Saturday, January 10, 2015

A reader writes: Have you seen the latest?


Sometimes I'll see a number ringing on my phone or a subject line in my emails and I'll say to myself, this is not good news.

And it seldom is.

A lot of times the email subject line will be "Have you seen the latest?"

Here's a link from one I received a few days ago.

Scroll down to the ordination.

See anything strange about it?

I never would have picked up on it but TTC readers are much smarter than I am.

“The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction there is present an adequate supply of liturgical vestments made in accordance with the norms.”

~ “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” # 126

Not to mention that the Cardinal should also cover the hood of his religious habit with an amice (or an alb that will cover the hood completely). The ordinandi did follow this, but not the cardinal...

“336. The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on. The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.

~ General Instruction of the Roman Missal, # 336

One might ask, what's the big deal when a priest, bishop, cardinal or pope treats the edicts of the Church on the Sacred Liturgy and Sacraments like a piece of toilet paper he's flushed down the toilet?

Have you ever seen that commercial where a toddler is standing in his playpen and the dad comes into the room and apologetically tells him he's taking a sick day?

From the moment your child is born until the day one of you breathes your last breath, you are a teacher, a caretaker, a guardian of the body, mind and the soul.

Your actions are a witness to the veracity of what you teach.

A parent can teach their children all about the ramifications of drug abuse, but if they are getting drunk in their living rooms, what you teach about drugs is worthless.

A lonely single mother who brings home a cowboy and lets him sleep in her bed loses the ability to preserve the sanctity of sexuality of her children for the rest of their lives.

There are no days off. There is no time when you can go on a toot or have a good fling for yourself. You are a 24/7 witness.

Every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope that ever lived is a 24/7 witness.

If you give witness that you can disregard Church laws about the Sacred Liturgy and during the Sacred Moments where you put on robes to confer the mystical properties of a Sacred Sacrament - your witness subordinates every Church law to personal desires.

If you can't be bothered to be faithful to laws of Christ's Church in the Sanctuary, your teaching authority is as credible as an intoxicated father teaching what a gift sobriety is in the family.

All the cool cats in the Curia now are into public defiance of Church teaching and law.

Cardinal Burke recently said serving at Mass is a man's job.

Many do not possess the qualifications for the job.

If you take a look at the picture at St. Anthony's, there's enough estrogen there to power Edison through a month of Sundays.

It's very interesting that the author of the LA Times article sees feminization in the honor and royalty given to the Sacred Liturgy. Juxtaposed against the picture taken at St. Anthony's Shrine, perhaps the author doth protest too much.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, you don't protest too much. It is this writers opinion, a woman, that Women today could save the Church, just say NO.

TTC said...



Are you blind?

Women have been running everything for the last 40 years.

Everyone fled.

It's a flop.

Did your husband watch the football game yesterday or did he tag along with you to go to your knitting circle?

Do you with him on his hunting trips?

I get your own God-given role of nurturing your family and humanity itself and being so adored by God for it that He can't say no to you (unless of course what you ask is bad for you or another person) - makes you feel inferior.

I get that you don't see and understand Scripture.

What I don't get is women (which is not a capitalized word) who don't have any common sense.

Women took over everything after Vatican II. The results are in: There are a handful of people in the pews and the priests have become sissified.


TTC said...

Go home lady. Go home and take care of the people you love. Intercede for them. And truly, maybe I need to take some of my own medicine. I have been lectoring at daily Mass once a week. They cast a net into a thin crowd a few years ago and it is allowed when I looked it up. But I am on the fence about continuing and I am going to go to the top and get some spiritual advice. This papacy puts a spin on that service that might cause an uncatechized woman to get stupid ideas.

Michael Smith said...

I just came back from a Confirmation Mass celebrated by Cardinal Sean. He gave an excellent homily full of Catholic Truth and wisdom that I am sure you would have loved. It was a stark contrast to the usual meaningless pap that our pastor usually offers. I gave him a pass for having his Franciscan hood in view. (It did have some kind of a stole-like thing over it btw.

Anonymous said...

1. I remember a Franciscan priest [the late Fr. Francisco Reyes, OFM] telling me that his brown habit is equivalent to an alb, that all that was needed was for him to put on a chasuble before celebrating Mass.

2. For the same reason, he said, when Franciscan friars die, their coffin is covered by a brown pall, instead of white.

2. The habit has its own cincture, so there's no need of another cincture to replace it while vesting for Mass.

2. The Franciscan chasuble has a white cowl that covers the brown cowl of the habit so there's no need for an amice.

3. It's obvious from the picture that Cdl. O'Malley used his Cardinal's pallium instead of a white cowl on his chasuble, which also serves as an amice.

4. The friars seen wearing only stoles were there to witness the ordination. They were not concelebrating the Mass.

5. Mendicant friars are not always under the administration of the diocese. They have their own structure. However, one or two of them [such as Cdl. O'Malley or Abp. Chaput] may be appointed by the Pope to head a diocese or archdiocese.

Marietta

Seppe said...

In response to Anonymous:

1. I remember a Franciscan priest [the late Fr. Francisco Reyes, OFM] telling me that his brown habit is equivalent to an alb, that all that was needed was for him to put on a chasuble before celebrating Mass.

With all due respect to the late Father Reyes (requiescat in pace) the religious habit is not equivalent to an alb. Even Cistercians, Carthusians, Dominicans, Mercedarians, Norbertines, and Trinitarians (just to name a few religious communities whose habits are all white), are still required to wear an alb when assisting at liturgical functions. Sadly, it seems that some priests simply do not care about the Church's liturgical legislation (rubrics, norms, etc.) and the reasons underlying them... (lex orandi, lex credendi)...

According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), which governs the celebration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (the Mass):

336. The sacred garment common to ordained and instituted ministers of any rank is the alb, to be tied at the waist with a cincture unless it is made so as to fit even without such. Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on. The alb may not be replaced by a surplice, not even over a cassock, on occasions when a chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when, according to the norms, only a stole is worn without a chasuble or dalmatic.
337. The vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other sacred actions directly connected with Mass is, unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.
338. The vestment proper to the deacon is the dalmatic, worn over the alb and stole. The dalmatic may, however, be omitted out of necessity or on account of a lesser degree of solemnity.
339. In the dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture or other appropriate and dignified clothing.”

To this must be added the norm issued in the instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum”, (issued almost ten years ago now, on March 25, 2004)

126, “The abuse is reprobated whereby the sacred ministers celebrate Holy Mass or other rites without sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or the common habit of religious or ordinary clothes, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books, even when there is only one minister participating. In order that such abuses be corrected as quickly as possible, Ordinaries should take care that in all churches and oratories subject to their jurisdiction there is present an adequate supply of liturgical vestments made in accordance with the norms.”

Seppe said...

In response to Anonymous:

2. For the same reason, he said, when Franciscan friars die, their coffin is covered by a brown pall, instead of white.

In the USA, the rubric in the Order of Christian Funerals (Ordinary Form) does not require the use of a funeral pall nor does it forbid its use. It does direct that if a pall is used it should be predominantly white, although violet or black may also be used. If the Franciscan friars want to use a brown pall, the Provincial Minister or General Minister should seek guidance and permission from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

3. The habit has its own cincture, so there's no need of another cincture to replace it while vesting for Mass.

Respectfully, the cincture of the religious habit is distinct from the cincture that is worn with the alb for the celebration of the sacrament.

4. The Franciscan chasuble has a white cowl that covers the brown cowl of the habit so there's no need for an amice.

Perhaps some chasubles are made with a cowl-type collar, but according to the GIRM, (# 336) "Before the alb is put on, should this not completely cover the ordinary clothing at the neck, an amice should be put on."

5. It's obvious from the picture that Cdl. O'Malley used his Cardinal's pallium instead of a white cowl on his chasuble, which also serves as an amice.

Respectfully, a pallium is not an amice and an amice is not a pallium. Each article has a distinct purpose and usage.

6. The friars seen wearing only stoles were there to witness the ordination. They were not concelebrating the Mass.
Nice try.... If the friars were only there to "witness" the ordination, then there was no reason for them to be wearing stoles and entering the church in procession with the celebrants, as they were shown to be doing in the photograph.

Seppe said...

In response to Anonymous:

7. Mendicant friars are not always under the administration of the diocese. They have their own structure. However, one or two of them [such as Cdl. O'Malley or Abp. Chaput] may be appointed by the Pope to head a diocese or archdiocese.

Liturgical legislation, however, is universal and applies to all priests, religious as well as diocesan; it is under the administration of the Holy See in Rome. The Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Boston is Cardinal Seán O'Malley. St. Anthony's Shrine, where the ordinations occured, is located within his archdiocese. The ordinary of the Franciscan Province of the Holy Name is the Provincial Minister, Father Kevin Mullen, OFM. Both ordinaries, in fact, are responsible that the proper requisites, including the proper sacramental matter of bread and wine, liturgical vestments, and sacred vessels are used for the celebration of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. This is also a matter of Canon Law:

Can. 392 §1. Since he must protect the unity of the universal Church, a bishop is bound to promote the common discipline of the whole Church and therefore to urge the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.

§2. He is to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.

If there were any further doubts or questions about this issue, Redemptionis Sacramentum removes them:

[23.] ... All, including members of Institutes of consecrated life and Societies of apostolic life as well as those of all ecclesial associations and movements of any kind, are subject to the authority of the diocesan Bishop in all liturgical matters, [Cf. Code of Canon Law, canons 397 §1; 678 §1.] apart from rights that have been legitimately conceded. To the diocesan Bishop therefore falls the right and duty of overseeing and attending to Churches and oratories in his territory in regard to liturgical matters, and this is true also of those which are founded by members of the above-mentioned institutes or under their direction, provided that the faithful are accustomed to frequent them. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 683 §1.]

[24.] It is the right of the Christian people themselves that their diocesan Bishop should take care to prevent the occurrence of abuses in ecclesiastical discipline, especially as regards the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and devotion to the Saints. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 392]

Seppe said...

In response to Anonymous:

In conclusion,

The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”. On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved, and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God. The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well. [Redemptionis Sacramentum, # 11].