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.
And so it begins.
When Magnum principium came out (which increased the role of bishops conferences in the preparation of liturgical translations), I mentioned that the Germans are usually the problem. HERE
Now there’s this from the Catholic Herald. My emphases and comments.
Cardinals Marx and Sarah disagree on Magnum Principium
Two cardinals have disagreed over how much authority the Pope’s motu proprio Magnum Principium gives to local bishops’ conferences.
The papal document gives bishops’ conferences greater say over the translation of liturgical texts, changing the role of the Congregation for Divine Worship from one of recognitio to confirmatio. However, two senior cardinals have disagreed over the exact meaning of this difference.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the German bishops’ conference, welcomed the document, implying that it was a clear break with the 2001 document Liturgiam authenticum, which he called a “dead end”. [Marx is wrong. Magnum principium did not cancel out the norms of Liturgiam authenticam.]
“Rome is charged with the interpretation of dogmas, but not with questions of style. Now, thanks to Magnum Principium, episcopal conferences enjoy a much greater freedom,” he said. [But they are not free to make inaccurate translations.]
He also hinted that the German bishops had dropped a proposed new translation of the Mass that was more faithful to the original Latin text, with much of the controversy centring around how to translate the words “pro multis”. [The problem is that they are not free in the matter of translations of sacramental forms. That is reserved to the Holy See, indeed to the Pope.]
The words appear as part of the phrase “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” in reference to the Precious Blood during the consecration of the wine in the Roman Canon.
The most accurate English translation is “for many”, but many translations, including Spanish, Portuguese and German, initially rendered it [inaccurately] as “for all”.
In 2006, the Holy See gave instruction that all vernacular editions of the Roman Missal should translate the words as “for many”, pointing out that it is also the most literal translation of the original Greek “περὶ πολλῶν” in Matthew 26:28. [While that is the case, it must also be noted that the Roman Catechism has a paragraph explaining why we cannot say “pro omnibus”. Moreover, its perennial use in Mass also constitutes its own theological locus.]
The change met with opposition from the German bishops, however, prompting Pope Benedict XVI to write a personal letter in 2012 explaining why they should adopt the new translation. [They ignored him.]
Now Cardinal Marx has signalled the German bishops will use Magnum Principium as an opportunity to drop the new translation and keep the old, less literal version. [It will not, cannot be approved if it doesn’t adhere to the translation norms which are, still, in Liturgiam authenticam.]
Cardinal Robert Sarah, on the other hand, has said ultimate authority still lies with the Vatican, which must still approve all new translations, and can veto proposals that are not faithful to the original text.
The Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship said the new motu proprio does not reduce the body to a mere rubber stamp.
“Like the recognitio, the confirmatio is by no means a formality,” the cardinal said.
Instead, it “presupposes and implies a detailed review on the part of the Holy See” including the ability to refuse assent unless certain modifications are made.
“So, for example, if, in the Creed of the Order of Mass, the expression: ‘consubstantialem Patri’ is translated in English by: ‘one in Being with the Father’, the Holy See may impose – and even must impose (cf. n. 6) – the translation: ‘consubstantial with the Father’, as a condition sine qua non of its confirmatio of the entirety of the Roman Missal in English.”
Magnum Principium, then, is simply a question of making “collaboration…between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful.”
“… easier… more fruitful…”
Yeah, this will easily be a lot fruitier.
Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!
Registered or not, will you in your charity please take a moment look at the requests and to pray for the people about whom you read?
Continued from THESE.
I get many requests by email asking for prayers. Many requests are heart-achingly grave and urgent.
As long as my blog reaches so many readers in so many places, let’s give each other a hand. We should support each other in works of mercy.
If you have some prayer requests, feel free to post them below.
You have to be registered here to be able to post.
I still have two pressings personal petitions. No, I actually have THREE now. I can’t get a break, it seems. Ut Deus….
ALSO…
During this 100th year commemoration of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, remember the central message Our Lady gave to the Church and to the world: penance and reparation for sins and for the conversion of sinners.
Off your sufferings in reparation for sins and for the conversion of sinners.
We now have some video of the Pontifical Mass at the Throne celebrated by Bishop Robert C. Morlino, the Extraordinary Ordinary of Madison, on 13 October 2017 at St. Mary’s in Pine Bluff, WI for the 100th anniversary of the “Miracle of the Sun”.
Wanna watch? HERE
Two things.
First, the equipment is new and there are still gremlins. There have been audio problems. In this video there is no audio until about 15:30. Suddenly, it just came on. I don’t yet know why. Also, the audio that there is is poorly balanced. We haven’t figured out yet what to do with microphones. We’ll get there.
Second, the sanctuary in this little country church is really small. As a result we had to adapt a bit. I chose a Roman solution and parked the sacred ministers on the steps of the altar, which worked well in a pinch. I only spotted a couple little ritual errors, but nothing of importance. And His Excellency had us sing a Creed, which usually isn’t part of a 2nd Class Votive Mass, but… HEY! We believe in God around here.
Screenshot
Where were you when you heard the news that a man from Poland had been elected to the See of Peter?
It was on this date in 1978. Wow. 39 years.
Apropos recent debates that have strongly emerged in the Church, I note a couple passages from his encyclicals.
First, from his 1993 Encyclical Veritatis splendor 103-4:
Only in the mystery of Christ’s Redemption do we discover the “concrete” possibilities of man. “It would be a very serious error to conclude… that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a “balancing of the goods in question.” But what are the “concrete possibilities of man”? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ’s redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to man’s will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God’s command is of course proportioned to man’s capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.
Next, from his 1995 Evangelium vitae 57 [note how he uses the word “innocent”]:
Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. “Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action”.
As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being “there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal”.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
nex001 on “…the young are more to be pitied, since they know not of what they have been deprived.”: ““Let the little children come to me.””
on Wherein Fr. Z rants. Benediction using the humeral veil BUT… blessings at Communion time? Fathers! THINK!: “Robert: Commune the children too! – Eastern Rite :-)”
on A few things I found today that I think are interesting: “Those altar cards look just like the ghastly basilica — that is, someone started to design something nice, but then…”
on A few things I found today that I think are interesting: “Might the Archlaic be permitted a wee, brief rant? 1.) “In some dioceses trust has broken down between traditionalist communities…”
on Wherein Fr. Z rants. Benediction using the humeral veil BUT… blessings at Communion time? Fathers! THINK!: “A brick for higher up in the wall rebuilding process though, perhaps? At present I fear in most parishes the…”
on Wherein Fr. Z rants. Benediction using the humeral veil BUT… blessings at Communion time? Fathers! THINK!: “Are these “ushers” some sort of American innovation ?? Never come across anyone of the sort over here in the…”
on A few things I found today that I think are interesting: “Altar cards (in general) always have me a bit puzzled, in the sense that after offering daily Mass in the…”
on A few things I found today that I think are interesting: “Words have meaning. I can say without hesitation that “I fully accept the authority of the teaching of the Second…”
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:
