Ash Wednesday and Lent

Repost from last year.

"Christ in the Desert" by Ivan Kranskoi
Browsing through the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found a few articles that are definitely worth a read to get a better understanding of the season of Lent.

Since tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, a good place to start is the entry on:

Ash Wednesdsay

(As a side note, I think I found a potential answer about the difference in the US and Rome. From the above article, it says that the faithful received ashes in the form of a cross upon their forehead, and that clerics would receive ashes in the form of a cross upon their tonsure (top of their head). One problem is that "tonsure" no longer exists. Another problem is that so many modernists don't like to distinguish between clerics and laity (as if that is something bad or clericalist). Not sure what or why the differences today.)

With that comes the observance upon Ash Wednesday (and Good Friday) of the:

Fast

On fascinating part mentions how fasting has been seen not only as just a religious observance, but also one of natural virtue as it fosters temperance.

It also explains many of the differences we have heard of in fasting, whether it be be not eating at all, having only one meal (The Black Fast), or having one normal meal with two small meals. Overall the conclusion becomes what is demanded by Church law and most importantly common sense.

Then this brings us fully into the season of:

Lent

Which shows a rather varied form of observance throughout the Church in both East and West due to Lent's rather "late" development compared to other annual feasts like Epiphany.

One interesting perspective was something of Saint Gregory the Great in looking at the fasting of Lent as a tithe to God:

"In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five."

And here are the relavent Canons on fasting and abstinence:

BOOK IV, PART III, TITLE II, CHAPTER II.

Days of Penance

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

All of these articles are definitely worth a read, and can help give us a proper understanding and more focused observance of Lent.

RS

Liturgical "loophole" for another plenary indulgence

Given that in the Extraordinary Form All Souls cannot fall on a Sunday, and so with it being moved to today this year, I would say that it would be possible to obtain another plenary indulgence for a soul in Purgatory today.

I'd also encourage any priests who are saying the Extraordinary Form to say all three Masses which they are allowed to say on this day.

This being the eve of election day, we need all the help from Heaven and Purgatory we can get.

RS

A man's return to full communion after leaving SSPX circles

I saw this over at Fr. Z.'s blog and found the full article very interesting and quite valuable.

As I say, it is hard now to retrace every step of that path but I want to give a structure to the considerations that follow, so I will organise them very much in the order which they occurred to me. My initial considerations concerned the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and so were connected to canonical issues. The second body of considerations concerned theological points of controversy, and were connected to the Church’s teachings and to Vatican II. My final considerations concerned the liturgy, and were thus connected to the Church’s worship. What horrified many of my friends and family at the time was not merely my separating from the SSPX, but my questioning the SSPX theses almost right across the board. What they did not understand was my realisation that, in each of these three areas – canonical, theological, liturgical - the SSPX had, albeit very worthily and with serious reasons, made the same false step. That at least is my opinion. I hope to make their false step clearer in due course.

Definitely worth reading the full post here:

Confessions of a Nobody or why I quit the SSPX milieu

RS

Explanation of the current SSPX situation

I found this post at Fr. Z's blog What Does The Prayer Really Say to be very detailed, clear, (and most importantly) authoritative, regarding the CURRENT status (as of the date of this post) and situation of the Society of Saint Pius X and those who affiliate themselves with it. However, this is important for all Catholics to read so they understand the situation, as it is has not been explained well not only by the media, but also by many priests and bishops within the Church.

Full post:

GUEST CONTRIBUTION: Q&A with the Pont. Comm. Ecclesia Dei about SSPX, schism and sacraments

An important point from the article:

[Response from the Pontificial Commission of Ecclesia Dei]: “The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L’Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid.

Please do read the whole article, with Fr. Z.'s commentary which further clarifies some points and shows some important subtilties in the practice of this.

And also please pray for the SSPX (and other traditional groups who are not enjoying full communion with the Church). This is a great time of grace having a pope who is so actively seeking their full return to the fold. We are already seeing some grace filled results with the lifting of the sensures on the Transalpine Redemptorists' priests. However, keep praying for them as they seek to canonically regularize their status in the Church.

EDIT - Since I made an error in one of my comments at Fr. Z.'s blog, but he closed the comments before I could admit my mistake, I'll just post it here.

I had said that "marriage is not valid until consummation." However, I was incorrect. Discussion about marriage needs precision, so I'll just quote Canon Law and correct my error:

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

The reason for this comment was that several people were in a tizzy about the statement that SSPX marriages are being declared invalid by the PCED. I think it boils down to a priest needing legal faculties from the local ordinary.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

SSPX have no legal faculties for confession and marriage. None of their priests are under a local ordinary bishop. Legally the SSPX priests cannot represent the Church, (except in danger of death). Thus the form is not valid, invalidating the marriage.

I wish Dr. Ed Peters would comment on this. I respect his opinion more than anonymous posts of people claiming to be canon lawyers in an internet blog commments section. It probably doesn't help that I have only dabbled in canon law myself.

Marriage is a very complex Sacrament theologically and even more so legally.

RS

Information on Ash Wednesday and Lent.

"Christ in the Desert" by Ivan Kranskoi
Browsing through the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found a few articles that are definitely worth a read to get a better understanding of the season of Lent.

Since tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, a good place to start is the entry on:

Ash Wednesdsay

(As a side note, I think I found a potential answer about the difference in the US and Rome. From the above article, it says that the faithful received ashes in the form of a cross upon their forehead, and that clerics would receive ashes in the form of a cross upon their tonsure (top of their head). One problem is that "tonsure" no longer exists. Another problem is that so many modernists don't like to distinguish between clerics and laity (as if that is something bad or clericalist). Not sure what or why the differences today.)

With that comes the observance upon Ash Wednesday (and Good Friday) of the:

Fast

On fascinating part mentions how fasting has been seen not only as just a religious observance, but also one of natural virtue as it fosters temperance.

It also explains many of the differences we have heard of in fasting, whether it be be not eating at all, having only one meal (The Black Fast), or having one normal meal with two small meals. Overall the conclusion becomes what is demanded by Church law and most importantly common sense.

Then this brings us fully into the season of:

Lent

Which shows a rather varied form of observance throughout the Church in both East and West due to Lent's rather "late" development compared to other annual feasts like Epiphany.

One interesting perspective was something of Saint Gregory the Great in looking at the fasting of Lent as a tithe to God:

"In the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) there were apparently at Rome six weeks of six days each, making thirty-six fast days in all, which St. Gregory, who is followed therein by many medieval writers, describes as the spiritual tithing of the year, thirty-six days being approximately the tenth part of three hundred and sixty-five."

And here are the relavent Canons on fasting and abstinence:

BOOK IV, PART III, TITLE II, CHAPTER II.

Days of Penance

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

All of these articles are definitely worth a read, and can help give us a proper understanding and more focused observance of Lent.

RS

So, what's the point of this blog?

Vigil Mass of the Feast of the Exultation of the Holy Cross at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, September 13th, 2007, in Rome. Cardinal Bertone is the main celebrant, here during the Consecration (along with the relics of the True Cross on the altar)
(click picture to embiggen)
Over at The New Liturgical Movement, there have been some comments saying that with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" the "reform of the reform" movement has become ignored and that everyone is focusing only on the extra-ordinary form of Mass now.

This got me to thinking a bit about that statement, and where myself and my own blog fit into that. In this blog's very first post, I said that I wanted to use this blog to share whatever liturgical knowledge I had. It was only after starting and seeing some of the excellent liturgical blogs out there (like The New Liturgical Movement and Fr. Z's What Does the Prayer Really Say) that I realized I had a lot to learn. However, having visted many monasteries and religious houses, having worked as a sacristan at a basilica in Italy and a few parishes here in the States, some of that experience, and the great wealth of information I have learned from studying liturgy over the years have begun to come together. A lot of what has been needed is a liturgical perspective that I first and foremost credit to Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI. With his writings and especially with "Summorum Pontificum" it is as though he has opened a floodgate of liturgical discussion which I believe is beginning to produce great fruit. While I don't necessarily expect a major liturgical reform in my lifetime, I do think he has begun to lay the foundation for a true renewal of liturgical understanding, mostly from his hermenutic of continuity: of looking at the whole of the Church's Tradition.

One of the bad fruits of the "spirit of Vatican II," was that there was a mental rupture from the Church's Tradition in many of the faithful. I say mental rupture because there was not a doctrinal rupture on the Church's part, just an attitude amongst the faithful (even some leaders in the Church) where suddenly Vatican II was seen as a point at which anything before Vatican II is now obsolete, and only Vatican II and anything after that pertains to the Church in the modern world. What Pope Benedict has helped me to do is to break me of that mindset and to look at the whole of the Church's Tradition, and I don't just mean the Roman Church, I mean the entire Church, the Roman Rite, the Western Rites, the Eastern Rites and other Catholics around the world and throughout history.

So, where does this blog fit into all that? I don't think I'll ever be able to nail that down. But getting back to the initial question of the "reform of the reform" vis-a-vis the extra-ordinary form of the Mass that has been placed back on an equal standing with the ordinary form by "Summorum Pontificum," I can say that the motu proprio has actually put more "pressure" on the ordinary form to get it's act together. I don't mean that the Novus Ordo is to be changed to be more like the extra-ordinary form. That's something for the Church to do with an organized reform of the liturgy. "Vigilante liturgical reform" is not the answer to the problems in the Novus Ordo Mass. What I mean is to get the Novus Ordo back on track and to start getting it said as it is supposed to be said. We'll worry about actually reforming the ordinary use later. First we need to just get it said by the books.

I work in a normal diocesan parish, so the extra-ordinary form is something that may be able to be done on occasion, but since it is a parish, the ordinary form is what will be done the majority of the time. That's completely to be expected. "Summorum Pontificum" is not calling for the "Novus Ordo" to become the "Tridentine" or for the "Tridentine" to take over the "Novus Ordo. That's not what the Pope said at all. He merely made the "Tridentine" an easily accessable option for those who prefer it. In a typical parish, the ordinary form is still what will be celebrated as the norm. But hopefully the understanding that the "Tridentine" has to be said with such accuracy will influence those involved with the "Novus Ordo" to carry it out with the same accuracy according to its own instructions, rubrics, and ritual.

Thus, I would say that that is one of the goals of this blog: To help foster an understanding of the instructions, rubrics, and ritual of the Novus Ordo Mass ... even if I personally prefer the extra-ordinary ("Tridentine") form of the Mass. I do this because the extra-ordinary form of the Mass is not what has the problems. Those who want it respect it and say it as it is supposed to be said. The problem is in the chaos of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, all sorts of things were introduced, especially a mindset that you can add anything to the Mass. I think this mindset is the first and greatest difficulty to get over. I have seen this in many, many priests formed after Vatican II, and I would say that even I have fallen into it myself in the past. Although I was always against goofy "liberal" changes, I had no problems with pius or reverent changes. But changes are changes. The Chruch gives instructions for each use and rite, and those are to be followed, not just because it is the law, but because it shows a unity with and obedience to the Church and a unity with that particular Tradition.

One of my first goals is that I would like to go through the 2002 General Instruction on the Roman Missal. The first time I read it, I was absolutely amazed that the Church actually gave such specific instructions on how the Novus Ordo Mass is supposed to be done. That document was what sort of woke me up to the fact that you can't just do whatever you want, you have to actually follow the books (suddenly Canon #846 Pt 1 made sense). Then I got ahold of the "Ceremonial of Bishops" and was amazed to see even more detailed instructions on the Mass. I suddenly saw that there is no real need for "creativity" (which is the same "creativity" that the Pope condemns in his accompanying letter to "Summorum Pontificum") because the actions of the modern liturgy are already laid out for the priest. Sure there might be a few more "options" in the Novus Ordo, but even those are specifically mentioned as options only for this or that particular part or situation in the Mass.

So, on your litany of things for which to pray for me, include that I can learn and understand better the liturgical understanding of not only the "Novus Ordo" and the "Tridentine" but also the bigger picture of the Church's liturical theology. I feel that this will be a difficult process, but one which will bear much fruit in the future.

RS

Old Form of Mass in our Current Context

Fr. Z. has an excellent post pointing out how we should approach things regarding the older form of Mass in the context of our current juridical laws. This is a must read!

Summorum Pontificum does not create an ecclesiastical Jurassic Park

We must remember that not all things pertaining to Mass are contained in the ritual itself. Canon law, liturgical law, and even some local law (ie liturgical instructions for certain regions or countries) also have a part in how things in the liturgy are carried out.

I especially wish to point out Canon #846 of the current Code of Canon Law:

Canon #846 - 1. The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them.

This is something Pope Benedict specifically addressed in his accompanying letter to "Summorum Pontificum", the problem of bishops, priests, and laity not following the liturgical instructions of the "Novus Ordo" and being "creative" with the liturgy.

"This [desire for the older form of Mass] occurred above all [my emphasis] because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear."

-Letter from Pope to bishops on "Summorum Pontificum"

Unfortunately this "creativity" has given rise to the mindset in many priests formed since Vatican II, whether they be of liberal or conservative bent, that they can make any changes they want to the "Novus Ordo." While making changes might be the status quo or what is done in practice, this is NOT the mind of the Church.

Really, the only thing "Summorum Pontificum" did was to allow the older form of Mass to be said without special permission. It puts it on equal ground with the newer form of Mass. It did NOT call for a hybridization of the Masses. Ritual and rubrics from the old use cannot be inserted into the new use and vice-versa. I believe the Pope's intent is that by having these two forms side by side, it will lead to a better understanding of each use in and of itself, and eventually lead to a fruitful and organic reform of the liturgy in the future.

However, we must also see that both forms of the Mass must also conform to the current universal liturgical and canonical laws. The former 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated (see Canon #6 - 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) thus the older form will have to be looked at in light of the current Code of Canon Law. However, this is exactly one of the responsibilities of the Ecclesia Dei commision as set forth in "Summorum Pontificum". So let's learn a lesson from the chaos after Vatican II and "festina lente" when dealing with either form of the Mass. I'm enthusiastic about the older form too, but let's do liturgical reform right this time instead of hastily.

RS

Quick thoughts on Summorum Pontificum

Well, I just finished reading "Summorum Pontificum" and the accompanying letter from Pope Benedict to the bishops explaining the motu proprio. I have to say, the document and letter were very well written and very clear. Let us pray that they are also well read and/or read well.

First, we need to get some language straight. The "Tridentine" and the "Novus Ordo" are not two different rites. They are both of the Roman rite, however they are two different "uses" within the Roman rite. This can also be understood by looking at the Anglican use, which is the form of Mass used by former Anglicans who have come into the Catholic Church. The Anglican use is also within the Roman rite. So, these are not different rites, but rather different uses. Thus I will try to now refer to them as the "Mass of Bl. John XXIII" (="Tridentine" since the 1962 Missal was promulgated under Bl. John XXIII) and the "Mass of Paul VI" (="Novus Ordo" which was promulgated under Pope Paul VI).

And so, my summary:

I would say the most important point is that the old use ("use" will be the new way to describe either form) was NEVER ABROGATED.

The Mass of Paul VI will be the ordinary form of the Roman rite, and the Mass of Bl. John XXIII will be the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. However, all priests of the Roman rite, whether ordained before or after the liturgical reform, who are qualified (i.e. properly trained) in the Mass of John XXIII and are juridically allowed (that means they are allowed to say Mass) may say the Mass of John XXIII.
Both uses are to be held with equal respect.

The motu proprio has been officially promulgated and will take effect September 14th, 2007 (the Feast of the Exultation of the Holy Cross).

Bishops are to be very cooperative in supporting the desire of those who wish to have this Mass and are to make every effort possible. [This could be one bottleneck in the legitimate carrying out of this motu proprio].

The pope's accomanying letter clarifies things well. He addresses the two greatest negative reations or "fears" about the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum."

1st is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council. "This fear is unfounded," according to the pope. The ordinary form is still the Mass of Paul VI. However, the Mass of Bl. John XXIII was never juridically abrogated. Vatican II never forbade the Mass of Bl. John XXIII. The pope shows that there are many within the Church who are attracted to the older Mass and have learned much of the Faith and are able to better worship God within the older Mass. Basically, Vatican II called for a renewal and more authentic worship of all the faithful, not just those who are attracted to the Mass of Paul VI.

2nd is the fear that the motu proprio will cause divisions within parishes. The pope says, "this fear also strikes me as quite unfounded." Again, the Mass of Paul VI is the ordinary Mass, and the motu proprio in no way says that the Mass of Bl. John XXIII can be forced upon the faithful. Although, it should also be noted that this goes both ways. Priests cannot as a matter of principle exclude celebrating according to the new books, especially in places where the Mass of Paul VI is regularly celebrated.

The biggest problem I see is not the motu proprio, or either use of the Rite, rather, the biggest problem will be with the priests who celebrate either use. This will be due to the "mindset" that many priests have in the post-conciliar era that you can make changes to the Mass. Often this is said to be done for "pastoral" reasons, but really that is often a cop out to change things to make it easier or to do things the way the priest wants to do them.

My liturgical attitude is this: I should not want to do things my way, I should not want to do things your way, but I should want to do them the Church's way. Who am I to impose my own way of doing things on the liturgy? Rather, I should respect the liturgy so much, that I would not add anything or take away anything from the liturgy. This would go with even pious things. Just because they are pious, does not mean they are appropriate. Canon law says that priests may not add to or take away anything from the Mass. They are to follow the liturgical books. As someone who serves at Mass, I also should respect the rite. I may not always like some of the things in the Mass of Paul VI, but who am I to change them? This is our rite, this is the ritual, I should stick to it OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE RITE, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE RITUAL, AND OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE MASS.

Even the pope acknoledges this: "in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear ... And even I [Pope Benedict XVI] have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church."

Both uses have their proper rite and ritual and are to be followed. No matter which use, the Mass of Bl. John XXIII or the Mass of Paul VI, we should always carry out the Mass according to the way the Church tells us. The we can be obedient and offer proper sacrifice, prayer, and glory to God.

However, let us rejoice at this motu proprio, and the reasonable solution it gives to the seeming dichotomy of the last 40 years.
The "Te Deum" is traditionally sung in thanksgiving to God for prayers answered. I list here the simple version since it is the one with which I am most familiar.

you'll definitely need to click the music to make it bigger
Overall, the motu proprio and the pope's accompanying letter are addressing an erronious mindset, something which may be an uphill battle, but will certainly be worth it overall in the Chruch.

RS

Solemnity on a Friday!

.
(NB-Comparison of Prayers for this Sunday will be posted tomorrow.)

EDIT: I was admonished for not mentioning what Solemnity it is today, so:

Today is the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.


Usually a Catholic grizzly eats fish on Fridays.


But even though today is Friday, it's also a Solemnity, which means we can eat meat today!

Canon Law

Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. [emphasis added]

Yea, Meat!


RS

A plea to all priests during Holy Week

The Warning Sign pretty much says it all. But I have to reiterate it due to personal experience.

Due to my job situation, I end up seeing Masses in several different places in the area. It is amazing how many priests and liturgists just make things up when it comes to liturgies which are more involved, like Holy Week, for example.

Part of this is just the pervading mentality that after Vatican II, the priest can do whatever he wants for "pastoral reasons." Although I know why there are rubrics and directives, I really have gotten to see WHY there are rubics and directives. This is so that we are actually united as a Church in our worship of God. Personal prayer and devotions have their place, but when it comes to the Mass, the Church does set out the ritual that we follow, because this is the liturgy of the Church, the One Sacrifice of Christ. Thus, because we are Catholic, i.e. universal, one should be able to go to any Mass of his Rite and things should be done in a pretty similar fashion.

Several people should be able to read the Roman Missal (Sacramentary) and then a common understanding of what is to be done.

I have had to study the liturgy in planning Holy Week for our own parish, and going to another Palm Sunday Mass elsewhere, I was just completely baffled at what was going on. Yes, I know there are three options on how to do the initial part of the Mass on Palm Sunday, but whatever they did, it was not from any of those options. Nobody really knew what was next. It was just completely distracting. Which is one of the reasons why we have rubrics. Rather than being able to focus on the significance of the liturgy, one was distracted by the chaos.

So, for any priests who read this or for anyone who knows priests, please take the time to study the rite and follow the directives of the Church. It is not how I want to do it or how you want to do it, but how the Church wants it done. It is a priests duty to know how to properly celebrate the Sacraments, Mass included.

And if I may quote Canon Law:

Can. 214 The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescripts of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church ...

This has been a public service announcement from your Roman Sacristan.

EDIT - Diogenes shows some proof of the slippery slope of liturgical whimsy.

Pictures from the rest of the "liturgy" can be found here (scroll to the bottom of the page). Notice how it draws such a crowd.

RS

Latin in Seminaries

I wonder how many seminaries in the U.S.A. (and in the world) actually follow this canon:

Code of Canon Law
Book II: The People of God
Part I: The Christian Faithful
Title III: Sacred Ministers or Clerics
Chapter I: The Formation of Clerics

Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry. [emphasis added]

I have met very few priests who had Latin as a part of their priestly formation.
Also note how it says "understand Latin well." This is something that Fr. Reginald Foster, the pope's Latinist, laments greatly. The amount of people who actually know Latin is shrinking at a frightening rate. If Latin is not given more emphasis in pactice, it will just become even more difficult to recover.

Fr. Reginald has a (usually) weekly radio show on Vatican Radio. It is not only interesting for the Latin, but he has quite a number of stories of antiquity and also a gives a slight peek into the inner workings of the Vatican on occasion.

I can't seem to find the site on Vatican radio anymore for some reason, although I will post it in case it is just down temporarily:
Normally it is found at: Vatican Radio's 105Live, The Latin Lover.
However you can find mp3 archives at Fr. Gary Coulter's site.