Spiffy new Christmas Music disc from the Dominican Sisters of Mary

Lots of groups are coming out with sacred music discs these days.  GREAT!

Well in advance of the Advent/Christmas season, the Dominican Sisters of Mary in Ann Arbor, MI have a new Christmas music disc.  They are celebrating their own 20th year.  I’ve written about them and another beautiful disc before, HERE.

Great stocking stuffers.  Think of yourselves baking cookies on a winter’s eve, with the tree lit up, listening to this fine disc.  Of course you also have discs by the Benedictine Sisters for Advent and Mystic Monk Coffee in a Fr. Z mug.

The new Christmas music disc will be available on 13 October.  Of course there are also MP3 options, not just physical discs.  There is a PRE-ORDER price.

US HERE – UK HERE

Who are these sisters?  They aren’t LCWR types.

Among the other discs I’ve posted about lately are one form St. John Cantius (HERE) and the Boys Choir of St. Paul’s at Harvard Square (HERE).

Posted in The Campus Telephone Pole, Women Religious | Tagged ,
6 Comments

ASK FATHER: In what scenario would you give Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried?

13_05_13_no_communion_hand1QUAERITUR:

You wrote in a recent post, “Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried (which in 99.99% of cases would be sacrilege).” Can you tell me what scenario would permit your conscience to give communion to the remarried? I can think of a couple, perhaps; curious what you’re thinking, esp. as I teach a marriage class every semester.

Okay, I left myself open to that fair question.

First, before anyone tunes out… I have to ask: Has reception of Holy Communion in most places come to be about something other than getting to heaven?  I have a strong impression that, in many places, if you were to quiz people about Communion, the answer would be along the lines of, “That’s when they put the white thing in your hand before you sing the song together.”  Seen that way, why shouldn’t everyone go up and get the white thing?  Excluding people would be mean!

If, however, Holy Communion is known to be the reception – in the state of grace – of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, who is Savior, King of Fearful Majesty and the Just Judge, then there are going to be limitations on how and when we receive.

Amoris laetitia is objectively vague.  I have little doubt that this is intentional, so that priests who have been inclined to do whatever heck they want with distribution of Communion can now have some official “cover”.  Amoris is being taken by some to mean that Communion can be received by people who are, at the time of Communion, not in the state of grace and who don’t have a firm purpose of amending their sinful ways.  I think that that is a reduction of the Most Sacred Host to “the white thing”.

A priest who allows or prompts the reduction of the Eucharist to “the white thing” is probably going to go to Hell.

However, those who are faithful to the Church’s perennial teaching can interpret Amoris in a way that is harmonious with the Church’s perennial teaching.  That’s how I choose to work with Amoris.

Now to the question about the .01%… which is an arbitrary number, of course, chosen to show that the scenario would be rare.

If a couple who are civilly married, etc. etc., have entered into a process with a priest who has helped them to see what their situation truly is (according to the teaching of Christ and His Church), then they know that what they are doing is wrong.  They know that they are in an adulterous union and that they have committed mortal sins.  Therefore, they know that are not properly disposed to receive Communion.  They also know that Communion is not “the white thing”.

That is what the priest must help them to understand.  That is his duty, at the peril of his own immortal soul and theirs.

If they then choose – for whatever compelling reason suggested by the objectively vague Amoris, etc. – to stay together, then the priest must help them to make a choice.  After Father lays out the options, they will tell the priest either that …

1) they will not live in continence as brother and sister, or
2) they will try to live in continence as brother and sister.

If they say they won’t, and they don’t, they cannot be admitted to Communion. They must be told not approach to receive Communion, for that would be a mortal sin and a sacrilege.

If, on the other hand, they say that they will try, and if they confess their sins and intend to live in continence, they probably can be admitted to Communion – remoto scandalo – provided that scandal is avoided.

HENCE…. and here is my answer…

If, in those circumstances when such a couple might be properly disposed to receive Communion (i.e., they are in the state of grace), give them Holy Communion outside of Mass in the rectory.

That would avoid scandal.  Right?

Think about it.  If reception of Communion is so important to them because they a) really understand what the Eucharist is… WHO the Eucharist is and b) they reflect on the Four Last Things and c) they must  live together for some reason and they choose to live in continence, etc., and d) they manage to live in the state of grace, then they should be willing 1) to attend Holy Mass according to their obligation (like everyone else) but 2) not receive Communion during Mass so that they will avoid giving scandal.

If they have charity toward their neighbors, they would want to avoid scandal and to avoid putting the priest in a tough spot.  Right?  They should be thrilled to receive Communion but out of sight, in the rectory, away from public view.   Right?

Now I will track back to what I asked about Communion at the top.

What is it that they want?

Communion with its holy effects? Or do they want to be seen receiving Communion?

Do they want the Eucharist or the “white thing” that symbolizes affirmation?

If they really get the Eucharist, with the full implications of receiving as Paul describes in 1 Cor 11:27 (“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”), and if they really get the Four Last Things, then … would they really want to put at risk their eternal salvation by sacrilegious reception?

If they have been working with a sound priest who helps them to understand what mortal sin is and what matrimony is according to the Church’s teachings – BECAUSE THAT’S HIS JOB! – would they really want to receive Communion in their irregular state?

Or course there may be times when they fail in their determination to live in continence and they have sexual relations.

What then?

Simple.  They go to confession and start over with a firm purpose of amendment.

That’s what we all do when we sin in any way.  We go to confession with a firm purpose of amendment and start over with God’s help.  In some Amoris scenario, they might have to live in a near occasion of sin, but for the sake of care of children, etc., they have to bear their Cross.

However, there is a rock solid principle that cannot be set aside: No firm purpose of amendment, no Communion.

My solution, given the aforementioned conditions are met: occasional Holy Communion in private, outside of public Mass, away from observing eyes.

The comment moderation queue is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Four Last Things, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, One Man & One Woman | Tagged , ,
23 Comments

CHALLENGE COIN UPDATE! NRA surprise.

On the topic of Challenge Coins, I received a text from an NYPD cop who will be at tonight’s game between the noble small-market, well-deserving Twins and the arrogant, effete, big-market hated Yankees.  He is, woe betide, unrepenting in his support of That Team and I will pray for his conversion to light, freedom and virtue.  In any event, he and another Gotham cop finally inspired me to get my challenge coins made and to start exchanging them.  It has been a kick.

Today, I received a pair of lovely coins from a highly placed operative in the NRA.  One of them is intended for my mother (retired MPLS LEO), which is very gracious.

IMG_5206

It is an interesting coincidence that they arrived at a time when the NRA is under vicious attack by the Left.  (I almost wrote “liberal Left”, but that would have been redundant.)

The two coins, reverse and obverse.

IMG_5208

Very handsome and much appreciated.

I’ll fire off one of my coins to the sender tomorrow.

Today, however, I mailed two coins to long time reader/donors here, with my compliments.

 

The adventure continues.

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Just Too Cool, Lighter fare | Tagged ,
5 Comments

REASON #1883 for Summorum Pontificum!

We need a fuller, wider more dedicated implementation of Benedict XVI’s great gift to the Church, Summorum Pontificum.

Why?

Via CARA on Twitter:

Together with a shored up, cleaned up, and above all faithful use of the Novus Ordo, we can start a lasting revitalization of every sphere of the Church’s life. That MUST begin with a revitalization of her sacred liturgical worship.

If we all do our part, we can turn attrition around.

 

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ACTION ITEM!, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices | Tagged
18 Comments

Kwasniewski instructs @MassimoFaggioli about real “rupture”

Recently Massimo “Beans” Faggioli has attempted to stir up a pingle and, with it, attention for himself, by denigrating our Catholic Tradition – nay, rather – by denigrating the people who desire our Catholic Tradition.

His latest clickbait shtick, which may be more about his frustration, anger, and desire for traffic, involves judgmental and hurtful statements on Twitter about a whole group of people. For example:

And there’s this:

That’s just crazy talk, and it’s intentionally hurtful.  It is so patently contrary to the truth that it must be bubbling up from a place of anxiety and frustration.  He may not be thinking straight when he tweets that stuff.

Who, again, is creating the rupture?   Who is causing division?

In response, Peter Kwasniewski has already issued – in July 2017 – instruction for Beans at NLM.  Peter brough up a point which others have also made: when it comes to “liturgy” (read = Mass), libs sink into the deadly trap of “neoscholastic reductionism”.  In a beanpod, if the bare bones minimum is present for valid consecration of the Eucharist, then everything else in the rite is fair game for change or adaptation according to the whims of those present.  Peter, however, shows that to preserve our rites without rupture, we need to maintain precisely those things which Beans rejects. Beans is the rupturist, not traditional Catholics.

It is useful to review something that Tracey Rowland wrote in 2008 in Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (US HERE – UK HERE).

The Lercaro—Bugnini inspired liturgical experiments of the last three decades have been based on an overemphasis on baroque sacramental theology and eighteenth-century philosophy, and an obsession with pedagogy. This in turn can be boiled down to a cocktail of scholasticism [NB] (the reduction of sacramental theology to considerations of matter and form) [Thus, Beans!], the Kantian obsession with pedagogical rationalism (the predominance of ethical values over strictly religious ones) [Thus, Beans!]moralism (a notion of Mass attendance as duty parade), [Thus, Beans!] and a Jansenist attitude to beauty (it is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is that the words are doctrinally sound and in the vernacular). [Thus, Beans!] In other words, one has a cocktail of theological and philosophical ingredients which Ratzinger has spent his entire ecclesial life trying to throw out of the pantry. [And that is a major component of his vision and action in implementing Summorum Pontificum.] Anyone wanting to escape the culture of modernity with its lowest-common-denominator mass culture will find it difficult to do so at many contemporary Catholic liturgies based on the Lercaro—Bugnini  [- Beans] principles. As Catherine Pickstock has argued, ‘a genuine liturgical reform would either have to overthrow our anti-ritual modernity, or, that being impossible, devise [or perhaps, develop] a liturgy that refused to be enculturated in our modern habits of thought and speech’.  [I think that we already have that, and it is what Beans pits against continuity.]

In any event, dear readers, I don’t think it is all that profitable to give Beans to much attention.  He is angry and, I suspect, sincerely afraid of what Summorum Pontificum is producing.  It must be awful for him.  This latest path of attack is more than likely his way of both maintaining attention and traffic in Twitter and expressing his frustration.  Hence, his bitter attacks on the people who want tradition, as he did in his hurtful remarks after the article in the NYT.  Stop and say a Memorare for him.

The moderation queue is ON.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, I fly to thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother; to thee do I come; before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen.

 

Posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
8 Comments

Re-reading Martimort on Deaconesses. Wherein Fr. Z rants.

7Deacons4In once wonderfully Catholic Austria, the silly season is in swing.  The new bishop of Innsbruck, Most Rev. Hermann Glettler, said that he supports the ordination of women to the diaconate (which is impossible) and Holy Communion for the divorce and remarried (which in 99.99% of cases would be sacrilege).  There is a story in this bishop’s notions at the UK’s best Catholic weekly the Catholic Herald (which sports my weekly column in the print and online digital editions – subscribe HERE).

This business of the ordination of women to the diaconate is swirling around, more than it should be, because a while back His Holiness of Our Lord Pope Francis appointed a study group to look at the historical data about female deacons in the early Church.  I suspect that they won’t turn up much more than has already been turned up.  The historical studies made will inevitably result in dead ends: there isn’t much available and what there is is sketchy.  Furthermore, the question does not rest on some ancient practice of a perhaps heretical sect or on variations of practices in the East, etc. It now rests on Vatican II’s Lumen gentium, which says that the diaconate, priesthood and episcopate are three grades of one sacrament of Holy Orders, even though only priests and bishops are sacerdotes in the strict sense.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it succinctly:

1554 “The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.”32 Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders….

This, by itself, pretty much closes the discussion.  The Sacrament of Orders is one sacrament in three grades.  Only men can be ordained to Holy Orders.  Ergo, women cannot be ordained to the diaconate, even though there is a distinction between diaconate and priesthood.  It’s not hard.

When the Pope appointed that study group, I dusted off my copy of the best thing written to date about women and the diaconate, Deaconesses: An Historical Study by Aime G. Martimort (French 1982 & English – Ignatius Press, 1986).  This is this most important, easily obtainable book on the topic in English.  I’ve occasionally picked it up and spot read in it, bit by bit, ever since.

US HERE – UK HERE

 

Martimort goes through just about everything.  Of course his scholarship is limited to his date of 1982.  However, there isn’t all that much more to explore.  Even if research has turned up more, I am left deeply impressed by Martimort’s conclusion… his literal conclusion on the last page of the text.  Here it is, with my usual emphases and comments:

In the end, in my opinion, the conclusion that must impose itself at the termination of a historical study such as ours, conducted in accordance with the requirements of modern scholarship, is that theologians must strictly guard against trying to prove hypotheses dependent upon only a part of the documentation available, a part taken out of context at that. The complexity of the facts about deaconesses and the proper context of these facts prove to be quite extraordinary. There exists a significant danger of distorting both the facts and the texts whenever one is dealing with them secondhand. It is also very difficult to avoid falling into anachronisms when trying to resolve the problems of the present by reference to the solutions appropriate to a past that is long gone.  [An example of anachronism would be to assume that deaconettes did in ancient times what permanent deacons do now.]

For the fact is that the ancient institution of deaconesses, even in its own time, was encumbered with not a few ambiguities, as we have seen. In my opinion, if the restoration of the institution of deaconesses were indeed to be sought after so many centuries, such a restoration itself could only be fraught with ambiguity.  [NOTA BENE!] The real importance and efficaciousness of the role of women in the Church has always been vividly perceived in the consciousness of the hierarchy and of the faithful as much more broad than the historical role that deaconesses in fact played. [BOOM! Did you get that?] And perhaps a proposal based on an “archeological” institution might even obscure the fact that the call to serve the Church is urgently addressed today to all women, especially in the area of the transmission of Faith and works of charity.  [Teaching, nursing, etc.  We could come up with other important ways to serve the Church, traditionally carried out by women in an exemplary and edifying way.]

What has Martimort done in this conclusion?  He says that

1) we really don’t know enough about deaconesses, and
2) what we do know is ambiguous, and
3) that focusing with such attention on something so elusive and fraught with problems is detrimental to recognition of the terrific contributions which we know for a certainty women can and do offer to the Church and the world.

Bottom line: Promoting ordained diaconate for women, as that Austrian bishop and others do, does women and the whole Church a disservice.  It distracts from and even denigrates the tremendous and urgently needed service which women have historically perfected and lovingly contributed.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Deaconettes, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
20 Comments

PODCAzT 155: Latin Forms of Absolution, Vetus and Novus Ordo

confession-731x1024From a priest….

QUAERITUR:

Fr. Z,

Grace and peace.

Do you have an audio pronunciation of the absolution prayer (1962) or know of a link?

Thanks for the question.

Here is a brief PODCAzT, which can also be a PRAYERCAzT, about the forms of absolution, in Latin.  I hope this is helpful.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, PODCAzT, PRAYERCAzT: What Does The (Latin) Prayer Really Sound L | Tagged ,
2 Comments

After 15 years man emerges from ‘permanent vegetative state’

At LifeSite I read a story about a man who emerged from a Permanent or Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) after 15 years.  It is a remarkable story, which merits to be more widely known.

I’ve been writing about PVS for a long time.  Back in 2004 I had written a piece for The Wanderer about Vatican sponsored conference on it back in the happier days of Pope St. John Paul II which stressed the needed for nutrition and hydration of such patients.  HERE

This is a mysterious condition and there can be misdiagnoses which even result in “passive” euthanasia.  Some people emerge from this state and they report that they were indeed aware, locked inside their bodies unable to respond even to pain stimuli.

One of the ways that PVS people were/are treated is denial of nutrition and hydration.  Here is what I wrote in 2004 about what happens to you, when you cannot respond and you are dying of dehydration.

Put yourself in their straitjacket.

What happens to you when you die from dehydration? First, think about going for a day without a single drink of water, two days, three . . . nothing. You would find something to drink, urgently crave it, set aside every other goal to get water in any way. You would suffer. Then what?

Imagine that you are unable to move or communicate according to your wishes. Maybe you are strapped down, gagged, blindfolded, isolated. The people around you decide that, since you are not communicating with them, or demonstrating that you are a “human being” because you are not revealing use of your higher functions, you should die. They stop feeding you or giving you anything to drink. Period. How long before you are mildly hungry and thirsty? Before you are really thirsty? When doctors decide to withhold nutrition and hydration from PVS people, who are cognitively disabled, they die of thirst long before they die of starvation: The cause of death is severe dehydration.

So, as you lie there, what is going on in your body? When your body’s fluid supply is severely depleted (because you are taking none in) and down by around 15%, hypovolemic shock or “physical collapse” occurs, that is, your blood supply gets lower and lower until you don’t have enough blood volume to function.

Your skin becomes pale and clammy. Your heart starts to race and your breathing becomes rapid and shallow. Unless you get water soon, it will get harder and harder to reverse your condition. You soon desperately need medical care. Your blood pressure drops so low that sometimes it can’t be detected at all. Then your extremities become blotchy and mottled as your body starts to shut down the periphery, shunting an ever-decreasing volume of available blood to the core, the heart and vital organs.

If you are conscious, your thirst is agony. Your temperature rises and when it hits 107°F (41.7°C), it starts to damage your brain and other organs. Your lips and tongue crack. Your nose bleeds from the dryness of the mucous membranes. You are wracked with pain from the heaving and attempts to vomit. You can’t tell anyone how much you are suffering. Since those around you don’t see your suffering, they think you must not have any pain. This appears to be “merciful.”

This is how they purposely kill helpless people. Let dehydration happen to a football player during practice on a hot summer day and everyone goes crazy, pointing fingers and making accusations, filing lawsuits and suing everyone in sight. But this is done daily in the USA and other countries to people who are otherwise healthy, and simply need the love and care that any person with a disability needs. Lock a horse in a stall without food and water and you will go to jail.

Normal Care, Not Therapy

Keep in mind the difference between a medical treatment and withholding of nutrition and hydration. Chemotherapy attempts to stop or reverse cancer. Antibiotics treat infections. Withholding nutrition and hydration does not treat anything.

It must be underscored, however, that there are cases in which it harms a patient to give him food. In those cases, it is legitimate to withhold it so as to not impose a disproportionate burden which will cause greater suffering than benefit. This can be the case when a dying person has stomach cancer, or another condition in a terminal stage.

[…]

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
6 Comments

New sacred music disc: Renaissance Polyphony of Portugal for Our Lady of Fatima

The great folks at St. John Cantius in Chicago – where they have a fine sacred music program – have a new disc:

Renaissance Polyphony of Portugal for Our Lady of Fatima

US HERE – UK HERE

Too bad it didn’t come at the beginning of the 100th year!

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Hmmm… the narratrix doesn’t sound like she’s from Chicago. What’s up with that?

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
2 Comments

The young DO embrace Tradition: a new VIDEO from Los Angeles

There are those who right now are running down the Traditional Roman Rite, the intentions of Pope Benedict, and, worst of all, the people who desire them.  These poor negative complainers are stuck in their own ideology.  They seem genuinely afraid of the fact that young people are embracing the traditional forms.

They are afraid, so they are lashing out.  It’s all very sad and a great waste of time and energy.

It would be wonderful if some of these people could experience also the fruits of what Pope St. John Paul II called “legitimate aspirations”.

Here is a new video from the FSSP chapel in Los Angeles, where good things are happening.  I would love to visit there sometime!

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon
5672 views

How encouraging was that?

Don’t let the angry, frightened naysayers get you down. They need our compassion and the accompaniment of our prayers.

Also, you should reach out to them and be inviting! Cheerfully help them in concrete ways to shake those scales from their eyes and stop being so angry.

Never underestimate the power of an invitation.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Just Too Cool, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
12 Comments