URGENT: Benedict XVI’s new text about Sacred Liturgy – The Russian Preface™

For years I have contended that if we do not revitalize our sacred liturgical worship, every initiative we undertake as a Church will wither and face.  Everything we do must start in worship and must be brought back to liturgical worship.  We must reorder our efforts, prioritize if we truly want renewal.

This is one of the reasons that I pound my head on my desk when I read about conferences about “New Evangelization” that lack a strong liturgical component (other than the de rigueur vanilla Novus Ordo Mass with concelebration with some bishop or other for the attendees).

A friend tipped me to something in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera: a newly released text written by Benedict XVI in 2015: a preface for a Russian translation of the volume of his Opera Omnia on liturgy and liturgical theology.

This text – and volume – is being issued for the occasion of his 90th birthday, which coincides with Easter, and which is also Easter this year for the Orthodox (a “sign of the times”?).

Moreover – get this – the Patriarch of Moscow had the volume – on liturgy – from Benedict’s Opera Omnia translated into Russian.

There’s a lot going on there.  Let’s unpack it.

US HERE – UK HERE

Some years ago, a project was undertaken to edit and to publish all Joseph Ratzinger’s works (Opera Omnia) in a series of definitive volumes.  (The projected volumes: HERE)  Then-Bishop, now Card. Müller was editor of the series.   The project has had its ups and downs, at least in the English translation and publication.  Ignatius Press was handling it.

In 2008 Benedict wrote the preface for the first volume of the Opera Omnia that was issued (in fact it’s Vol. XI) which includes his writings about liturgy and liturgical theology.

That was the correct choice: they began with the single issue that connects and roots all other issues even as it also indicates the Church’s direction and goal.  After all, the celebration of the Eucharist and the Eucharist Itself is the “source and summit” of the Church’s life.

It is interesting that the Russian Orthodox got on board with this.  No?

Do you long-time readers recall I what tagged Benedict XVI?

Pope of Christian Unity.

This was an ecumenical signal on the part of the Russians: watching the Catholic Church they, too, are concerned about our worship.  They clearly think that Benedict’s thought is worth promoting.

What does Pope Benedict say in his preface to the Russian edition?

He starts off with the famous phrase from the Rule of Benedict 43: Nihil operi Dei praeponitur… Put nothing before liturgical worship of God.   Literally, this is “let nothing be put before the work of God”, but ‘opera Dei‘ here means ‘liturgy’, which includes Mass and the public recitation of the Office, especially.  Let nothing have precedence over worship even other great earthly matters are pressing.  That was taken literally: when it was time to pray the office, monks were to stop what they were doing and, immediately, go to pray.  They subsequently returned to their tasks and their tasks were consequently themselves transformed by what they did.

Benedict spoke about this very phrase “Nihil operi Dei praeponitur” back in 2013 during his final encounter with priests of the Diocese of Rome, when he made the point that Vatican II also started with liturgy.  He made that very point again in his first preface to the Omnia Opera liturgy volume.  He clarified even then that, although this rock solid, pivotal principle rises from a monastic context, it nevertheless is a necessary guideline for the rest of the Church.  The monastic life provides a guiding force for the life of the active Church.

Back to Benedict and The Russian Preface™.  My translation (with my emphases):

Nihil Operi Dei praeponitur – Let nothing be put before the Work of God. With these words St. Benedict, in his Rule (43.3), established the absolute priority of divine Worship in respect to every other duty of monastic life. This, even though it is in monastic life, was now immediately to be assumed because, for monks, an essential duty was also in agricultural work and in learning [scienza]. In agriculture, just as in craftsmanship, and in the work of formation there could certainly be temporal exigencies that could appear to be more important than liturgy. In the face of this, Benedict, with the priority assigned to liturgy, unequivocally underscored the priority of God Himself in our life: “As soon as the signal for the time of the divine office is heard, let everyone, leaving whatever he hath in his hands, hasten with all speed, yet with gravity” (43:1).

Things of God, and with them the liturgy, do not appear to be at all essential [urgenti] in the consciousness of the men of today. There is an urgency for every possible matter. The issue of God does not ever seem to be pressing.  Now, one could affirm that, in any case, monastic life is something different from the life of the men in the world, and this is unquestionably true.  Nevertheless, the priority of God, which we have forgotten, is important for everyone. If God isn’t important anymore, the criteria for establishing that which is important are shifted. Man, in setting God aside, submits himself to constraints that make him the slave of material forces and that are thus opposed to his dignity.

In the years following the Second Vatican Council, I became aware once again of the priority of God and of the divine liturgy. The misinterpretation of the liturgical reform that was widely diffused in the Catholic Church led to putting in the first place more and more the aspect of instruction and of one’s own activity and creativity. Man’s “doing” almost led to forgetting God’s presence. In this kind of situation, it becomes ever clearer that the Church’s existence lives from the proper celebration of the liturgy and that the church is in danger when the primacy of God no longer appears in the liturgy and, therefore, in life. The most profound cause of the crisis , which has disturbed (sconvolto – “upset, shocked, ‘freaked out'”) the Church, rests in the obscuring of the priority of God in the liturgy.  All of this brought me to dedicate myself more extensively than in the past to the theme of the liturgy because I knew that the true renewal of the liturgy is the fundamental condition for the renewal of the Church. The writings that are collected in the present volume XI of the Opera Omnia were born on the basis of this conviction.  But, in the final analysis, even with all the differences, the essence of the liturgy in the East and in the West is one and the same.  And so I hope that this book can help also the Christians of Russia to grasp in a new and better way the great gift that is given to us in the Sacred Liturgy.

Vatican City
Feast of St. Benedict
11 July 2015

Benedict identifies the problem we face as a Church.  The Church’s identity has been “freaked out”, as it were, by the upheaval caused by the damage done to our sacred liturgical worship.

And now we are in a “situazione … situation”, as he put it, a typically Ratzingerian understatement.  I wonder what German word he chose: Zustand?  Lage?  In any event, his calm words ring with an urgent call to action: “Rome, we have a ‘situation’.”

Didn’t Card. Sarah make this same point recently in his address to the conference in Germany for the 10th anniversary of Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum?   Yes, he did.  He spoke of “devastation”.  The usual libs had a nutty right on schedule.

For years I hammered away at my conviction that Benedict has laid out, especially in Summorum Pontificum and his own ars celebrandi, a kind of “Marshall Plan” for the Church.  You long-time readers here will remember this, but it has been a while since I’ve presented it.

Here it is again:

After World War II many regions of Europe were devastated, especially its large cities and manufacturing.  These USA helped rebuild Europe through the Marshall Plan so as to foster good trading partners and, through prosperity, stand as a bulwark against Communism.

After Vatican II many spheres of the Church were devastated, especially its liturgical and catechetical life. We need a Plan to rebuild our Catholic identity so that we can stand, for ourselves as members of the Church and in the public square for the good of society, as a bulwark – indeed a remedy – against the dictatorship of relativism.

NB: In his brief preface, above, Benedict says that if God is obscured, then our criteria for what is important shifts.  Relativism dominates us.  Where is our most regular and obvious, strengthening and informing meeting and attention with God?  Liturgy.  With out this constant formation and transformation, we have no idea who we are or what is important.

If we don’t know who we are as Catholics, if we don’t know what we believe or pray as Catholics, then the world has no reason to listen to anything we have to say as Catholics.  We will fragment into little self-enclosed groups, islands.  Enervated and drifting, we will be all the more easily driven from the public square by the enemies of objective truth, goodness and beauty.

I have been saying for years that, for any revitalization of our Catholic identity to be successful, we must renew our liturgical worship of God.

We need action in every other sphere as well, but … but… without a renewed sacred liturgical worship, nothing else will stand.  Everything else we do is inexorably tied to our encounter with the transcendent in worship.

Therefore, we must not give preference to any activity in the Church over our sacred liturgical worship.  This is a sine qua non existential priority.

Contrary to the notions of most liberals and progressivists, “the Catholic thing” did not begin in the 1960s.  Hence, I believe that Summorum Pontificum is a key to Benedict’s vision, his “Marshall Plan” as I call it.

His new Russian preface bears out exactly what I have been saying for years and it reaffirms me in my work.

HENCE….

We must work for the prudent and yet energetic application of Summorum Pontificum as far and as widely as possible.

Never be discouraged.

My recommendations follow:

1) Work with sweat and money to make it happen. If you thought you worked hard before?   Been at this a long time?  HAH!  Get to work!  “Oooo! It’s tooo haaard!”  BOO HOO!

2) Get involved with all the works of charity that your parishes or groups sponsor. Make a strong showing. Make your presence known. If Pope Francis wants a Church for the poor, then we respond, “OORAH!!” The “traditionalist” will be second-to-none in getting involved.  “Dear Father… you can count on the ‘Stable TLM Group” to help with the collection of clothing for the poor!  Tell us what you need!”

3) Pray and fast and give alms. Think you have been doing that? HAH!  Think again.  If you love, you can do more.

4) Form up and get organized.  You can do this.  Find like minded people and get that request for the implementation of Summorum Pontificum together, how you will raise the money to help buy the stuff the parish will need and DO IT.  Make a plan. Find people. Execute!

5) Get your ego and your own petty little personal interpretations and preferences of how Father ought to wiggle his pinky at the third word out of the way.  It is team-work time.  If we don’t sacrifice individually, we will stay divided and we won’t achieve our objectives.

6) Fathers… MAN UP.   Get informed.  LEARN YOUR RITE!   Educate.

7) Don’t whine and blame others.

8) When you get what you want… DON’T REST.

As I have previously posted Pope Benedict gave you, boys and girls, a beautiful new bicycle!  He gave you a direction, some encouragement, a snow cone, and a running push.  Now, take off the training wheels and RIDE THE DAMN BIKE!

Posted in Benedict XVI, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Pope of Christian Unity, SESSIUNCULA, The future and our choices, Turn Towards The Lord | Tagged , , , ,
9 Comments

D. Madison – Sacred Triduum PHOTOS

The Tridentine Mass Society of the Diocese of Madison is working for the New Evangelization.    We are dedicated to helping the diocese and parishes in their revitalization of our sacred liturgical worship.

Here are some pics from the parish’s Sacred Triduum celebrated at St. Mary’s in Pine Bluff in the Extraordinary Form.

Holy Thursday

My friend Fr. Charles Johnson, USN did the honors.  We were blessed also to have Fr. Christopher Young form Davenport as Subdeacon.

17_04_13_SMPB_HThurs_01 17_04_13_SMPB_HThurs_02  17_04_13_SMPB_HThurs_07 17_04_13_SMPB_HThurs_08

Good Friday

17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_01 17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_02 17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_03 17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_05 17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_06 17_04_14_SMPB_GFriday_07

Vigil of Easter

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_01

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_02

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_03

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_03

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_04 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_05 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_06 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_07 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_08 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_09 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_10 17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_11   17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_14

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_21

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_16

 

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_12

17_04_15_SMPB_Vigil_13

Easter Sunday

17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_01 17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_02

17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_06

17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_05

17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_04   17_04_16_SMPB_EasterSunday_07

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices | Tagged
14 Comments

Your Easter Vigil and Easter Sunday Sermon Notes

Was there a good point made in the sermons you heard for the Vigil of Easter?

Was there a good point made in the sermon you heard for your Easter Sunday Mass of obligation?

Let us know!

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
19 Comments

VIDEO: Her Triumph

The wonderful Benedictine Nuns in Missouri, the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles sent me a note about a video they have for the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.

The video features a cut from their disc which you have heard in some of my podcasts.

US HERE – UK HERE

Please visit their site: HERE

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
Comments Off on VIDEO: Her Triumph

Good Friday 3 April AD 33 – Eclipses as Christ died on the Cross

This is definitely worth reposting.

The fellow who made the video about the Star of Bethlehem (a compelling argument, I might add), also did some research about what happened in the heavens on Good Friday.

Let’s break it down.

Passover begins on the 14th day of the Jewish lunar month of Nisan. Moreover, Passover begins at twilight, dividing 14 Nisan and 15 Nissan. The Gospels say the Lord was crucified on Preparation Day, a Friday.  14 Nisan 14 fell on a Friday Preparation Day, twice: 7 April AD 30 and 3 April AD 33.  Daniel in 444 BC prophesied (Daniel 9:21–26) that the Anointed one would be cut off in 476 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem: AD 33.

The Bible records that, at the time of the crucifixion and death of the Lord, there were signs, including a “blood moon” or lunar eclipse.

Only one Passover lunar eclipse was visible from Jerusalem while Pilate was in office. It occurred on 3 April 33.

On 3 April the Moon rose already in eclipse.  It rose the color of blood.  That means that the eclipse began before it rose, in the constellation of the Virgin (at the time of Christ’s birth there was a New Moon, in the constellation of the Virgin).

The eclipse started at 3 pm when Christ was breathing His last.

But remember that a lunar eclipse is a syzygy!

If there is an eclipse in one direction there is an eclipse in the other direction too.

If you were standing on the Moon during that syzygy of 3 April 33, you would see a total eclipse of the Sun.

The blotted Sun would be in the heart of the constellation of the Ram (cf. “the Lamb who was slain”).

You can try this out for yourselves.  Go to the online astronomy aid Starry Night.  HERE

Move your location to Jerusalem and then plug in the time of about 7 pm and date 3 April 33 and adjust your view to ESE.  You will see the Moon has just risen and there is a label for your Earth’s shadow.  The Moon had risen at about 6:30 pm in the totality of the eclipse. HERE

15_04_03_eclipse_Crucifixion_01

Click

With the daylight turned off, and the horizon removed, and then looking at an angle down through the Earth below the horizon, at 3 pm, you see the Moon and Earth’s shadow converging in Virgo.

15_04_03_eclipse_Crucifixion_02

Then you can switch to the view from the Moon!

You must adjust your view a little and turn yourself right with a few clicks.  But you will find it.  In the screenshot, below, you can see where Earth and Sun are in Aries. Since the Earth would be larger in the Moon’s sky than in this screenshot, the Sun would be in total eclipse.  Adjust for UTC + 3 hours to the right time in Jerusalem from 1500 to 1800. HERE

15_04_03_eclipse_Crucifixion_03

Click

In read around the question a little more, I find that, using different date calculators, there are some problems of the day of the week.  Also, there are arguments for dating the Crucifixion to 1 April 33.  If that is the case, then the phenomena described above occur on Easter Sunday.  Much hinges on which calendar the Lord and His disciples were using for their own Passover meal, if the last Supper was a Passover meal (Joseph Ratzinger argued that it was a related sacrificial meal but not a seder.)

Definitive?  Not quite.  But it is not to be discounted that God, from all Eternity knowing exactly what would happen, set the heaven’s in motion in so precise a way that its signs would help us to understand the mysteries taking place, which were in other ways foreshadowed.   In the sacraments (a term interchangable with “mystery” in many contexts), visible signs help us to understand that insensible graces and transformations are taking place.  If in the signs of the sacraments, why not too signs in the heavens?

Posted in Classic Posts, Just Too Cool, Linking Back | Tagged ,
12 Comments

The Banner of the Five Wounds

Fr. Hunwicke has brought us the news that the mighty Banner of the Five Wounds – beloved of Catholics and hated by their Protestant persecutors – again flies free.  He posted that the Catholic chaplaincy in Cardiff has flown the beautiful flag.  HERE  Also, the Chaplaincy’s Facebook page displays a photo.  HERE

five wounds flag

I want one!

¡Hagan lío!

Posted in ¡Hagan lío!, "How To..." - Practical Notes, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Just Too Cool | Tagged ,
6 Comments

Fascinating exchanges over the meaning of ‘Amoris laetitia’ – Is some clarity emerging?

square_cricleIf you haven’t been following this, you might tune in.

Pope Francis’ document Amoris laetitia has sparked sharp divisions and debates.  The sides have drawn up pretty much into two camps… well… three if you count the uninformed, which is pretty large.

For the 1st anniversary of Amoris, Washington DC’s Archbishop Card. Wuerl said:

He notes that the pastoral guidance of Amoris Laetitia, found in chapter 8, has been controversial, but explains why there is no cause for alarm:

“The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability…..

“The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed…. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances.”

Fr Raymond de Souza then made the sound point at the ever iffy Crux that the bishops of Malta, in their guidelines for applying Chapter 8 issued a while back (aka “The Maltese Fiasco”), the bishops of Germany and curial Cardinal Coccopalmerio think that something has changed.  Whereas Card. Wuerl tries to uphold John Paul II’s teaching in Familiaris consortio, the others say Amoris revises it.

So, in simple terms within this complicated debate, there are a couple camps.  One camp holds that doctrine and discipline haven’t changed, and the other holds that it has.  De Souza  rightly concludes that they can’t both be right.

Then, again at iffy Crux  – and this is another example of why Crux is iffy – the former editor of the ultra-liberal Pill (aka The Tablet), Austen Ivereigh, and now an editor for Crux – wrote a condescending rebuttal of Fr. de Souza stating:

The hermeneutic of interpretation of Pope Francis’s document on the joy of love, says Wuerl, is that the Church’s teaching on marriage has not changed. Questioning that idea, de Souza responds that Wuerl can only be right if the German and Maltese bishops are wrong.

This is a classic maneuver of those whom the cardinal accurately describes as “challenging the integrity” of Amoris. De Souza says he hopes Wuerl is right, that “nothing has changed”; but if it hasn’t, then how can the Maltese bishops say “something has changed?”

But Wuerl never says nothing has changed. He says church teaching and laws on marriage haven’t changed.

Something has changed, not in church law or doctrine, but in moral theology and the pastoral application of sacramental discipline.

This shouldn’t be necessary to say, but for the record, Amoris Laetitia throughout its nine chapters upholds, promotes and passionately seeks to restore lifelong, faithful, stable, indissoluble unions.

In response to Ivereigh’s patronizing response to de Souza comes the deft canonist Ed Peters.

Peters published simultaneously at the Catholic World Report and his own blog In The Light Of The Law a post which reveals the fatal flaw in Ivereigh’s snooty piece.  Peters writes (with my emphases and comments):

Sever ‘canon law’ from ‘pastoral pratice’ and lots of things make sense

I am tempted to address at length Austen Ivereigh’s commentary onFr. Raymond de Souza’s observations on Cdl. Wuerl’s statementon Francis’ document Amoris laetitia, but at a certain point the law of diminishing returns sets leaving such an exercise tedious.

So let me just say: Ivereigh is free to argue that Amoris does not undermine Church teaching on sin, but he needs to respond to those who disagree with his claim with something more than paternalistic tsk-tsk’ing [Peters also noted Ivereigh’s condescension] and, before anything else, he needs to face the simple fact that Wuerl can’t be right (as I think he is, if narrowly read) and the bishops of Malta also be right (as I think they certainly are not)—which is de Souza’s main point.

The reason Ivereigh misses de Souza’s point is, I suspect, that, deep down, Ivereigh thinks that “canon law” and ‘approved pastoral practice’ are two fundamentally different things. [This error has infected a great many people today, churchmen, newsies, etc.  It is dangerous.] Thus Ivereigh could logically hold that canon law (including the barring of divorced-and-remarried Catholics from holy Communion) has remained the same, while at the same time holding that pastors may admit such persons to holy Communion under conditions other than those already recognized by the Church (namely, separation of abodes, or a commitment to live as brother-sister where the irregular marriage is not known). Ivereigh would be right, if canon law has little or nothing to do with what pastors should really do.

At some point I hope that Ivereigh et al will sit down, look at the text of Canon 915 and the numerous ecclesial values behind it, and recognize, among other things, that degrees of personal culpability (which Ivereigh and others go on and on and on about, as if that were the central insight his adversaries lack) have nothing to do with the operation of the objectively oriented Canon 915, the main law that controls pastoral practice in this area—whereupon they will do one of two things: (1) accept that tradition and promote it, or (2) acknowledge that tradition and honestly call for changing it.  [!] At which point all sides would be talking about the same, and the dispositive, issue.

What I fear is that, instead, Ivereigh et al, ignoring the connection that must, and usually does, exist between law and practice, will simply keep on repeating that canon law has not changed but good pastoral practice has. Which is a huge waste of time.

Peters got this exactly right.

I am reminded of the exchange in Aristophanes The Birds between Meton and Pisthetaerus.

Let’s be honest about what Amoris says and doesn’t say without verbose fan-dances which attempt to square the circle.

The ongoing debate about Amoris Ch. 8 reveals a possible approach of Pope Francis, who, so far at least, has declined to offer any clarifications.  He has not, for example, responded to the Five Dubia of the Four Cardinals.

As Tracy Rowand points out in her terrific new book Catholic Theology (HERE), …

If Pope Francis has sympathy for any particular approach to Catholic theology, it is that of ‘People’s Theology’. One of the most extensive articles on this subject is Juan Carlos Scannone’s ‘El papa Francisco y la teologia del pueblo’ published in the journal Razón y Fe. In this paper Scannone claims that not only is Pope Francis a practitioner of ‘People’s Theology’ but also that Francis extracted his favourite four principles – time is greater than space, unity prevails over conflict, reality is more important than ideas, and the whole is greater than the parts – from a letter of the nineteenth-century Argentinian dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793– 1877) sent to another Argentinian caudillo, Facundo Quiroga (1788– 1835), in 1834. These four principles, which are said to govern the decision-making processes of Pope Francis, have their own section in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium and references to one or other of them can be found scattered throughout his other papal documents. Pope Francis calls them principles for ‘building a people’.

A common thread running through each of these principles is the tendency to give priority to praxis over theory. [NOTA BENE…] There is also a sense that conflict in itself is not a bad thing, that ‘unity will prevail’ somehow and that time will remove at least some of the protagonists in any conflict. The underlying metaphysics is quite strongly Hegelian, and the approach to praxis itself resembles what Lamb classified as ‘cultural-historical’ activity and is associated primarily with Luther and Kant rather than Marx. (Kindle Locations 4226-4252)

The ongoing conflicts between the camps which have sharply divided over Amoris laetitia may reveal a kind of “Hegelian” approach to doing theology favored by the Holy Father: let the positions clash and, over time, things will settle down and there will have emerged a new approach, changes in doctrine, revised laws, etc.

In the meantime, Ed Peters got it right and Ivereigh got it wrong.  De Souza is right to point out that both Card. Wuerl (in what De Souza cites) and the bishops of German and Malta, etc., can’t both be right about Amoris.

Lastly, I renewed my serious questions about why the Knights of Columbus would bankroll Crux if this is what Crux is determined to produce. This is the second time that Crux – with the Knights’ money – has published something troubling by Ivereigh, whom Crux employees an editor.

Perhaps it is time for Knights to think about shedding their KC insurance.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Canon Law, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , , ,
34 Comments

2017 CROTALUS POLL!

It is customary on Holy Thursday, after the jubilant Gloria introduction, to stop ringing bells in church during the Triduum and, instead, use some kind of clacking or ratchet noisemaker called a crotalus in Latin.  More on those HERE.

Here’s a poll.  At your parish, for your Holy Thursday Mass, what did they use?  Choose your best answer and, if you are registered to comment, give us a description.  You don’t have to be registered to vote.

At 2017 Holy Thursday Mass they...

View Results

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged , ,
31 Comments

ASK FATHER: About delegation and the proper form of SSPX marriages

12_07_10_marriage_01From a reader…

I recently read your post regarding the recently-announced changes to the validity of marriages witnessed by SSPX priests, and I am confused. How does this change anything? Doesn’t Canon 1108 already give bishops and pastors the power to delegate ANY priest or deacon to assist at a marriage in order for that marriage to have proper form?
If this is the case, a bishop or priest only has to delegate an SSPX priest to witness a particular marriage for that marriage to have proper form according to canon 1108, correct?

GUEST PRIEST CANONIST RESPONSE:

Canon 1108 gives the Ordinary or the pastor the authority to delegate a priest or deacon to officiate at a wedding within the scope of their jurisdiction, however, that priest or deacon thus delegated must be capable of doing so.

Priests of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X have been ordained illicitly (without dimissorial letters from an Ordinary capable of issuing them). They are therefore ipso facto suspended from exercising that order (canon 1383).  Pope Benedict reaffirmed, when he lifted the excommunications of the bishops of the SSPX, that “the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

Hence, in order to permit the priests of the Society licitly to officiate at weddings, the recent action of His Holiness, Pope Francis, was necessary. It was a helpful step towards the (God-willing) full reincorporation of the Society and its many good works into full and unimpaired communion with the rest of the Church.

The moderation queue is ON.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Canon Law, One Man & One Woman, SSPX | Tagged , , , , ,
23 Comments

ASK FATHER: I’m 80 and I can’t kneel for Communion at a Traditional Mass

The other day Bp. Morlino told the priests of the Diocese of Madison that they should encourage their congregations to kneel to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

This is a wonderful development which will make a great difference in parishes where it is applied.

altar communion railToday I received from a reader…

QUAERITUR:

As a young man I knelt at the communion rail to receive Jesus on my tongue. Now being 80 with knee operations, how would I present myself for Communion at a Latin Mass, knowing that I would not be able to get back up? Thank you Father

Commonsense must be applied here.

If you cannot kneel physically, without real problems, then don’t kneel physically.  Make a reverent bow and stand.

Perhaps you might tell the Lord on your way forward, “I’d kneel if I could … my spirit is willing, but my knees are weak.” and then, if you can muster such a thing, kneel in your heart.

And do receive directly on the tongue.

At the same time, it is important to be supportive of everyone else who kneels and genuflects.  Don’t just say, “Well, I can’t!” and leave it at that.  You should say, “I can’t but I sure wish that I could!  I’m glad that you can.  Kneel a lot while you are able!”

We must bring back postures of humility in worship in order to recover humility in worship.

Finally, the way you worded this suggests to me that you might not go to the traditional for of Mass because you can’t kneel.  Don’t let difficulties with kneeling or genuflecting keep you away.   Nobody will think twice about an 80 year old standing to receive Communion.  Now, if you were 20 and clearly good shape , you might get a couple glances.

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