding of cura animarum really needs to be revived, my friends, along with remedial… everything.

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

WDTPRS – 5th Sunday after Easter (TLM): Fr. Z rants on liturgical goop, cracks bones

WDTPRS - 5th Sunday after Easter (TLM): Fr. Z rants on liturgical goop, cracks bonesI am going to drag you – again – through my standard and sustained rant about liturgy, punctuated by Latin vocabulary and Neoplatonism.

First, to be grown up Catholics we need a Mass for grown ups.

Our Mass should give us thick red steak and Cabernet, not pureed carrots and milk for baby teeth.

I want meat for you, not goop.   That means I want some of you to grow up into something more than you have hitherto desired.

Goop is fine for babies.  Babies need goop.  But when you grow up, you need more.  Adults can survive on goop, but they won’t thrive.

I want you to thrive through our Mass not just survive.

In the revisions and recreation of new prayers for Novus Ordo we lost most of what could be characterized as “negative” concepts: sin, guilt, penance, propitiation, etc.  But these are vital nutrients for Catholics.  Grown up Catholics, that is.  Catholics who understand that we are sinners, and that one day we are going to die and meet our Maker, who is our Savior and our Judge.   When we deal with very young children we don’t drum on about the Four Last Things.  They shouldn’t be ignorant of them, but we shouldn’t stress them, either.  Let children be children.   But we must not infantilize adults by denying them the sustenance of TRUTH.  “Goo goo ga ga” is not enough for adults. To preach “goo goo” to them is precisely the opposite of charity, which seeks to serve the good of others.

Alas, the Novus Ordo has a lot of “goo goo” built right into now, because the experts who cobbled it together stripped the rites and prayers of many essential nutrients.  The deficiencies can be partly made up for by a good ars celebrandi and good preaching, just as in the TLM some of the optimistic eschatology stressed in the Novus Ordo can be brought in.   But it is far easier to do that with the later than to evolve the former.   But I digress.  Bottom line…

Mass must be succulent, not insipid.

With the help of preachers and devotional reading and some silent contemplation – yes, I mean sitting down and thinking for a while without looking at a screen – we can crack the bones of our prayers and rites open with adult teeth, chew their marrow and gnaw their flesh with benefit.

Moving on to Sunday’s prayer, let’s start cracking those bones for the marrowy goodness within.

In the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary today’s Collect is found on the Fourth Sunday after the close of the Easter Octave. The Gelasian or Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae (Book of Sacraments of the Church of Rome) was assembled from older material in Paris around 750.

It has elements of both the Roman and Gallican (French) liturgies of the Merovingian period (5th – 8th cc.). This Collect survived the cutters and snippers who pasted the Novus Ordo together on their desks. You hear it now on the 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time.

COLLECT – (1962MR):

Deus, a quo bona cuncta procedunt, largire supplicibus tuis: ut cogitemus, te inspirante, quae recta sunt; et, te gubernante, eadem faciamus.

The Novus Ordo version slightly rearranges the word order, saying “tuis largire supplicibus”, which I actually prefer since it flows better, but the more ancient version in the Gelasian omits the “tuis” altogether.

Our never distant Lewis & Short Dictionary says procedo means “to go forth or before, to go forwards, advance, proceed” and more importantly “to go or come forth or out, to advance, issue” and even “to issue from the mouth, to be uttered”. Largire looks like an infinitive but is really an imperative form of the deponent largior, “to give bountifully, to lavish, bestow, dispense, distribute, impart… to confer, bestow, grant, yield”. The neuter substantive rectum, i (from rego), is “that which is right, good, virtuous; uprightness, rectitude, virtue”. Rego involves “to keep straight or from going wrong, to lead straight; to guide, conduct, direct”. The core concepts are “straight” and “upwards”. In its adjectival form, rectus, a, um, there is a moral content, “right, correct, proper, appropriate, befitting” again having reference to that which is “above”. Cogito is more than simply “to think”. As in Descartes’ often quoted “Cogito ergo sum… I think, therefore I am”, it is really, “to pursue something in the mind” and “to consider thoroughly, to ponder, to weigh, reflect upon”. The English derivative is “cogitate”.

WDTPRS - 5th Sunday after Easter (TLM): Fr. Z rants on liturgical goop, cracks bonesLITERAL VERSION:

O God, from whom all good things issue forth, bountifully grant to Your supplicants, that, You inspiring, we may think things which are right, and, You guiding, we may accomplish the same.

CURRENT ICEL (2011 from the Ordinary Form):

O God, from whom all good things come,
grant that we, who call on you in our need,
may at your prompting discern what is right,
and by your guidance do it
.

Well… okay.

Time to CRACK SOME BONES!

In today’s classically sculpted Collect there is a concept important for theological reflection by the ancient Church through the medieval period.

A theological key helps us to open up what the Church is really saying to God, on our behalf, locked up in words.

Ancient theologians, both pagan and Christian struggled alike for answers to the same questions.

  • If all things come from God, did God create evil?
  • If all things come from God, then are all things, in fact, also God?
  • If in the cosmos there are only God and everything else which is not-God, and if God is the only Good, then are all created not-God things evil?
  • Is matter evil by nature?
  • Are we evil, destined to doom or nothingness?

Pagans and Christians, using the same starting points and categories of thought, came up with differing solutions.

Rejecting the idea of both a good god principle and an evil god principle, pagan theologians of the Platonic stream of thought posited a kind of creation through an endless series of intermediaries to avoid the conclusion that God, the highest good, created evil. For them, the perfectly transcendent One overflowed with being through descending triads of intermediaries down to the corrupt material world from which we must be freed. This solved nothing, of course, because no matter how many hierarchies of intermediaries you propose, those hierarchies always must be further divided into more hierarchies. Christian theologians, who were also Platonists, using the same categories of thought found another solution: creatio ex nihilo… immediate (that is “unmediated”) creation of the universe from nothing. Evil was explained as a deprivation of being, essentially a “nothingness”, not created by God. All things which have being come forth from God, are good, and will go back to God. This is the key for unlocking our prayer.

Let us now look at the lame-duck version people had to hear in church for over thirty years on the 10th Sunday of Ordinary, brought to you by…

WDTPRS - 5th Sunday after Easter (TLM): Fr. Z rants on liturgical goop, cracks bonesOBSOLETE ICEL (1973 10th Ord. Sunday):
God of wisdom and love,
source of all good,
send your Spirit to teach us your truth
and guide our actions
in your way of peace.

BLECH! Did I mention “goo goo ga ga goop?”

Folks, translation is hard but it ain’t that hard.   BTW… I read that a certain American Archbishop wants us to review the current translation.   This same Archbishop was, I believe, at one time in favors of “feedbox” for “manger” and “big boat” for “ark.  But I digress.

If our prayer today is like a nice plate of ossobucco, it’s time to dig out some of that good rich marrow.

When our Sunday Collect was composed, Western theologians (still really Platonists in many respects) were mightily struggling to solve thorny problems about, for example, predestination. This required them to gaze deeply at man’s nature and the problem of evil.

In this titanic theological battle we find on all sides the ancient Platonic view of creation. All creation proceeds (procedo) forth from God in indeterminate form. In a reflection of the eternal procession of uncreated divine Persons of the Trinity, the rational component of creation (man) turned around when proceeding forth in order to regard his Source and, in that turning, that conversio, took determinate form and began to return to God. This going forth and returning, this descent and rising (in theology exitus and reditus or Greek exodos and proodos) is everywhere present in ancient and medieval thought… and in liturgical prayer today when the ancient form was too messed up by the redactors.

For Christians of the Neoplatonic Augustinian tradition, man, the pinnacle of creation, “drags”, as it were, all of created nature with him in a contemplative “conversion” back to God.

Man’s rational nature was not destroyed by sin in the Fall.

However, were it not for the Incarnate Logos, the Word made flesh, the union of uncreated with created, the descent of creation would have simply continued “exiting” away from God for eternity.

If not for the Incarnation man and all creation with him would never turn back, doomed to become ever more indeterminate!

Instead, rational man, the image of the rational Word, and all creation with him can turn back to God.

The Son entered our created realm and made possible man’s conversio after the Fall.

As John Scotus Eriugena (+877) put it, man is “nature’s priest”.

Through rational acts man plays a part in God’s saving plan for creation.

This pattern of exitus and reditus is exemplified in the writings of theologians in a line from pagan Neoplatonic writers like Plotinus (+270), to Christian Platonists like St. Augustine (+430), Boethius (+525), Eriugena, St. Bonaventure (+1274) and St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274). This is the theology behind many ancient prayers.

Our Collect echoes the Neoplationic theology of late antiquity and early Middle Ages together with the Scriptural James 1:17, a text used frequently by these same Merovingian and Carolingian thinkers.

We need what our prayers really say.  They are the bones of our daily lives. We need a Mass for grown ups.

Demand Grown-up Mass.

Lastly, perhaps that Augustinian, Neoplatonic stuff I rattled on about could be the starting point for a serious “theology of ecology”, somewhat more substantial than the pseudo-scientific tripe that’s being peddled today.  You theology students out there: this could provide some starting points for papers and theses.  Go back and read that last part and see what you can think up.

Just don’t attempt this at Villanova or at some Jesuit school unless there is solid faculty member about.

Meanwhile, dear readers, consider this a different sort of “food post”.

Posted in EASTER, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, WDTPRS | Tagged , , , ,
4 Comments