Are any of you reading stories about an event in Nigeria on 13 October 2017, the 100th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun? Apparently the bishops of Nigeria consecrated Nigeria to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. After the Mass, the Sun supposedly… did things….
There are videos on YouTube.
I don’t know what to make of this. I haven’t heard anything official.
On the Feast of the Holy Rosary, Poles went to the borders to pray in a great Rosary chain for the protection of their nation.
Today, on rising, I was greeted with this great image of a Polish soldier burning an ISIS flag.
Good morning everyone!
Unless and until we get our act together regarding sacred liturgical worship, no initiative we undertake in the Church at any level will bear the fruits we hope for.
We need widespread, generous use of the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite. We need the Novus Ordo to be celebrated faithful, according to the rubrics and in harmony with the tradition which we reclaim from the use of our traditional forms.
One of the most important things that we can do, please God as soon as possible far and wide, is to preach and teach about reception of Communion on the tongue as well as switching to ad orientem worship.
There is a good article at the National Catholic Register on the important issue of ad orientem worship. Shall we have a look with my usual treatment?
Ad Orientem Posture Given New Life in Nebraska
by Nicholas Wolfram Smith
WAHOO, Neb. [I LOVE the name of that town!] — Sudden changes in the life of a parish come rarely. [Depends on where you are!] But on the first weekend in October, at St. Wenceslaus in Wahoo, Nebraska, Father Joseph Faulkner announced an unexpected decision on the liturgy: The parish would celebrate Mass ad orientem — both the priest and the people facing the altar in the same direction — for a year.
St. Wenceslaus joins a slow [but steady] stream of parishes that are experiencing liturgical renewal through returning to the ad orientem (facing the east) position in the celebration of the ordinary form of the Mass. While the movement has gained ground slowly, many priests credit last year’s remarks from Cardinal Robert Sarah with jump-starting further interest in it.
At the 2016 Sacra Liturgia conference in London, Cardinal Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, asked priests to face ad orientem when saying Mass, as a means to ensure that “in our celebrations the Lord is truly at the center.” While the Vatican quickly issued a statement that “new liturgical directives are not expected,” and emphasized the unofficial nature of Cardinal Sarah’s remarks, many priests were inspired by his words.
Father Faulkner, the pastor of St. Wenceslaus, told the Register that his parish is the largest in the diocese so far — at 700 families — to implement ad orientem.
“There’s no place you can’t do it,” he said, if ad orientem can be introduced at a parish his size.
Ad orientem, which means “to the east,” refers to the practice literally of saying Mass facing the East, but has also come to refer to the priest and people facing the same direction during some parts of the Mass. Cardinal Sarah wrote in L’Osservatore Romano that “the penitential rite, the singing of the Gloria, the orations and the Eucharistic Prayer” could all be occasions when priest and faithful face East together, while some priests who have adopted the ad orientem posture do so only during the Eucharistic Prayer. [Remember: Liturgical East doesn’t have to be literal East.]
Father Faulkner was not always a supporter of the ad orientem posture. He “intensely” resisted the idea of Mass ad orientem during his time in seminary, and only gradually came to accept the arguments for it. [So, he has an open mind. Kudos.]
Among the arguments made by proponents of celebrating Mass ad orientem is the unity of the community in awaiting the coming of the Lord and the visible sign it gives of the whole parish community addressing God.
While he acknowledges that he will miss some aspects of celebrating Mass versus populum (facing the people), Father Faulkner believes it will be better for the prayer and worship of his community. [On the other hand, Father still is directed in the rubrics to turn around toward the people at times.]
He has asked his parish to undertake celebrating Mass ad orientem as a “spiritual exercise” for a year.
“We’re giving it a shot. We’re trying it for a year and then will re-evaluate,” he said.
Discovering Ad Orientem
Even if their parishes don’t celebrate ad orientem on a full-time basis, the Diocese of Lincoln has a significant number of priests who use it at least during Advent. Much of that is due to the example of Bishop James Conley, who in 2014 decided all Sunday Masses at the cathedral during Advent would be celebrated ad orientem. The practice has been renewed every year since, and priests in the diocese have been given permission to institute ad orientem worship in their parishes, provided there has been appropriate preparation.
Father Karl Millis, of St. Joseph’s in Auburn, Nebraska, told the Register that when his parish switched to saying Mass only ad orientem a year ago, he went through a learning experience along with his parishioners. He said ad orientem worship brings a physical clarity to the liturgy, showing that when the priest addresses God the Father, he faces him, and when he speaks to the people, he faces them.
Father Millis said that for him and for other parishioners, praying ad orientem has allowed for deeper reverence and understanding of their prayers.
Father Steven Thomlison, at St. Stephen’s in Exeter, Nebraska, echoed other priests when he told the Register that while initial reactions in the parish ranged from skeptical to intrigued, there has been a widespread embrace of celebrating ad orientem in the three years since he introduced the parish to the practice.
“It’s wonderful to celebrate Mass oriented toward Our Lord,” he said.
Harvest of Vatican II
The slow return of interest in ad orientem worship finds a mirror image in its precipitous decline after the Second Vatican Council. Christopher Ruddy, associate theology professor at The Catholic University of America, told the Register that the Council documents never mentioned an end to ad orientem celebration of the Mass. [RIGHT! A fraud was perpetrated.]
Instead, the Vatican issued a liturgical instruction after the Council, which stated, “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it, and celebration facing the people.”
Ruddy said that there was a Vatican and papal impetus behind versus populum, which did not mandate it, but permitted and encouraged it.
“It’s sort of striking how readily this change was accepted by the vast majority of Catholics,” he said.
Father Joseph Illo, who in the past year introduced ad orientem worship to Star of the Sea parish in San Francisco, California, told the Register he did not think this kind of change would have been possible a decade ago.
While Cardinal Sarah’s remarks were the immediate inspiration for him to ask permission of the archdiocese to try ad orientem, the work of Benedict XVI had articulated clearly the reason and direction of the liturgical renewal envisioned by Vatican II. His principles had been popularized and spread through the Church, so that people were prepared to do what Vatican II had asked, [which is exactly what my long-time mentor, the late Msgr. Schuler implemented at my home parish, founded on the work of his predecessor who had been a peritus at all the sessions of the Council.] including a recognition of the importance of ad orientem worship.
Father Illo said the two poles of the Council were aggiornamento and ressourcement, “bringing up to date” and “return to the sources.” While aggiornamento had been predominant after the Council, “now we’re discovering the other axis of the Council and the reform, which is getting back to the sources,” he explained.
Oriented to the Cross
Dominican Father Vincent Kelber of Holy Rosary parish in Portland, Oregon, told the Register that ad orientem worship being a year-round part of the ordinary form hads “brought a lot of focus, brought a lot of peace and brought a lot of prayer” to his parish community.
At the same time, he cautioned against letting a particular orientation distract the faithful from the presence of Christ in the liturgy. Citing Benedict XVI, Father Kelber said that no matter which way the celebration is oriented, all Masses have to be ad crucem, focused on the sacrifice on the cross. [Thus, the “Benedictine Arrangment” of the altar… which is a, IMO, a transitional solution.]
“We need to emphasize that, so whatever form or whatever orientation we use, the better off we’ll be, and the more unified we’ll be.”
Fr. Z kudos to all these priests.
From a priest…
QUAERITUR:
Here is a question which perhaps you could answer for those of us who are parochial vicars.
What should we do if people regularly present themselves for communion who are married outside the Church? Ordinarily, we have the very clear teaching of Canon 915. But what should we do if they are married outside the Church, the pastor knows they are married outside the Church, and yet he still gives them communion anyway? My pastor’s attitude is that they should just know that they shouldn’t present themselves for communion. He refuses to confront them. He won’t let them be sponsors but he also won’t turn them away from receiving communion either. The Diocese tells me to follow the pastor’s lead. What is one to do?
GUEST PRIEST ANSWER: Msgr. ___ [This priest has a lot of experience in diocesan administration and priestly personnel issues.]
This is difficult and almost insolvable on a practical level given the admixture of the obedience issue with the pastor and the diocese.
Can the pastor be convinced, through Amoris Laetitia, to “encounter, accompany, and dialogue” with these couples to convince them not to present themselves for Holy Communion under canon 916 (if my memory is correct on the canon number)? Would the pastor allow the parochial vicar to do this, and maybe start a small ministry to those in adulterous second unions?
It seems these couples need catechesis and formation so they voluntarily do not present themselves for Holy Communion (or alternatively seek to live together as brother-sister, etc…).
Ultimately, I think the pastor should confront the couples on the issue and ask them to be witnesses by not receiving Holy Communion in the current state. If they don’t comply, canon 915 would come into play, although I think the pastor should have a confidential discussion with each couple so they can avoid the embarrassment of being denied Holy Communion and make sure they’re “obstinately persisting”.
The couples should also know that they can’t receive sacramental absolution in the confessional without the requisite sorrow for sin/firm purpose of amendment in regards to the adulterous second union.
It is very difficult for the parochial vicar in conscience.
However, I suppose if the pastor really doesn’t address the issue in a serious and full way with each couple, then is the couple really “obstinately persisting” in manifest grave sin? I really appreciate the situation of the parochial vicar, since the pastor is somewhat holding them in a “strategic ignorance” to afford them the reception of the sacraments.
Fr. Z adds:
Yes, the “parochial vicar” (aka assistant) is in a tough spot. He isn’t the pastor, so he doesn’t get to make the call. On the other hand, he is a priest and he is concerned for souls but also about profanation of the Blessed Sacrament in sacrilegious Communions as well as the potential of scandal.
The pastor has the care of souls and is responsible for these couples before God. If he is willfully keeping them ignorant of their spiritual peril – because do we really think that they don’t know that they should go to Communion? – then I tremble for the pastor who will answer for this before the Just Judge, the King of Fearful Majesty.
Sadly, I suspect these situations will multiply and worsen as the controversies over Amoris laetitia are allowed to go on and confuse people. As the controversies first erupted, I opined that sound priests would interpret Amoris in the best possible, faithful light and that less than faithful priests would use the document as cover to continue to do what they have been doing all along.
To the parochial vicar: Bide your time, Father. You are not the pastor. However, you might take on some penances in reparation for the sacrilegious Communions and you might pray also to the Guardian Angels of the couples. Perhaps you might also choose occasionally to preach about what it means to be “properly disposed” to receive, including also the physical disposition caused by fasting (since we are both body and soul).
There is a video of the talk, but the audio is really bad. So, I extracted the audio from the video and cleaned it up.
Wanna hear it? It’s classic Burke and hard hitting.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
There is a LifeSite story about the talk. HERE It includes a way to download the text of the Cardinal’s speech. HERE
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Is the cassock required for a priest to wear a cassock under his vestments when celebrating the Extraordinary Form Mass?
I did not think so, and I know other priests who celebrate the 1962 Mass without it, but I was kindly told the other day it was a defect to go without it. I could not find an official determination of this question. Obviously a thorough-laced alb would look funny over anything but a cassock, but my question is about what is actually required.
I am a newly ordained priest, still figuring many things out and I appreciate your help!
First, congratulations for your ordination. Be brave and be prudent. Ad multos annos.
The Ritus Servandus in the front part of your traditional Missale Romanum has a section entitled De Præparatione Sacerdotis celebraturi… “Concerning the preparation of the priest who is going to celebrate (Mass). In paragraph 2 of that section we read:
Quibus ita dispositis, accedit ad paramenta, quæ non debent esse lacera, aut scissa, sed integra, et decenter munda, ac pulchra, et ab Episcopo itidem, vel alio facultatem habenti, benedicta; ubi calceatus pedibus, et indutus vestibus sibi convenientibus quarum exterior saltem talum pedis attingat, induit se, dicens ad singula singulas Orationes inferius positas.
That is…
Once these things are arranged, he goes to the vestments, which must not be ripped or torn, but undamaged and decently clean, and beautiful, and also blessed by the Bishop or by another having the faculty; whereupon, his feet being shod, and having dressed himself in appropriate attire which outwardly reaches at least to the ankle, he vests himself, saying with each (vestment) the individual prayers given below.
Latin talus means “ankle”. One Latin term for the cassock is habitus talaris. In Italian we say “talare” for a cassock.
So, from the Ritus Servandus we see that it is foreseen that the priest should wear the cassock for Mass.
However, I admit that I often dispense myself from the cassock when it is hot. In that case, I always use a plain alb with no lace. Even when I do have the cassock on, I usually wear a plain alb unless it is a feast, but that’s another matter.
From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I’ve occasionally seen high altars inscribed with the phrase, “altare privilegiatum.”
1) What does (did?) this mean and how did an altar become privileged?
2) Does this still apply today?
Sometimes you will find in older churches a plaque or inscription at an altar that says ALTARE PRIVILEGIATUM, or “Privileged Altar”. It used to be that when, usually -rubrics permitting – a Requiem Mass was read at that altar, a plenary indulgence was granted to the person for whom the Mass was said. This was primarily for the sake of the Poor Souls in Purgatory. On feasts days, etc., another Mass could also gain the indulgence. The “privilege” was attached to the place, not to the physical altar, Also, the privilege could also be given to a certain priest, so that no matter where he celebrated a plenary could be gained! Very cool.
Alas, this is no long in effect. Pope Paul “The Suppressor” VI abolished all these privileges attached to altars in 1967 with his Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina.
Italian vaticanista Andrea Gagliarducci writes regularly a column at his place called “Monday Vatican”. You should read him.
Today, however, he has a piece at CNA about how Pope Francis seems to approach the selection of and translation of bishops. HERE
Among other things, Andrea wrote:
Over the past year, Pope Francis has appointed 16 U.S. bishops, most of them in smaller dioceses or as auxiliaries. The major pending question is that of the successor of Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C. Cardinal Wuerl is already 76 years old, more than a year beyond the normal retirement age.
The post in Washington, D.C. is a key post, as it involves both pastoral care and institutional relations with the U.S. political establishment. What will Pope Francis do?
An insistent rumor says that Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego might be at the top of the list.
Bishop McElroy recently grabbed headlines for jumping into the discussion on LGBT issues that followed Fr. James Martin’s book, “Building a Bridge.” Bishop McElroy has defended the book, and Martin, in the face of criticisms of his work. [I wrote a response to McElroy’s statement that anyone who opposes a homosexualist agenda is like a “cancer” in the Church and that they should be “purged”. HERE]
He also recently took part in a Boston College conference on Amoris Laetitia, hosted by Cardinal Blase Cupich and Father James Keenan, SJ. During the conference, Bishop McElroy reported on the diocesan synod he launched on Amoris Laetitia, and said that Catholic teaching must take seriously the complexity of adult moral life. [More on that Agitprop Conference HERE]
Among observers, he is considered a figure similar to Cardinal Blase Cupich, who was personally chosen by Pope Francis in 2014 to lead the Archdiocese of Chicago. This seems to suggest that he is a fit for Pope Francis’ model of episcopal leadership.
Of course, his appointment is simply a rumor, just as another rumor in Rome says that the Pope will soon call Cardinal Cupich to lead an important Vatican office in Rome.
Just so that you know what is going on behind the scenes.
The moderation queue is ON.
The other day I read of and wrote of the recent Jesuit-run Boston College conference on the reception of Amoris laetitia. HERE and HERE and HERE In the balance, this confab was really an Agitprop Workshop. The participants in this closed-door strategy practicum were feed talking points and language useful in uprooting truth and planting weeds.
For example, I remember my initial reaction when I read the statement, uttered during the Workshop, that Jesus “disfavored” adultery. One of the tactics of the Left will be to replace clear, sane language with slippery weasel words such as that. Another trick is to describe an adulterous union as an “irregular” union, which shifts the situation out of the realm of sin and morality and into the realm of mere man-made rules or regulations, which of course can be easily changed according to our needs.
My friend Fr. Gerald Murray has a keen sense of smell for this sort of B as in B and S as in S. He also has a sharp quill. Fr. Murray take aim at this diabolical assault on the intelligence of Catholics through the Orwellian twisting of words. You don’t want to miss his piece at The Catholic Thing today.
Here’s a sample:
More Bad Defenses of “Amoris Laetitia”
The claim was widely made during the two Synods on the Family that the innovation of allowing persons living in adulterous second unions to receive Holy Communion, as proposed by Cardinal Kasper and others, was not a change in doctrine, but simply in discipline. [B as in B. S as in S.] I did not believe this to be true then (or now) and, apparently, neither did many of the supporters of this innovation. [Which makes them duplicitous squared.]
The first evidence of that was the seemingly universal refusal to identify these unions as adulterous in fidelity to Christ’s words: “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Lk 16:18) Instead of adulterous these sinful relationships were called “irregular” unions. This tactic reduces Christ’s teaching to the level of a regulation. The use of scare quotes further diminished the stature of Christ’s teaching by casting doubt on whether we should really consider these unions to be irregular at all.
A conference on the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia was recently held at Boston College. Further evidence of the rejection of Christ’s plain teaching on marriage, divorce and adultery is found in the reported comments of two speakers: Professor Cathleen Kaveny and Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J.
Kaveny used curious language to describe Our Lord’s teaching on marital fidelity: “Jesus clearly disfavored adultery.”No, Jesus forbade adultery. One can disfavor things that are good in themselves, but simply do not appeal to one for a variety of reasons. One can never claim as good and right something that God has clearly forbidden.
Kaveny continued: ”It’s clear that he rejects divorce and remarriage as contrary to the original will of God. But nothing in Jesus’ words or conduct demand that the sin involved in divorce and remarriage must be conceptualized as a sin that continues indefinitely, without the possibility of effective repentance.”
Well, the original will of God remains in force unless God himself has indicated otherwise. Jesus clearly reaffirmed the prohibition of divorce and remarriage, harkening back to God’s original plan for man and woman as revealed in the Book of Genesis.
Understanding the sin involved in divorce and remarriage requires making distinctions. The responsibility for the break-up of marital life falls upon one or both parties, depending upon each one’s degree of culpability. The obtaining of a civil divorce is likewise to be evaluated as to the motives and responsibilities involved: is a divorce sought to free one to enter a new union, or is it sought to obtain legal protection of the financial and other interests of the offended spouse and children?
The decision to enter into an adulterous second union, however, is a public violation of the nature of indissoluble Christian marriage, and of one’s wedding vows. It involves the sin of adultery and the public scandal of living in opposition to Christ’s commandments.
[…]
Kaveny adds: “We do not need to disturb Jesus’ teaching in order to refine and develop it in these ways, in ways that moral theologians and canon lawyers have always done.” [Slithery wickedness.] Jesus’ teaching cannot be disturbed, however, but it can be ignored or falsified. The admittance of invalidly married couples to Holy Communion is not a refinement or development of that teaching, it is a betrayal.
One can claim to uphold a teaching by refining and developing it in a way that totally changes its meaning, but such a claim is false. Either adultery is always wrong, or it is never wrong. There can be no middle ground. To redefine some forms of adultery as not adultery is an offense against the plain meaning of Christ’s words. It’s wishful thinking that endorses immorality and would have the effect of destroying the unity of faith taught by the Church.
Fr. Antonio [2+2=5] Spadaro, S.J., who also spoke at the conference, uttered an incredible statement that dovetails with Kaveny’s remarks. He said: “It is no longer possible to judge people on the basis of a norm that stands above all.” This is a direct contradiction of how the Church has always understood Christ’s teaching. [Poison.]
[…]
Do you see what is going on?
The left is changing language and introducing new labels and terms. Watch for their linguistic maneuvers. They are astute and sly.
And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion?
An image from a coloring book by Daniel Mitsui
The distinguished Catholic artist Daniel Mitsui sent me three prints of saints whose feast days are not very far off. As usual, in his inimitable style, his images present both awe and whimsy.
BUT FIRST… a touching story…
After Mass last Sunday a fellow stopped in at the sacristy to say hello and to bring news, since I have been away quite a bit with travel and the like. He and his wife have been giving special attention to a highly educated woman, now badly reduced with Parkinson’s together with other complications. She has not been terribly open to the Catholic Church over the years, to put it mildly. However, my friend slowly but surely introduced religious matters as points of discussion. Moreover, as part of her therapy, they have been using Daniel Mitusi’s coloring books … which are decidedly not just for children. Some of the images are remarkably complex. Go and look! The imagery of the coloring books is a great entry point into any number of discussion topics about the Catholic Faith. To make a long story brief, she was received into the Catholic Church recently. Works of mercy and great patience played their roles, as did Daniel Mitsui’s marvelous coloring books.
Now, let’s have a look at the new prints Daniel sent.
Please note that I left the prints in their plastic covers. You can find more about the images at his site. HERE
St. Nicholas has a feast day on 6 December. The lightning and storm are given more shock value by the clear state of mind of the passengers in the boat. And is that an Anglerfish I see? Note that Nicholas is revered as a great patron by fisherman and others who go by sea.
15 November brings us St. Albert the Great, Doctor of the Church and a mentor to St. Thomas Aquinas… who has a cameo appearance in this print. Note that, on the shelf above the saint, is a strange “bust” that looks like Frankenstein. It reappears at the bottom in a scene of violence!
That’s St. Thomas, about to smash a mechanical head that St. Albert had made that could answer questions.
MY INTERPRETATION:
Here, the head, let’s nickname the head… “Laetitia“… is saying “SIC!… NON!”, which is to say, “Yep!… Nope!”. I take this to mean that Laetitia says “Yes” and “No” at the same time in the same respect, thus violating the Principle of Non-Contradiction. That would certain horrify Thomas to the point of bashing “Laetitia” in with a handy club. No? Imagine what the Angelic Doctor would do were the talking head to say, “5!” when asked what “2+2” equals?
Well… that’s my take.
That’s hilarious. Daniel wrote to me that, “That story captures the way I feel as a traditional Catholic using the internet – sometimes like one saint, and sometimes like the other.”
Surely he is right.
That said, I’m sticking with my own eisegetical version.
There are COLOR versions, too. But he doesn’t send those very often.
Also in November, 22 November to be exact, is the Feast of St. Cecilia, patroness of Church music. Here she is in a very dignified pose, with her little portative organ. The bellows are a nice touch.
These prints are not huge. They would be easily framed and would make beautiful gifts.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
Father Faulkner was not always a supporter of the ad orientem posture. He “intensely” resisted the idea of Mass ad orientem during his time in seminary, and only gradually came to accept the arguments for it. 
