Concerning concelebration, variety, and fraternity

I have opined that concelebration should be “safe, legal and rare”.  I have, in a jocular mood, posted pics of the sort of concelebration of which I approve. For example:

Concerning concelebration, variety, and fraternity

And here are a couple of guys concelebrating… at different altars.  At this church in Rome this also happens when a scheduled parish Mass is being offered at the main altar.  And nobody freaks out!

17_05_Trin_concelebration

This came to my email today from a reader…

On Friday’s I serve Mass at a side altar while Mass is being said at the high altar. The faithful often see a variety of colors and Masses being said on ferias. [Priests can often say votive Masses, which have different colors for the vestments.]

People who criticize this practice may not realize how beneficial it is for priests in community to say their Masses simultaneously so they can break their fast together afterwards.   [That’s a good point.  And it assumes that priests are fasting before Mass… for more than an hour before Communion as present law stipulates.]

At any rate, today I had the privilege of serving Mass for the feast of St. Philomena.  Common of a virgin martyr with no special collect, it’s rarely said.

St. Philomena has become a patroness of sorts for traditional-minded Catholics, with her relics being discovered at the dawn of Modernity and her feast removed from local calendars a couple years before the Council.

She represents the dichotomy of snobby scholars against popular piety. [Indeed she does.]

We have a number of virgin-martyrs with ancient cults and contemporary accounts.  They’re the most beautiful flowers of the early Church.  Seven are named at the end of the Canon.

There was a time when I was reluctant to embrace her cultus… But St. Philomena, in her obscurity, in her controversy, in her prolific latter-day miraculous activity, convinced me otherwise.

Nice.  Thoughtful.

 

Posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
28 Comments

North Korea: What to do?

North Korea nightThe present situation with North Korea (NOKO) reminds me of some of the scenarios in the dystopian, apocalyptic and “prepper” genre I sometimes read.   Frankly, the news these days makes me nervous.  I must say I am really glad that the present team is in the White House rather than what we had or what we dodged.  And, yes, I think this would have happened regardless of the administration: the NOKOs are on their own schedule.

So, what to do about North Korea?

Since this blog is probably being monitored by teams from about 17 national security agencies, here’s my idea!

  • Make a deal with China: they annex NOKO.
  • Convince Seoul to agree or at least shut up about it.
  • Give China money to feed the NOKOs for 2-3 years.
  • China allows US and South Korea to invest in economic and commercial infrastructure in China’s new province/protectorate.
  • Result: China gets buffer state it can control (better than it can now), the West gets a place to invest, and the world is rid of a threat.

So, fellas, kick the idea upstairs and see what happens.  This might be better than death and destruction.

And to the teams from the agencies, who probably also watch me through my phone, as I’ve said before, if you send me your addresses, I’ll send you some pizzas!  Deal?

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in Semper Paratus, Si vis pacem para bellum!, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged
77 Comments

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

Here are some titles I’ve gotten into lately.

First, this – from my Kindle wishlist – arrived from reader today and I have already started.

The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left by Dinesh D’Souza

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

No, that’s not at all an inflammatory title.

Next I just finished this one. It helped.

Understanding Trump by Newt Gingrich

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

I’ve been scratching my head about Donald Trump for a long time.  Mind you, I would have voted for the corpse of Millard Fillmore in the last election to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.  Also, I heard an exasperated Gingrich respond in a TV interview with some talking head that, of course Trump isn’t a “conservative” in the usual sense; he is the natural ally of conservatives and that he would produce more conservative results than republicans who claim to be conservatives.  In any event…

I continue to graze in Cardinal Sarah’s important book.  I finished it some time ago, but you don’t really finish a book like this.

The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise, by Robert Card. Sarah

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

I also finished the following. It was a slog, since it was, well, written in a colloquial style obviously meant for a very broad audience.  The content and concepts were timely, good and inspiring.

Worth Dying For: A Navy Seal’s Call to a Nation by Rorke Denver

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

I mentioned already this following book, which is terrific and beautifully written. The author and I are in a virtual, long distance Vulcan mind-meld.

Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of Ages by Peter Kwasniewski

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

That is one to get and to give, for sure.  I have it also in paperback.  I need to get a copy of this one to the bishop.

Also, to celebrate the centenary of Martin Luther, I’ve now read almost all the essays in this fine collection – which came from a reader via my wishlist

Luther and His Progeny: 500 Years of Protestantism and Its Consequences for Church, State, and Society, edited by John Rao.

US HERE – UK HERE

IMG_1917

Let’s just say that the writers are not about to become Lutherans.

Queued up are

  • The Priest Barracks: Dachau 1938-1945 by Guillaume Zeller (US HERE – UK HERE)
  • The Black Spider by Jeremias Gotthelf (US HERE – UK HERE) – I learned of this author during a lecture at Acton University this year.  I hope the English is as good as I hear the German is.
  • In Defense of Nature: The Catholic Unity of Environmental, Economic, and Moral Ecology by Benjamin Wiker (US HERE – UK HERE) Great writer.  Commonsense and intelligence applied.  His 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn’t Help is a must.
  • Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism by Mark Levin (US HERE – UK HERE)
  • Benedict XIV and the Enlightenment: Art, Science, and Spirituality by Rebecca Messbarger (US HERE – UK HERE)

And I must mention:

Teaching and Learning the Love of God: Being a Priest Today

US HERE – UK HERE

BOOKS: My recent and future reads

I’ll be picking this one up frequently and reading the short offerings within.

Posted in REVIEWS, What Fr. Z is up to | Tagged
2 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can I go with my children to SSPX Masses twice a month?

José Gallegos y Arnosa faithful at massFrom a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Lets cut to the chase my soul is torn. I asked the Blessed Mother to save my children and give them Catholic friends (they know NONE right now) I have lived my whole life without knowing someone who is actually simply up and down Catholic. (The Church teaches it they believe it). I am aware that there are no Conservative, progressive, liberal, or traditional Catholics. There are only people who believe the faith and people who don’t (many of the latter wear collars but lets skip that). I have never had the benefit of a latin mass. Till the other day. SSPX mass. My mind is blown small explosion but there you go. I cannot stop going to the NO. The Blessed Mother has explained to me that they need me. That sounds arrogant but that is not entirely what I mean. They need people attempting to be holy. They need grace and someone to ask the Mother of God to merit it. (my merits tend to be things only a mother could love.) Can I go to this mass part time? technically its Valid but not licit which covers every mass I have ever seen in this desert called Australia. I have never seen a mass that requires and instills so much humility. That drives you to humility. Arrogant people can’t sit through that mass. Prideful people cannot sit though that mass, and if they do their pride will surly begin to die or they will stop going. The mass is only in town 2x a month. Can I go to them half the time and go to the NO the other half? My children are getting old enough that they need to hear the faith from someone other than their father. If they are not supported by at least a sub section of society they won’t make it. What do I do here? What is the smart play?

Clearly you are sincere and earnest.  Clearly are you concerned to fulfill your vocation as a father.  Clearly you have a strong devotion to our Blessed Mother and you approach Holy Mass with piety.

From what you write, I discern that you desire the reverence of the traditional form of Mass.  You don’t seem to seek it out in protest against the Novus Ordo.  You seem to be saying that you would more happy attend the Novus Ordo Masses available to you if they were celebrated with greater fidelity and reverence.

From what you wrote, I don’t see any problem with attending the SSPX Masses occasionally, and as you describe.  I’m glad that you also want to continue to attend your regular parish.

Meanwhile, I can assure you that “arrogant people” can and do “sit through that Mass”.  I sense that you are not one of them.  At the same time, we are all works in progress.  Humble and arrogant alike bend the knee… and learn – some quickly, some over lifetimes – to bend the knee of the heart.  It might be helpful to review Luke 18:9-14 before heading off to Mass.

Be good and give a good example.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX | Tagged ,
9 Comments

Response to Ivereigh, Winters, etc. – Model of behavior for converts rooted in the Apostolic Tradition?

Peter and paul disputingAusten Ivereigh wrote a seriously imprudent piece about converts.  Ed Peters schooled Ivereigh about what converts means.  HERE

However, one of the comments under my post about that deserves special attention.

Saul of Tarsus was an (initially unwilling) convert.  So there.

So there, indeed.

I will add is this, from Galatians 2:11

“And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.”

Hence, we have Paul’s modelling of appropriate behavior for converts rooted firmly in the Apostolic Tradition!

BTW… for all you converts and potential converts out there, here are all the different versions of the verse, from “Bible Gateway”:

KJ21 But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.
ASV But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
AMP Now when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him face to face [about his conduct there], because he stood condemned [by his own actions].
AMPC But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned.
BRG But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
CSB But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.
CEB But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was wrong.
CJB Furthermore, when Kefa came to Antioch, I opposed him publicly, because he was clearly in the wrong.
CEV When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face that he was wrong.
DARBY But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to [the] face, because he was to be condemned:
DLNT And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face— because he was condemned.
DRA But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
ERV When Peter came to Antioch, he did something that was not right. I stood against him, because he was wrong.
ESV But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
ESVUK But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
EXB [L?But] When ·Peter [L?Cephas; C?Peter’s name in Aramaic; 1:18] came to Antioch, I challenged him to his face, because he ·was wrong [L?stood condemned].
GNV ¶ And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be condemned.
GW When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.
GNT But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong.
HCSB But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned.
ICB When Peter came to Antioch, I was against him because he was wrong.
ISV But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.
PHILLIPS Later, however, when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James’ companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. After they came, he withdrew and ate separately from the Gentiles—out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception, and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it. But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, “If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?”
JUB ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed.
KJV But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
AKJV But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
LEB But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned.
TLB But when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, speaking strongly against what he was doing, for it was very wrong.
MSG Later, when Peter came to Antioch, I had a face-to-face confrontation with him because he was clearly out of line. Here’s the situation. Earlier, before certain persons had come from James, Peter regularly ate with the non-Jews. But when that conservative group came from Jerusalem, he cautiously pulled back and put as much distance as he could manage between himself and his non-Jewish friends. That’s how fearful he was of the conservative Jewish clique that’s been pushing the old system of circumcision. Unfortunately, the rest of the Jews in the Antioch church joined in that hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was swept along in the charade.
MEV But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him face to face, because he stood condemned.
MOUNCE But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
NOG When Cephas came to Antioch, I had to openly oppose him because he was completely wrong.
NABRE And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
NASB But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
NCV When Peter came to Antioch, I challenged him to his face, because he was wrong.
NET But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.
NIRV When Peter came to Antioch, I told him to his face that I was against what he was doing. He was clearly wrong.
NIV When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
NIVUK When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
NKJV Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
NLV But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to stand up against him because he was guilty.
NLT But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.
NRSV But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
NRSVA But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
NRSVACE But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
NRSVCE But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned;
NTE But when Cephas came to Antioch, I stood up to him face to face. He was in the wrong.
OJB But when Kefa came to Antioch, I stood against him to his face, because there was found in him a dvar ashmah (a thing of guilt, condemnation).
RSV But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
RSVCE But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
TLV But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong—
VOICE But when Cephas came to Antioch, there was a problem. I got in his face and exposed him in front of everyone. He was clearly wrong.
WEB But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned.
WE One day Peter came to the city of Antioch. Then I had to tell him face to face that he had done wrong. He really was wrong!
WYC But when Peter was come to Antioch, I against-stood him in the face [I stood against him into the face], for he was worthy to be reproved.
YLT And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy,

RIBERA Paul Peter Galatians 2

UPDATE:

At CRUX, Ivereigh issued an apology… sort of.  HERE

Posted in Liberals, Lighter fare | Tagged ,
10 Comments

ASK FATHER: Not adding water to chalices for Mass

ASK FATHER: Not adding water to chalices for Mass

CLICK TO BUY

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

Like many other parishes, we have communion under both species. However, the deacon only adds a water to the chalice that the priest is consecrating. He does not add water to the other chalices on the altar. Are those chalices validly consecrated?

The old manuals such as Sabetti-Barrett  describe as a grave violation of law the failure of the priest to add some water to the chalice.  However, they were describing the addition of water to one chalice, not many… which is an innovation in the Roman Rite.

In the ancient Mediterranean world, wine was always cut with some water.  It is likely that Our Lord did the same at the Last Supper when He instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Since the earliest days, water was added to the wine.  Also, the water is a symbol of our humanity being taken by the Second Person of the Trinity into an indestructible bond with His divinity.  So, the addition of water is also a theological statement against the heresy of monophysitism.

While it is a serious abuse to omit the addition of water to a chalice of wine to be consecrated, the lack of water does not make the wine invalid material for consecration.

On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, the rubrics only mention water being added to a singular chalice.  A solution could be to add water to the source of wine for the chalices to be consecrated.

That said, it is also extremely important not to put too much water into the wine.  Too much water does render the wine invalid matter.  Add a tiny amount of water, and you have a chalice with wine cut with water.  Add a lot of water, and you have a chalice with water cut with wine.

In the manual of dogmatic theology by Tanquerey, that dear tonic for the soul, I found the opinion that “quinta pars aquae ad vinum corrumpendum non sufficiat … a fifth part of water isn’t enough to break [the substance of] the wine”, and thus render it invalid matter for consecration.

20%

Bottom line, we want to have just a tiny bit of water put into the wine.  Ideally, drops.  And we want to make sure that they don’t simply adhere to the inside of the cup of the chalice.

ASK FATHER: Not adding water to chalices for Mass

Scruple spoon with friends,
to provide scale.

This is why at the offertory careful, diligent priests will use what is nicknamed a “scruple spoon”, a tiny dipper-shaped tool with with they dip up a tiny quantity of water from the cruet to put into the wine in the chalice.  Use a scruple spoon and you never have to worry that, for reasons of surface tension of the water or the shape of the cruet or the unsteadiness of hand of the priest or deacon, too much water might be inadvertently added to the wine.

BTW… the name “scruple spoon” may come from the unit of measurement, a scruple , rather than qualms or doubts about an action.

Priests must take care to avoid the the Ketchup Bottle Technique of Chalice Preparation™ when the water in the cruet is being stubborn.  You know the poem by Richard Armour (not Ogden Nash):

Shake and shake
the catsup bottle
first none’ll come
and then a lot’ll.

Lot’ll = bad.

When that happens the priest should either add a more wine or even start over.

Why?

Because we never never never fool around with the validity of matter of sacraments.

If there is even the slightest doubt in his mind, Father should act to correct the situation before moving on.

Unreconstructed Ossified Manualists UNITE!

Let Scruple Spoons abound!

Promote the New Evangelization!

IMG_8892

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

Ed Peters schools Austen Ivereigh about “converts”

The liberal attack on converts who are concerned about the Church continue.  Lately liberal paplatrous gnostic Austen Ivereigh, once editor of The Bitter Pill in the UK, jumped aboard the band-wagon launched by Michael Sean Winters of the Fishwrap.  (HERE) Liberal historian Massimo Faggioli is also full of beans regarding converts.  Their underlying notion is that converts don’t have the same right in the Church as “cradle Catholics” to voice their concerns.  These elitists see converts as second class.

Ivereigh, by the way, is billed as an “editor” at Crux, so his postings express something of the editorial stance of Crux.   Ivereigh attacked converts (who disagree with him, official interpreter of the Holy Spirit) as “neurotic”.

Canonist Ed Peters responded (HERE) to the dreadful essay posted by Ivereigh at Crux (to their shame -and to the shame of the KCs who pay for Crux).

Let’s see what the always level-headed Peters has to say.

Come over here and say that

Austen Ivereigh, in one of the most embarrassing essays Crux has ever run, recently smeared seven talented Catholic commentators as suffering from ‘convert neurosis’. Not once in passing, but repeatedly, Ivereigh uses ‘neurosis’ and ‘neurotic’ in regard to some seven writers, Ross Douthat, Daniel Hitchens, Carl Olson, Edward Pentin, Rusty Reno, Matthew Schmitz, and John-Henry Westen. Ivereigh even offers a primer on what “neurosis” means, suggesting a war-scarred woman’s throwing herself to the ground when later stopped by a policeman as, one supposes, an example of how ‘convert neurotics’, supposedly being persons given to extreme reactions to un-realities in the Church, might behave.

While an expert in psychology can tell us whether any of these men are, in fact, “neurotic”, and an expert in morals can tell us whether Ivereigh’s employing and Crux’s circulating of such labels against brothers in the Lord meets any standard of decency in Christian discourse, Ivereigh’s constant referral to these Catholics as “converts” draws my attention.

Ivereigh’s description of several figures (Douthat and Reno as former Episcopalians, Olson as a former Protestant fundamentalist, and Hitchens and Pentin as former Anglicans) plus what I gather about Westen (a once fallen-away Catholic who went through an atheistic period) and Schmitz (who talks respectfully about his days as a Protestant), suggests that not one of them, not one, would, under American catechetical criteria, qualify as “converts” at all—let alone as neurotic ones.

According to the (US) National Statutes for the Catechumenate (November, 1986) no. 2 (my emphasis), “the term ‘convert’ should be reserved strictly for those converted from unbelief to Christian belief and never used of those baptized Christians who are received into the full communion of the Catholic Church.” Number 3 reiterates that this “holds true even … [for] baptized Catholic Christians … whose Christian initiation has not been completed by confirmation and Eucharist” (Westen) and [for] “baptized Christians who have been members of another Church or ecclesial community and seek to be received into the full Communion of the Catholic Church” (the other six authors).  [So, when an unbaptized person enters the Church through baptism and the other sacraments, that person is a convert.  When someone baptized in the, say, Lutheran church enters, technically he is not a convert, because he is already validly baptized.]

Now perhaps the circles Ivereigh runs in ‘over there’ do not bother with this important distinction among persons entering into full communion, and I grant that some Catholics ‘over here’ might still show ecclesial insensitivity by referring to separated Christians coming into full communion as “converts”, i.e., as if they had not been baptized. But, as most of the men Ivereigh chastises are Americans, and as the American bishops are trying to get American Catholics to think more accurately about these things, I thought Ivereigh’s outdated and inaccurate use of the word “convert”—to say nothing of his abuse of the tragedy that is “neurosis”—worth noting.

Peters raises a good point.  That said, in common parlance we use the word “convert” for a larger range of people.

UPDATE:

I see that Fr. Longenecker has weighed in.  HERE  “Stop bashing converts….”

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, 1983 CIC can. 915, Liberals | Tagged , , , ,
15 Comments

Tradition = vocations – It isn’t rocket science

I contend that the shortage of vocations is a self-inflicted wound.

Yesterday, here in the Diocese of Madison, the Extraordinary Ordinary and the seminarians concluded a week of praying together, talks, activities, hanging out with each other and priests.  Among other things, we distributed a terrific book which you readers bought for them and the new guys were measured for birettas.  If there is one thing that these guys understand: the bishop and vocations director have their backs.  The bishop and director know that seminarians will play it straight with them.  The whole diocese knows how much care the bishop puts into vocations.  They are conspicuous.  Result: young men answer invitations to consider the priesthood.

Marco Tosatti, in First Things, opines about a sharp downturn in vocations to the priesthood. My emphases and comments:

RETURN OF THE VOCATIONS CRISIS
by Marco Tosatti

The recovery in priestly vocations seems to be over. Between 1978 and 2012, after the great crisis of the 1970s following Vatican II, seminaries around the world enjoyed a season of growth. The growth was not constant, nor was it uniform across countries and continents. But the trend was clear. Numbers revealed recently by the Central Office of Statistics of the Holy See show that in the past five years, the vocations crisis has returned.

The greatest gains came under John Paul II. In 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla was elected pope, vocations worldwide totaled 63,882. In 2005, the year he died, they totaled 114,439. The numbers continued to rise during the reign of Benedict XVI: Vocations reached their modern peak in 2011, with 120,616—an increase of 6,177 since the papal transition year. After 2011, they drifted downward: to 120,051 in 2012, and 118,251 in 2013, the year of Benedict’s resignation. Thus, vocations in 2013 were down 2,365 from their height under Benedict, and up 3,812 from their height under John Paul.

In March 2013, Pope Francis emerged from the conclave as the new ruler of the Church. [NB] Data suggest that his pontificate has not accelerated the decline in vocations from their height in 2011, but has not reversed or arrested it, either. In 2015 there were 116,843 seminarians—a drop of 1,408 from 2013. If this rate of decline continues, then in a year or two vocations will be roughly where they were when John Paul died. Yet we will actually be in worse shape than we were then. As Catholics grow more numerous worldwide, the Catholics-per-priest ratio worsens. For instance, there were 2,900 Catholics per priest worldwide in 2010, and 3,091 in 2015.  [Another thing: consider the number of priests who will die or retire.  In most places, ordinations do not match attrition.  I know one diocese where, in a couple years, some 50% of the priests will be out of active ministry.]

The vocations downturn is particularly evident in the West, especially in European countries where secularization and religious liberalism are strongest: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland. In countries such as Poland and continents such as Africa, where Catholicism remains more traditional, the situation is different. Vocations hold steady, and sometimes flourish.  [There it is.]

A few examples will serve to illustrate. In the diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, a liberal atmosphere prevailed until 2003—a year that had six seminarians. Robert Morlino became bishop that year, and his efforts brought the number of seminarians to 36 in 2015. Following the advice of Robert Cardinal Sarah, Bishop Morlino recently suggested that the faithful should receive the Eucharist on the tongue and while kneeling. A similar situation may be found in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. Bishop James D. Conley has explained to the Catholic World Report that, in his opinion, the growth of vocations in his diocese had its root in fidelity to the traditional teachings of the Church.

In western Europe, the landscape is totally different. In Germany, vocations have become practically nonexistent. In 2016, there was just one new seminarian in Munich, the historic capital city of German Catholicism. In Belgium, the situation is perhaps still worse. In 2016, there was not a single new Francophone seminarian in the country. The heroic André-Joseph Léonard, archbishop of Brussels from 2010 to 2015, had given life to a new association, the Fraternity of the Holy Apostles. In a period of three years, the Fraternity had assembled twenty-one seminarians and six priests. The current archbishop of Brussels, Jozef De Kesel, was appointed a cardinal immediately upon his installation—an honor denied to Léonard. De Kesel quickly dissolved the Fraternity. The official reason was formal and flimsy; the real one was substantial. The Fraternity was not liberal enough; it respected tradition.  [There it is.]

Brussels is not an isolated case. […]  [Hardly.]

He goes on to write about the Franciscans Friars of the Immaculate and the Heralds of the Gospel who are being persecuted because the are traditional.

Where I am, we pray for vocations.  Every Sunday, after the Gospel, we pray as we did at my home parish.  HERE  The prayer includes the line:

“Bless our families, bless our children. Choose from our homes those who are needed for Thy work.”

Tradition = vocations - It isn't rocket science

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Priests and Priesthood, Seminarians and Seminaries | Tagged ,
31 Comments

Annual meteor shower – Perseids – the Tears of St Lawrence

perseid-mapToday is the Feast of St Lawrence of Rome, Deacon and Martyr.  He was a serious hard-core saint in hard times.

This is also the time of year that your planet whirls through the debris left by the comet known as Swift-Tuttle.  Hence, there will be an increase of meteors and fireballs nicknamed the “Tears of St Lawrence”.  This is also called the Perseid Meteor Shower because the meteors appear to streak outward from the constellation Perseus.

Speaking of the Perseids, check out an engaging  “apocalyptic” series by Steven Konkoly.  It begins with The Jakarta Pandemic (UK HERE).

Annual meteor shower - Perseids - the Tears of St Lawrence

These are inexpensive on Kindle.

It goes on with The Perseid Collapse (UK HERE)  Counted as Book 1, but it continues with previous characters.

Annual meteor shower - Perseids - the Tears of St Lawrence

The series continues with

Event Horizon: A Post Apocalyptic/Dystopian EMP Thriller (The Perseid Collapse Series Book 2)

US HERE – UK HERE

and

Point of Crisis: A Post Apocalyptic/Dystopian EMP Thriller (The Perseid Collapse Series Book 3)

US HERE – UK HERE

and

Dispatches: A Post Apocalyptic/Dystopian EMP Thriller (The Perseid Collapse Series Book 4)

US HERE – UK HERE

Posted in Look! Up in the sky! | Tagged , ,
2 Comments

Are we in the “end times”? Live as if we are.

ORIENTEM CAR 01

Since the Lord Ascended to the right hand of the Father, Christians have felt themselves to be in the “end times”.  Indeed, we are in the “end times”.  The Lord achieved His victory. Now it is all over but for the waiting.

Of course it is a mystery that, even though Christ is Risen, we still have to pass through death and or the more apocalyptic aspects of the “end times”.  He’s the boss and we’ll do it His way, for love and with faith and hope.

That said, these days of ours feel strange and ominous.  There are “signs of the times”.  Especially this year there are “signs of the times”, which seem to be lining up this year in a way that hardly seems coincidental.

I read at Life Site that Raymond Card. Burke made an observation that “confusion, division, and error” within the Catholic Church coming from “shepherds” indicate that we “may be” in the end times.

It is hard to disagree.  However, Card. Burke offered some great points for how we ought to proceed on this supposition.

  • Pray for an increase of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ “Who is alive for us in the Church and Who never fails to teach sanctify and guide us in the Church” and whose “teaching does not change.”
  • “Study more attentively the teachings of the faith contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and be prepared to defend those teachings against any falsehood which would erode the faith and thus the unity of the Church.” [More below.]
  • Gather together to “deepen their faith and to encourage one another.”
  • Go to the Blessed Virgin Mary…in order to seek her maternal intercession.
  • Invoke frequently throughout the day the intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel
  • Pray daily to St. Joseph, especially under the title of “Terror of Demons” for the “peace of the Church, for her protection against all forms of confusion and division which are always the work of Satan.”
  • Pray for the Pope, especially through the intercession of St. Peter.
  • Pray for the Cardinals of the Church that they be of “true assistance to the Holy Father in exercising his office.”
  • “Remain serene because of our faith in Christ who will not permit the ‘gates of hell’ to prevail against his Church.”
  • “Safeguard especially our faith in the Petrine Office and our love for the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Francis.”

I want to add something that our pastors often neglect: our sacred liturgical worship must be revitalized and purified, Novus Ordo and TLM, across the board, East and West, everyone, everywhere (especially, however, with the modern rite in the Catholic Church).

Here is my manifesto from years ago.  Save The Liturgy – Save The World

[…]

Celebrate Mass well, participate properly – affect the whole world. Celebrate poorly – affect the whole world.

In each age since Christ’s Ascension, people have felt they were in the End Times. They were right. In any moment, when the conditions are right, the Lord could return.

Considering what is happening in the world now, I am pushed to think about the way Mass is being celebrated, even the number of Masses being celebrated. Once there were many communities of contemplatives, spending time before the Blessed Sacrament or in contemplation, in collective and in private prayer. There were many more Masses.

Many more people went to confession.

Who can know how they all lifted burdens from the world and turned large and small tides by their prayers to God for mercy and in reparation for sin?

We have a role to play in the “end times”.

The other aspect of this is that confusion is coming from our duly appointed shepherds.

What do we do about that?

At other times, I have suggested that you good readers out there start forming base communities of resistance against confusion.  Let’s call them:

Base Communities of Resistance Against Confusion.

Let’s have a

Permanent Revolution Against Confusion

Are your pastors causing confusion through strange or confused or errant teachings?  Are the telling only a part of the truth, in such a way that they mislead?

Get informed.

Form reading groups and study the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The start asking questions when we hear something wrong or strange or confusing.

Ask LOTS of questions.

 

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Four Last Things, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged , , ,
11 Comments