Reese makes his 6577th mistake

Over at Fishwrap the cracks are widening. They are losing John Allen. They closed the combox. MSW is deeply into logorrhea. They are panicky.

Now I see a piece by Thomas Reese, SJ, who was removed from his editor’s position at America Magazine about a month after Benedict became Pope (HERE), entitled “Francis makes his first mistake“.

Reese – not a lover of the Roman Curia – is unhappy with four of Francis’ nominations to the cardinalate. Reese is unhappy that heads of Roman curial dicasteries are still going to be cardinals. That means that heads of dicasteries get to play on the major league team. Well, bad news to Reese: curial heads still get to wear the big league uniform and they will still wield power. More bad news for Reese is that with these four men getting getting the red hat from Francis, four others more to Reese’s liking will not get it.

But here is a sentence that Reese tries to slip into his argument without you noticing it.

It was very easy for the Vatican to take back control during the papacy of John Paul.

HUH?

In Reese’s parallel universe, it was the those bad meanies in John Paul’s curia who took back power during John Paul’s time. It couldn’t have been John Paul! Oh, no. Remember, liberals like to love on John Paul … now that he is dead. They hated him when he was alive.

There’s more:

But under John Paul II, the decentralization was reversed and power reverted to the Vatican. That is why we have the terrible English translation used in parishes today.

LOL! Still whining about the translation, too.

No, it was John Paul who wanted to reverse the decentralization. This was his doing. Cards. Sodano or Ratzinger weren’t acting on their own. John Paul II brought Ratzinger to Rome and told him to go after X, Y, Z. He told them, “Get me back the Church. Get Catholic theology back.” It was John Paul II who hit the reset button and slowed the the spiraling chaos of dissent in the local churches that Paul VI allowed. Look, I am not fan of Card. Sodano, by a long shot, but John Paul II wanted him to strengthen the Curia, and strengthen the Curia he did.

And let’s here leave aside that the Curia ballooned under the liberals’ darling, Paul VI.

Let’s not forget our history. It isn’t as if the Roman Curia took control from local churches and the Pope just watched it passively or turned a blind eye. This was John Paul II’s design. He determined that the local churches were incapable of playing the role they were assuming. Liturgy, inter-religious dialogue, doctrine, moral theology, seminaries, religious life…. These are just a few spheres in which local churches had failed.

No, centralization was a Johanine-Pauline goal. Benedict XVI continued it.

The rest of Reese’s piece is detritus.

But Reese tried to slip in a whopper.

Posted in Liberals, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , , ,
20 Comments

Archbp. Müller nails it in Valencia

Soon-to-be-Card. Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave a talk in Valencia, Spain.  Here is a salient point.

From CNA:

Archbishop Müller encourages unity serving evangelization, mission

[…]

The Church, he said, “is not a federation of national Churches or a global alliance of confessionally related ecclesial communities, which respect, by human tradition, the Bishop of Rome as an honorary president,” but is what both “testifies to, and realizes, the unity of peoples in Christ.”

The doctrine chief explained that the college of bishops “serves the Church’s unity,” founded on Christ, and that “a bishop can only be pastor of a local Church, and not president of a federation of regional and continental ecclesial alliances.”

He added that national conferences “cannot be a pure objective principle” in the Church, for the office of bishop is essentially one of “personal testimony”: therefore “the principle of the unity of the episcopacy itself is incarnated in a person.

Read the rest there.

If you want to learn more about local churches and regional conferences and their relation to the Supreme Pontiff, check out Apostolos suos.

Posted in Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
17 Comments

Not more Catholic than the Popes

In case you have forgotten already, it’s the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity!  I am sure that you have participated in many meaningful celebrations.

In the Low Countries, however, a shadow has been cast over this august occasion.

Protestants are shocked and saddened that a cardinal and bishop of the Holy Roman Church says that the decisions of the Council of Trent were valid!

From The Tablet:

Dutch cardinal’s defence of Trent casts shadow [Ooooo!] over Unity week

22 January 2014 11:00

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity has been overshadowed [because the Week is such a big deal] in the Netherlands by a row over a statement by Cardinal Willem Eijk that the decisions of the Council of Trent were still fully valid.

Cardinal Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht and head of the Dutch bishops’ conference, told the Protestant daily Reformatorisch Dagblad that the Council’s condemnations of Martin Luther’s teachings, for example on the Eucharist, still justified excluding Protestants from receiving communion in the Catholic Church.

The Council was “a sign of the self-cleansing power” of the Church because it corrected abuses that had developed in its ranks, he said.

The Protestant response was cool.

“It is not biblical to say the Church is always right,” said Gerrit de Fijter, chairman of the Protestant National Synod.

Bas Plaisier, former head of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, said he “didn’t understand what [Eijk] is doing.” [I’ll bet that’s true.]

A Catholic theologian, Marcel Poorthuis from Tilburg University, said Eijk was being more negative than Pope Benedict XVI about Protestants.

Church spokeswoman Anna Kruse expressed shock at the reactions and noted that Eijk had called the Trent condemnations “mainly a theoretical issue” and did not intend to offend Protestants.

Imagine such a thing!  A Cardinal mentions the Council of Trent… favorably!

In doing so, Card. Eijk did what Favorite Popes of Protestants (a very thin book) have done before him.

Do you remember what Blessed, soon-to-be-Saint John XXIII, said in his speech as Vatican II began, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia“, which opened the Church to the world and to our Protestant sisters and brothers?

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

“For this a council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith or the truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing, the manner in which these truths are set forth – in the same meaning and understanding – is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”

And what did Pope Francis say about Trent?

You will recall that Pope Francis sent Walter Card. Brandmüller as his representative for the observance of the anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent. In the official letter Francis sent to Card. Brandmüller the Pope wrote:

Harking closely to the same Spirit, Holy Church in this age renews and meditates on the most abundant doctrine of the Council of Trent. In fact, the “hermeneutic of renewal”[interpretatio renovationis] which Our Predecessor Benedict XVI explained in 2005 before the Roman Curia, refers in no way less to the Council of Trent than to the Vatican Council. To be sure, this mode of interpretation places under a brighter light a beautiful characteristic of the Church which is taught by the Lord Himself: “She is a ‘subject’ which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas greetings – 22 December 2005).

By now, you regular readers will remember these connections instantly.  I have written about them before.  HERE

The Tablet… whingers.  They make this so easy.

Posted in Francis, Lighter fare, The Drill, Vatican II | Tagged , , , ,
18 Comments

ASK FATHER: Can a priest set a general parish policy of no Communion in the hand?

From a reader… QUAERITUR:

I’m in a Novus Ordo Parish . Our assistant pastor recently announced that he would only give communion on the tongue and his extraordinary minister was instructed to do the same.

A woman insisted on the hand and she went back to her pew without receiving because the priest (or extraordinary minister, don’t know which) the priest had announced (or EM, told) that ONLY on the tongue at his masses. Somebody complained (perhaps, herself) to the Pastor and he did not back up the assistant pastor.

What led to this (I just found out from the man that assists with the paten at his masses) was that the priest saw a woman place the Blessed Sacrament in her purse and the priest had the man assisting him to follow her and make her receive or bring back the purse. She told the man that she was sending the Host to her son in Pakistan. Also Hosts have been found on the floor and stepped on and Hosts have been found between the pages of the missals.

It is now, against the priest’s conscience to give on the hand. He fears for the desecration of Our Lord.

In discussing this with another priest, … I was told that there is a clause (somewhere) about a priest allowed to insist on Communion on the tongue if it is against his conscience.

My QUESTION is: Where can I find this ruling in order to help this assistant priest?

He is suffering much for going against his conscience.

Should he follow his conscience (Pope Francis says we should, huh?) or should he follow the pastor’s lack of understanding.

First, this pertains to the Novus Ordo, the Ordinary Form.  Communion in the hand is not allowed at the Extraordinary Form.  (Yet another reason for more Masses in the Extraordinary Form…. but I digress).

Also, HERE the link to a response, published a while back in Notitiae (the official publication the Congregation for Divine Worship) that aims at the heart of this matter. The original question in Notitiae asked whether a priest (or other minister), in a place where communion in the hand was permitted, can prohibit the faithful from receiving on the tongue and receive only on the hand. The Congregation answers that question in the negative, but then goes on to say: “The priest celebrant, is not to give communion in the hand of the faithful if there is present danger of sacrilege…”

This response, which doesn’t seem to be the same as a law, leaves the determination up to the priest saying Mass on a case by case basis.  It would be wrong for an associate pastor to announce a universal policy against communion in the hand: he does not have an office which permits him to “set policy,” and he should act in coordination with the pastor.

Also, in the authoritative document Redemptionis Sacramentum 92 we read:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Sounds familiar, right?

Redemptionis Sacramentum is a juridic document, it lays down the law, it is in AAS 96/9, pp. 549ff, and it was approved by the Supreme Pontiff who ordered that it be obeyed.  It has not been superseded.

In individual circumstances, if the priest (or Extraordinary minister, I suppose) believes there is a real danger of profanation, it the Holy See would surely back him up in prohibiting someone from receiving in the hand.

I can see refusing to give Holy Communion in the hand to a woman whom Father has seen put a Sacred Host in her purse.  He would be within his rights (and it is, in fact, his responsibility) to make sure any and all who receive Holy Communion in the hand consume the host in his presence.  The law backs him up.  But he needs prudence and knowledge to deal with the situation.

That said, an associate should have spoken with the pastor before announcing a “policy” that he doesn’t have the authority to implement.

Of course this is all reason #10 for Summorum Pontificum, isn’t it.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM | Tagged , , , , ,
83 Comments

“Theme Mass” hijinx

CLICK. Help me pay for my "AFFORDABLE" Health Care!

For your Say The Black – Do The Red file comes this from the sometimes amusing Eye of the Tiber:

San Francisco, CA–Citing a lack of time and energy, as well as feeling the “total absence of the liturgical muse,” local pastor Father Mike Conway this week spent close to no time at all considering a theme for this Sunday’s Mass. “I remember just ten years ago when I could come up here with my jeans and piece of straw in my mouth for a Hillbilly Mass, before changing into a Barney costume for my Children’s Mass,” Conway said, fondly describing a time when the uncharted landscape of Mass themes seemed as boundless as the sea. “Ah, yes…those were days of adventure; days when a priest could become a sort of clerical Columbus, voyaging his own imagination for the most absurd and inventive themes to keep the Mass from getting stale. Indeed, those were the days. But alas, after so many Clown Masses, Superhero Masses, Meme Masses, Luau Masses, World Cup Masses, and Atheist Masses, it seems as though the liturgical muse has hidden himself from mine eyes.” Conway went on to say that he was not the only priest having trouble coming up with new themes and that many had been dipping into old “routines” for years now. “So this week, unfortunately, my flock is going to just have to sit and put up with me wearing vestments and reading from the Missal. Ohh…you know what? Maybe I can have a reverent theme. That might be funny.” At press time, Conway is preparing a Latin themed Mass, in which everything would be said in Latin, and everyone would be dressed as centurions.

A stumble right at the finish line, but otherwise amusing because it was dead-on.

Posted in Lighter fare, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged
17 Comments

The Feeder Feed: Newly discovered ancient Byzantine edition

A reader sent me a link to an article at The Mail about a newly discovered mosaic floor of a 1500 year-old Byzantine church some 30 miles south of Tel Aviv, Israel.

There are lots of photos available, but here is one to whet the old appetite.

There are all sorts of critters in these mosaics.  The floor must have been spectacular.

And to think that some people have to endure carpet in their churches.  O the black grief of the world.

Posted in Just Too Cool, The Feeder Feed | Tagged ,
15 Comments

Fr. Hunwicke on “The Big Lie”

I hope hereby to draw the readership’s attention to the blog of Fr. John Hunwicke, Mutual Enrichment (olim “Liturgical Notes“).  In particular Fr. Hunwicke posted two entries:

Since I have often been – much to my amusement – accused of being a crypto-Lefebvrite – the first title caught my eye.  Both entries are worth your attention, as is pretty much everything Fr. Hunwicke posts.

However, in the second entry I found this, which merits a wider audience:

Secondly: Summorum pontificum confirmed juridically that the Latin Church had lived for some four decades under the dominion of a lie. [RIGHT!] The Vetus Ordo had not been lawfully prohibited. Much persecution of devout priests and layfolk that took place during those decades is therefore now seen to have been vis sine lege. For this so long to have been so true with regard to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which lies at the heart of the Church’s life, argues a profound illness deep within the Latin Church. And the Big Lie[™] was reinforced by multitudes of Little Lies[™] … that the Council mandated reordered Sanctuaries … that the Council mandated exclusive use of the vernacular … The de facto situation created by the Big Lie and the Little Lies combined ought not to be regarded as normative. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?] Its questionable parentage must give it a degree of provisionality, even (perhaps especially) to those who find it comfortable to live with. The onslaught upon the Franciscans of the Immaculate suggests that there are those, high in the Church’s administration, who have still internalised neither the juridical findings of Summorum pontificum nor its pastoral call for harmony.

Read the rest there.   His commentary on “conciliar hermeneutics” is also good.

By the way… it really is Summorum Pontificum rather than Summorum pontificum.  Pontifices, referring to Popes of yesteryear, is, in papal documents capitalized.   This can be confusing.  We should write, for example, Lumen gentium and not Lumen Gentium.  On the other hand, we write Sacrosanctum Concilium not Sacrosanctum concilium.  A small point.

Fr. Z kudos to Fr. Hunwicke.

 

Posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, Vatican II | Tagged , ,
26 Comments

Amusing, in a nauseating, slimy way.

Any time I come into even tangential contact with MSNBC I feel the need for a shower.

This, however, shows just how blinkered those blighters are.  From Examiner.com:

MSNBC host shocked to learn Pope Francis opposes abortion

For liberals, abortion is the closest thing to a religious sacrament. [I would say that abortion is a liberal ‘sacrament’.  It is certainly the feminist liberal ‘sacrament’.] But the fact that Pope Francis — a man Breitbart.com said has received a “strange new respect” from liberals over income inequality — opposes abortion seemed to come as a shock to one MSNBC host, Newsbusters reported Wednesday.

On Wednesday, thousands turned out to participate in an annual event known as the “March for Life,” despite snow and frigid temperatures. Pope Francis sent a message of solidarity to the marchers, telling them he was there in spirit if not in person.

“I join the March for Life in Washington with my prayers, may God help us respect all life, especially the most vulnerable,” he said in a tweet.

But that didn’t sit too well with Chris Jansing, host of MSNBC’s “Jansing &Co.,” who “sniffed” at the thought Pope Francis supports the Catholic Church’s long-held belief that abortion is immoral and wrong, and said his views are “reflective of ways in which the church certainly has not changed.”

“Earth to Chris Jansing: The Catholic Church is and always will be pro-life. No amount of pushing from the liberals at MSNBC will change that,” Newsbusters’ Jeffrey Meyer wrote.

[…]

Just how thick are these people?

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Francis, Liberals, Lighter fare, Our Catholic Identity, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, You must be joking! | Tagged , ,
25 Comments

Sad. Was this inevitable?

The fruits of Vatican II continue to enrich our lives.

From Clerical Whispers:

Oldest Benedictine convent in United States to close

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/e1a6a423-1888-4353-bc75-2c0c0c0bcfdb.jpgThe members of the oldest Benedictine convent in the United States have decided to close their convent, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. St. Joseph Monastery in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, now has 17 sisters; the youngest is 58. The sisters will move to other convents. The website of the Benedictine Sisters of Elk County notes: The first Benedictine convent in the United States was established in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, in 1852.

The founding nuns, Mother Benedicta Riepp and her two companions, originated from St. Walburga Abbey in Eichstatt, Bavaria.

They came at the invitation of Father Boniface Wimmer, OSB, to bring Benedictinism for women to America and also teach the children of the German immigrants.

In succeeding years their mission expanded to include hospital care and other works.

The community formed more branches over the years, so that today over fifty Benedictine monasteries in America and beyond can trace their roots to St. Marys.

Side note: Bonifatius Wimmer was a monk of Metten, where my mentor Augustine Card. Mayer, OSB, had been Abbot.  Wimmer eventually would also found also Latrobe.  This fellow was a great example for the NEW Evangelization.

One of his quotes:

“Forward, always forward, everywhere forward! We must not be held back by debts, bad years or by difficulties of the times. Man’s adversity is God’s opportunity.”

Reason #8 for Summorum Pontificum!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The future and our choices, Vatican II, Women Religious | Tagged , , ,
16 Comments

VIDEO: Brit Hume’s super opinion piece on abortion

Last night I heard Brit Hume’s opinion piece on FNC.  I am glad there is a video.

Do have a watch.  It is worth it.

YouTube thumbnailYouTube icon

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill | Tagged ,
19 Comments