Saint Thomas Becket

In honor of the feast of Saint Thomas Becket, I thought I'd post the powerful excommunication scene from the movie "Becket"



RS

What was the pope saying?

A friend of mine noticed that at a papal Mass the pope ends the Mass differently (than just the "The Lord be with you," "and also with you." "May almighty God bless you ...") and asked me what he was saying.

I'm not sure exactly what Mass she saw, so I'm not sure if there was anything different at that Mass. However, bishops have a slightly different ending "part."

Usually it goes like this:

Bishop: Dominus vobiscum (The Lord be with you)
People: Et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit)
Bishop: Sit nomen Domini benedictum (May the Name of the Lord be blessed)
People: Ex hoc nunc et usque in saculum (both now and forever)
Bishop: Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini (Our help is in the Name of the Lord)
People: Qui fecit caelum et terram (Who made Heaven and earth)
Bishop: Benedicat vos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. (May Almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit).
People: Amen.

* I believe that abbots may have the same priviledge to use this formula too.

RS

New Translations of the Ordinary of the Mass released

The USCCB has finally released a "study edition" of new translations of the Ordinary of the Mass which Rome just recently approved. I noticed it is now called the "White Book." In my personal opinion, it does a pretty good job of living up to the purity of it's name.

Order of Mass White Book (pdf format)

I just scanned through the file and am actually pretty satisfied with it. My only initial complaints are:
- the more inclusive "people" and slightly awkward feel at the beginning of the Gloria where it says "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to people of good will." I think "and peace on earth to men of good will" would have been better. I only say this because in the Creed they still say "for us men" so let's be consistant, OK?
-I find "and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate" a bit awkward, I would think "and by the Holy Spirit He was made incarnate" or "by the Holy Spirit He became incarnate" is less clunky.
-At the preface, I think the "We lift them up to the Lord" needs to be a bit more immediate past tense like "We have lifted them up to the Lord"
-I'm still a little disappointed at the Consecration where the "pro multis" is translated as "for many" instead of "for the many." However, the fact that it has at least been changed from "all" to "many" is a HUGE improvement. Fr. Z. has talked several times about why the "the many" is a better translation.
I'll have to do a more thorough looking at it later.

As to when this will actually go into effect and be allowed to be used at Mass, I am not sure. I have assumed that it wouldn't be officially promulgated until the entire English Roman Missal had been completed. And who knows when that will be since the bishops rejected the Proper of Seasons prayers last month.

However, I am surprised they are releasing this on the USCCB website and are calling it a page for "learning materials" for the "catechesis and eventual implementation" of the new texts. So maybe it will be sooner than I imagine.

Roman Missal Formation Materials

I honestly am curious as to how they will explain this. If they answer truthfully, they would have to say, "Back in the 1970's, ICEL was hijacked by heterodox bishops, clergy, and 'scholars.' [that should be in quotes as no real Latin scholar would claim those translations - RS] As a ploy to fix this mess, we will claim that we are translating the new 2002 Missale Romanum, even though the its Latin is practically identical to the Latin upon which the earlier 'translations' were based."

Still, the translations from ICEL have improved immensely, so I do have to give them credit. And it is a difficult job as some things do become nit-picky (although some things are crucial). I just hope they change their ridiculous copyright policies, as The New Liturgical Movement has mentioned here and here.

RS

Designing a stop sign.

What would it be like if the US bishop's had to design a stop sign back in the late 1970's:


The US bishop's sign would first be released as an orange-yellow nonagone with the words "gently touch pedal" (this way it's inclusive of all pedals and doesn't focus on just the break pedal) which would still result in people running into each other. We'd have these signs for about 40 years.

Eventually, people would either just get off the road, or they would just come flying through the intersections with the claim they are just following the sign.

Then the design committee would come back with the word "stop", but it would be rejected with the excuse that nobody uses that word anymore so they wouldn't know what the word meant. Even though Rome had approved the red and octagonal parts of the new sign.

However, with word "stop" having been leaked, many people complain that: 1) it's not what they are used to. 2) the word "stop" is too archaic (nobody will know what it means). 3) the sign supposedly focuses only on one pedal. 4) the word "stop" is too demanding.

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

Bishops' rejection of translations helps Latin more.

Don Quixote
As at least a third of the US bishops keep behaving like Don Quixote in their delusions of helping the Church through bad ideas, I got to thinking about the positive side of all this.

By delaying the translations again, I see several things happening. The biggest is that more and more people will gain interest in Latin. I know one reason many look to the Latin is because they are so tired of the embarrassing translations we are currently stuck with. Delaying approval for the translations will just lead that many more who are seeking the truth and are just growing up to turn to the Latin for more authenticity.


I think if we had had good translations back in the '60's, most people would have been satisfied with what they had and Latin would have probably been much less practiced as it is now.

Another thing is that most likely most of the bishops who rejected these translations are aging. Meaning, everyday they are a day closer to retiring ... and being replaced with better bishops under our current pope.

I think maybe, since the dragging out of the new translations is getting so ridiculous, I'm wondering if they are about to step over the line to where Rome will take some action. We're coming close to half a century of bad translations. There's enough of us on the web who have shown how poor these translations are.


But even with better translations, remember:


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

Oh no! You'll have to go to Mass 2 days in a row!

As I was looking ahead at some preparations for work, I noticed that one of the few exceptions to my rule on whether you have to go to Mass will occur this year. I believe this will only be the case in the United States (or any other area where the Immaculate Conception is the patron of the region).

Sadly, as many of you know, with the liturgical reforms following Vatican II, options were allowed for local bishops' conferences to adapt some laws regarding holy days of obligation. Thus, I think all of the bishops' conferences in the English speaking world have now removed the obligation if the holy day of obligation falls on a Saturday or a Monday. Personally, I don't think this really benefits the faithful, but for whatever reason, the bishops allow it.

So, in general the rule goes: "you have to go to Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, but you never have to go to Mass two days in a row."

In the U.S.A. the only exceptions are Christmas and the feast of the Immaculate Conception, because Mary, under that title, is the patroness of the United States. The obligation for these is NEVER removed.

This year, the feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Saturday, and the obligation is NOT abrogated. This will be a bit confusing nowadays, because so many people regularly fulfill their Sunday obligation by going to the Sunday vigil Mass on Saturday (a quasi-liturgical abuse in my opinion, but that is for a different post). So, basically this will be like having two Sundays in a row, and you have the awkward confusion of what happens Saturday evening: is it still the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, or is it now the vigil of Sunday? Will priests have Saturday evening Mass of the Immaculate Conception, or will they have the Sunday Vigil Mass; another way of putting it: which day "trumps" the other? Technically a Solemnity trumps even Sunday. BUT a Sunday of Advent is a bit more "important" than a regular Sunday and I think it would even "bump" the Immaculate Conception if it fell on a Sunday in Advent (which I think happened back in 2002). So, it is just absolutely confusing. Even on a different topic, do you say Evening Prayer II of the Immaculate Conception, or do you pray Evening Prayer I of the 2nd Sunday of Advent? Usually the only way to find out is to get a hold of an ordo and see what it says. Unfortunately, I have not yet gotten our ordo for the new liturgical year (which begins with the beginning of Advent, December 2nd this year).

Off the top of my head I would say that the 2nd Sunday of Advent liturgically "trumps" the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. (Just wait until Lent and Easter of 2008 when the early date of Easter bumps all sorts of things around: Saint Joseph gets "bumped" to the Saturday before Palm Sunday and the Annunciation gets "bumped" to the Monday after Easter Week).

Pastorally, I would say the safest thing would be to keep the usual Sunday (and Sunday Vigil) Masses the same. The problem is that often "pastoral" is used as an excuse to do something incorrectly. Rather than catechize or educate the faithful, pastors will be "pastoral" and just adapt something to what the uneducated faithful would think or do.

And just to throw out a quick rant: I think this is why the faithful are so ignorant and apathetic, because everything is made so easy for us that nowadays we Catholics really only have to make a minuscule effort to practice our faith. We really only think that we have to go to Mass on Sundays and (not even all of the) holy days of obligations and go to Communion once a year (and how many of the faithful even know this?). (Yes, I know there is much more to living the faith, but I just wonder how many "practicing" Catholics' only act of religion is going to Mass weekly and on Christmas and Easter.)

Many Catholics' reaction upon hearing they have to go to Mass on a day other than Sunday
Anyway, just giving you a heads up. You have been warned. LOL.

RS

Fr. Z. on Pope Saint Gregory on Pastors

Picture above the altar of Pope Saint Gregory the Great in the Basilica of Saint Peter, Rome, Italy
I've never really gotten into podcasts, probably because I have rarely enjoyed talk radio. However, I have started listening to Fr. Z's "PODCAzTs" and have found them to be very informative. This particular "PODCAzT" was extremely good. He starts with Pope Saint Gregory the Great talking about what qualities a pastor should have, especially focusing on bishops. However, Fr. Z points out that this can also apply to any man in a role of pastor, be they bishops, priests, or even the father of a family.

Gregory the Great on when pastors should SPEAK UP; priests and getting your way; voicemail feedback.

I always highly recommend Fr. Z's blog, but this is one post that stands out IMHO.

RS

Church Will Survive

Arg! I can't believe some bishops!

Supposedly, the bishop of Gaylord, Michigan, has said:

Until other law is promulgated, all liturgies in the Diocese of Gaylord are to be celebrated entirely in English by the presiding celebrant.

I do think other law has been promulgated. Check out Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium, the current G.I.R.M., Sacramentum Redemptionem, and Summorum Pontificum.

I'd like to point out to bishops that the laity are not idiots. Some of the faithful may be apathetic, but many others know the faith and know Church and liturgical law.

Hopefully Rome will respond to this ridiculous statement promptly (of course most of Italy is on vacation during August, so we'll see).

It's time like thse I have to remember a great anecdote about Napoleon. When he invaded Italy and was taking away property and rights from the Church, he told a cardinal, "I will destroy the Church." The cardinal quickly retorted, "If us cardinals and bishops haven't been able to do it, what makes you think you can?"

Deo Gratias that God is ultimately in charge of the Church.

LOL.

RS

That question

That question I've posted in tons of comment boxes has an interesting article written about it.

Now in some bishops' and cardinals' cases, I still have to ask the question given the gavity of some of their actions, but if nothing else the article does give a good explaination of some ecclesiology.

Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?

The author linked to the article via this post regarding the Cardinal Mahoney scandals:

Even Priests Have Fantasies

RS

Do you have conviction in being Catholic?

Hat tip to The New Liturgical Movement for pointing out one of the better "secular" articles about the release of the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" and the recent reiteration "Responses to some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" that "'This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic. ... This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him'," in light of the moot controversy about the old (which isn't even used in the 1962 Missal) Good Friday prayers which refers to the "faithless Jews."

The interesting part of the article is the fact that the author lauds the Church for actually having conviction in what it believes.

Any serious Catholic believes that happiness and eternal life are to be found within the Catholic Church. To refuse to pray that other people will find their way into such a place would be positively selfish and cruel.

The problem is that in this intellectually dumb and morally numb age we like our truths, well, less truthful. "Might be" or "could be" or, usually, "anything you want it to be." Never "you should be."

The article is here:

"Restoring a Church tradition"

Interestingly, this reminded me of a video I just saw yesterday which speaks about the same thing.

Taylor Mali speaks about conviction in his slam poem "Like, you know"



Woah, he pretty much nails a lot of bishops, priests, and laity to the wall. How many times have you heard homilies and statements like that ... you know? Just sayin'. LOL.

Jesus spoke with conviction and authority. He would not be very popular nowadays ... whether it is Christ Himself, the Head, or His Body, the Church speaking. Oh, wait ...

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

Removing Franciscans of the Renewal link

I am removing the link to the Franciscans of the Renewal from my "Men's Religious" list on the sidebar.
I do this because they are advertising a pilgrimage to Medjugorje by one of their own friars. This is advertised on the events page of the official page of the Fransicans of the Renewal and has a link to the details.

Since this "apparition" has been shown to be nothing of supernatual origin by the Church and has been rife with disobedience to the Church in the local bishop, I will have nothing to do with it. There are plenty of real apparitions which have been approved by the Church as authentic.

This is disappointing to me as most of the CFR's I have met are great priests and brothers. However, if the Order is going to promote false apparitions, I cannot support them except by my prayers for their conversion.

EDIT - adding a link with official Church rulings on Medjugorje

Medjugorje: Just the Facts

If it were Mary, there'd be no problem, but if it isn't (and the Church has said it isn't), what (or who) are you following? Scam artists or something more diabolical?

RS

A quote for all seasons

I am currently watching "A Man For All Seasons" (the Paul Scofield version) and was struck by a quote. It is particularly relevant to today's politics and the current "you shouldn't make political decisions based on your religious beliefs" nonsense.

Sir Thomas More says:

“When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short road to chaos.”

What's even more interesting is that he was saying it to the current Chancellor of England ... Cardinal Wolsey, who is trying to get Sir Thomas More to go against his conscience (and the doctrine of the Church) for state reasons.

Chillingly familiar of current cardinals and politicians in this country trying to tell people it's OK to keep politics and belief separate.

RS

Bishop Kevin Farrell installed as bishop of Dallas

Well, I told you I would tell you if I heard any news about how orthodox Bishop Kevin Farrell was. As of yet, I have still heard nothing about him.

All I can say is that he is now officially installed as the Bishop of Dallas now.

I'm waiting on first-hand reports from those who attended the installation Mass.

I just pray he is an orthodox bishop who will stand up for and teach the doctrine of the Catholic Church. (Some "house cleaning" wouldn't hurt either).

RS

The Wait

Well, I don't have much info about Bishop Ferrell except just general word of mouth.

Thankfully that news sounds pretty positive. Still, "he's supposed to be pretty good" is a bit vague. For those who are in the Dallas diocese that can bring a bit of a flashback to the former coadjutor and that whole mess.

It's interesting to note that they are waiting until May 1st for the installation. I have a little theory on that myself. Last year, May 1st was marked by a huge (illegal)-immigration demonstrations. I am thinking that this date was chosen to help keep the church in Dallas out of having to be a part of that. Now whether that is to avoid a situation or if this might reveal the new bishop's feelings on the subject is hard to say.

However, I am not sure what it is about Dallas and revolutions and bishop installations. May 1st is May Day and is a day of importance to the Communists. The previous bishop was apparently installed on Bastille Day, which is a rather odd day to be installed. Thankfully, May 1st also falls under the patronage of Saint Joseph the Worker, so I would hope that this day would be much more blessed than a day celebrating the French Revolution.

Thankfully, there is hope in Bishop Ferrell.

Sancte Joseph, ora pro nobis

RS