Translate

Monday, October 18, 2021

JUST HOW CAN THE LITURGY OF THE AGES, YES THE ORDINARY FORM, BE IMPROVED?


I once heard someone say to his bishop and the bishop listened, that he preferred the EF Mass over an OF Mass celebrated with an EF ethos. By that he meant all the bows and genuflections and kisses of the altar, the antiquity of the EF Mass, its lectionary and predictability when chanted or simply spoken. 

Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole on his part, but he did describe to the bishop and the bishop listened that he attends two Masses each Sunday, an ordinary form one with his mom and an EF one at his local cathedral. 

He described the kitschy music at his mom’s Mass, with guitar and things I had not heard since the 1980’s.  What he described was truly horrible, like a Rocky Horror Movie Show. 

Then he described the Chants from the young schola at his local cathedral. 

I thought he was a bit over the top, but he had his points. The OF Mass is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get and usually you taste it and put it back in the box discovering what you bit into was just plain yucky. 

But, what is wrong with mandating the Ordinary Form be celebrated ad orientem or at least with the Benedictine altar arrangement when facing the congregation? What is wrong with mandating the proper chants for the Mass in terms of the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphon? What is wrong with choreographing the OF Mass with EF rubrics? What is wrong with tasteful but beautiful, nobly simple vestments and altar linen that aren’t minimalistic, but are clean, starched and altar servers in nice, clean cassocks and surplices? 

But all of these things need to be instituted, mandated and required. Why aren’t these for the Ordinary Form? Is sloppy, casual and a lack of attention to detail built into the Ordinary Form where no one cares? 

Sunday, October 17, 2021

FORMER PAPAL MASTER OF CEREMONIES, BISHOP GUIDO MARINI IS ORDAINED BISHOP BY POPE FRANCIS WITH THE NEW PAPAL MASTER OF CEREMONIES, MSGR. DIEGO MORELLI TAKING OVER


In an unusual occurence, after giving the sign of peace to the Pope, Bishop Guido Marini hugged Msgr. Diego Ravelli, his successor as Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. Bishop Marini also hugged the other MC beside the Pope.

It is unusual because, in episcopal ordinations, the "kiss of peace" is exchanged between fellow bishops only.



I am sure Bishop Marini would have preferred the vestments and ethos of a bishop’s ordination of Pope Benedict, but Pope Francis’ ethos is what it is. His vestment is tasteful but understated. 

The processional hymn is a bouncy Italian ditty and one of those happy, clappy ditties that becomes an ear-worm in one’s hearing. But then it gives way to the official Introit in Latin as the pope incenses the altar. Gregorian chant juxtaposed against the bouncy Italian ditty is jarring and shows the divergent spirituality one that is vapid and one that is thick in its solidness. 

The chanted Latin Introit, though, was short and should have retained the EF’s style with the refrain, one verse, Gloria Patri and return to the refrain. Why was this format abandoned? It makes no sense. 

Saturday, October 16, 2021

THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS WRONG WITH THE 1960'S INCLUDING CHURCH MUSIC, BUT NOT SECULAR MUSIC ALTHOUGH SOME WERE QUITE SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS LIKE THIS ONE!

 I love 1960's music and on my SXM radio and app, I listen to 60's on 6 all the time. I also love 70's music and there is 70's on 7 at SXM radio and app. Oddly enough, the 60's music capture or brings forth my innocent feelings and carefree life at that time. 

The 70's music brings out the angst I was feeling at that period of time, although the music was great. I just was more consumed about life, its meaning and what I would do with it. 

But this song, "I met her in Church" captures the spirituality of 60's music which is quite eclectic and wonderful, fun and just plain great! The Box Tops like so many of the groups founded in the 60's are great, I mean, great!

TO ALLOW EULOGIES OR NOT TO ALLOW EULOGIES? THAT IS THE QUESTION?


As a matter of principle, I don’t allow eulogies except when I do. And when I do, I know immediately that I will regret it except when I don’t. 

I have had terrible experiences with eulogies over the last 42 years. One son of a deceased father bragged that his father was still having sexual affairs in his old age (which he was and that is bragable but not at a Requiem!). But I digress.

Or do I?

Often eulogies that I have allowed are psychological therapy for the one giving it but in an exhibitionist   way. We all are privy to the emotional gushing before the therapist, which in this case is the congregation!

But last night took the cake with lard icing. 

One of my parishioners, a refugee from Ukraine by way of Germany and eventually Brick, New Jersey who ended up in Richmond Hill 20 years ago against her will but who made it her home, died of Covid-19 in early September. 

Her sons, not from Richmond Hill, one still in Brick and the other in Michigan had delayed the memorial liturgy until last night. She had been cremated. 

I was unable to meet with them as they only arrived in Richmond Hill while I was on retreat. Thus my first meeting with them was a half hour before the liturgy at the funeral home chapel (outside of Mass of course). 

They are nice guys and two guys I would not mind going to a pub to enjoy a night of drinking. 

And then as we concluded our conversation, one of the sons said he will give the “eulogy.” 

Well, how could I say no?

And thus at the appropriate time this son of unchurched abilities and sensitivities gave his mother’s eulogy. It wasn’t bad until it was bad. The good part was that it showed he had a longing for spiritual realities and the longing for heaven and that his mother was reunited with her loved ones if they be in heaven. He tried to hold back tears at various times and told a lovely supernatural story about the moment of death of his mother and the time it occurred given that time had a special significance for his parents, now both deceased. And it was supernatural and I think not a coincidence. 

But the part that wasn’t good unless of course it was in a pub or after the liturgy in the funeral home setting is that the deceased evidently liked to use colorful language often laced with profanities to include the  “s” word, which is mild and better in my mind than the “poop” word, and the “f” word which my ears are no longer virginal since my childhood but I still deem these words as not appropriate in a Catholic liturgy, Mass or not. 

And liberally he used both the “s” word and the “f” word and people laughed. 

But I patted myself on my back as a member of the clergy of the listening Church that Pope Francis desires and listen I did. 

Friday, October 15, 2021

SOMEONE PLEASE PHOTOSHOP THIS PHOTO TO PUT POPE FRANCIS’ HEAD ON THE IMAGE OF PAUL VI AND PRESIDENT BIDEN’S HEAD ON PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BODY

 I can dream, can’t I?



THIS IS AS IMMORAL AS A FAKE DOCTOR IMPERSONATING A REAL ONE—IT IS IMMORAL AND ALSO A CRIME!

 Of course she will be excommunicated for simulating that which isn’t a sacrament, in this case, Holy Orders. But even worse she will be impersonating a priestess which the Catholic Church does not have as Christ did not institute the Order of Priestesses.

But if a person impersonating a cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket, that fake cop commits a crime. This woman gloats over her crime and blasphemes the Holy Spirit by blaming Him.

However, if there were priestesses in the Catholic Church and I was vocation director, I would weed her out with a weed wacker  before you could say lawn mower! How would you like that as your pastoress???


Future womanpriest 'Father Anne' blames God for leading her towards ordination

ON SYNODS, CONSULTATION AND LISTENING—IS IT THERAPEUTIC AND BENEFICIAL?


When I was in college contemplating a priestly vocation, Bishop Raymond Lessard had a listening session with my home parish in Augusta, St. Joseph Church, about the qualities of the next pastor he would appoint as our pastor, Fr. Andrew Doris, was about to retire. 

I went to that meeting and there were a goodly number of parishioners there. Bishop Lessard seem to listen to all the advise that was given him. Back then, though, the laity who like consultation and pastoral councils wanted these to be more like a parliament rather than a consultative body which these are.

I can’t remember the specifics of the meeting but of course the qualities that people wanted in their new pastor was Superman. Someone who could play football with the kids, loved art and the liturgy and could inspire the parishioners with his preaching ability, down to earth and able to visit each parishioner everyday. Or something like that.

The next pastor had none of that but he was a good man although somewhat eccentric. God rest his soul.

I like listening and I don’t recall ever rejecting a decision of the pastoral council. 

I have taken surveys of parishioners over the years. I have not found these to be very helpful and sometimes the answers collected were mean-spirited. 

The most contentious issue I faced over the years concern the liturgy and more specifically the type of music. Some want a folk Mass or what today would be called “worship and praise” music, that vapid, emotional sentimentality that gets your hormones moving. They think this will help us to compete with the non-denoninationals which have attracted so many disaffected Catholics. 

The older crowd formed by the heady days of the 60’s and 70’s want a return to that time and want nothing to do with Latin, chant, bells and smells. They want casual liturgies that are horizontal with holding hands during the Our Father. 

With a pope who decries rigidity, which really means holding steadfast to doctrine, what will the listening of the synod accomplish?

Will all the listening lead to a vacuum of leadership and more confusion which this papacy has produced since the first synod? 

Yes, history will repeat itself and at the end the pope will be mad because he’ll have to have another synod on how to prepare for synods and how to think about synods. 

Fun!

Thursday, October 14, 2021

THE PANDEMIC, WHILE CONFIRMING MY WHISTLEBLOWING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF THE COMMON CHALICE AND THE LIABILITY TO THE CHURCH THAT IS WAS, IS AND COULD BE AGAIN, HAS BROUGHT ABOUT A GREAT NEW LITURGICAL RENEWAL AT COMMUNION TIME FOR CONCELEBRATING PRIESTS

 This week, the priests of the Diocese of Savannah are on retreat at the Marywood Retreat center in Jacksonville, Florida. Here are some pictures of our Mass at the parish Church of San Juan del Rio which is in front of our retreat center as well as the grounds of the retreat center situated on the Saint John River in Jacksonville and like the Nile and the Saint Lawrence Seaway, it flows north rather than south (and of course my blog platform does not put the photos I post in the order that I post them, but rather in a random way and I don’t know why and it is too much trouble to post these individually in the right order, oh, the agony of it all!)

But, I digress, at the end of the photos are my accolades about the fact that I was right about the pandemic producing common chalice and the authentic liturgical renewal that Covid-19 hath wrought!


















At our diocesan con-celebrated Masses, especially at the Cathedral or when we are on retreat, in the past-prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, priests would receive the consecrated Host during the Lamb of God and then consume the Host at the same time as the bishop (or any celebrant) received the Host. Then after the celebrant drinks from the Chalice, each priest approaches the altar and drinks from a common chalice. 

Of course, if this were done in a restaurant, the establishment would be shut down by the health department and in the Covid-19 age, those who promoted this disease causing tradition would be arrested and law suits galore would be experienced. We would see commercials on TV by local and chain lawyers with this moniker: “Have you received a life-threatening disease from a Catholic Church that allowed you and in fact encouraged you, shamed you into drinking from the common pandemic producing chalice? If so contact me at 1-800-lawyer for a pricy settlement. 

But in the Covid age, at our concelebrations, the Host and the Chalice are placed on the altar and after the bishop receives both the Host and the Chalice to complete the Sacrifice of the Mass, each concelebrant approaches the altar, takes the Host and intincts it into the Chalice of Precious Blood. 

It is not only an antidote to shared disease of God only knows what, but it is far better visually than the previous way concelebrants received Holy Communion at Mass.

But what really strikes me is how prophetic I was over the years about calling out the pandemic spreading common chalice despite the ignorant derision I received from liturgists in the Church.

But I wear my scars in this regard as a badge of honor. Thank you Lord Jesus. 

CONTROVERSIAL ODDS AND ENDS


Over at the National Chismatic Reporter, (NCR) and known for chism, a commentary by a animal loving Franciscan priest, young and liberal (longing for the 60’s evidently) states this about honoring gender ideology:

Why is there so much resistance and pushback among some in the church — including in Catholic schools — to using the gender pronouns or gender-affirming names preferred by individuals, especially those who are members of the LGBTQ community?

Calling individuals by the names and pronouns they prefer would not only seem to be the decent and respectful thing to do, which follows from the "golden rule" of doing unto others what you would like others to do unto you (see Matthew 7:12), but it also aligns well with the important role names have throughout Christian Scripture and tradition.

If that is true, Father Horan, then people should be referred by their desired race identification. Technically I am white, although of Italian heritage and I have inherited my mother’s Italian skin, not my Canadian/Scottish father’s skin. Thus I tan in the sun quite well and by the end of the summer I am darker than many black people. Why wouldn’t people honor my truth that I am the same color as my black brothers and sisters and that I am of the Black race or the Race of Color?

By the way, our diocesan priests are on retreat this week and our retreat master is a Dominican priest. He told us that the Dominicans and Franciscans are cousins founded around the same time and they both love animals. Unknown to most of the world, the Dominicans also have a blessing for animals. It goes like this: “Bless us O Lord, in these thy gifts which we are about to receive through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

And now yet another pope is about to be beatified and eventually canonized a saint, Pope John Paul I.

That’s all we need yet another pope from the 20th century to be canonized. Talk about making the papacy self-referential. 

And finally, speaking of vaccine mandates, is common sense coming from the Military Archdiocese of the USA?

A particularly notable intervention given pending mandate across armed services, Military Archbishop Broglio (the USCCB Secretary) tells his 1.4 million Catholics that “no one should be forced to receive a COVID-19 vaccine” if they object in conscience


Wednesday, October 13, 2021

I REPRINT THIS FROM AN ARTICLE BY EDWARD PENTIN AS IT IS IN THE SPIRIT OF POPE FRANCIS FOR HIS HOLINESS AND THE REST OF US WHO COMPRISE THE CHURCH, THE BAPTIZED PEOPLE OF GOD, TO BE A LISTENING CHURCH ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO THE WORLD DOES NOT OFTEN HOLD IN HIGH ESTEEM, THE BLUE COLLAR WORKER, THE SOLDIER, THE ONE SENT INTO BATTLE…

Ex-Swiss Guard Decries Mandatory Vaccination as ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Inhumane’

(Former Swiss Guard  Pierre-André Udressy finds it) scandalous that this thing (mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations at the Vatican) is imposed in this way for a political reason, when it should be something done conscientiously with a doctor. It is extremely serious that this obligation is extended to the whole world. Above all, the suppression of freedom … and it is even more serious that this happens in the Vatican, even more strongly than in other countries. The Vatican is the center of the Church, it should defend freedom of conscience, freedom in general. For me, a Catholic, it is something inhumane.”

Asked what is the “origin of this evil in the Vatican,” Udressy said the doctors took the decisions, but added there was another issue in play: “The fact that we are no longer trying to defend the truth, but rather trying to adapt to what’s happening outside, and even be the first to apply the changes.”

He says he will now return to Switzerland and readjust to life over there, returning to work as a carpenter which was his profession for five years before signing up to serve as a Swiss Guard.

Open Letter

Here below is Udressy’s open letter detailing 12 reasons why he didn’t wish to take the vaccine, and for which he said he had received compliments from cardinals and priests:

“1. The very principle of taking a vaccine is this: the prevention of an evil by preventing it in order to acquire immunity, taking into account the risks and benefits [his emphasis]. “Doubt is the beginning of knowledge.”

2. Every vaccine carries risks and requires caution especially when it’s not been sufficiently tested, according to the urgency or the state of the patient. Unfortunately, one must admit reality and take into consideration adverse events.

The frequency of fatalities after vaccination is “underestimated,” according to the director of the University of Heidelberg, Peter Schirmacher, who adds: “The vaccine is the cause of death in 30-40% of autopsies of recently vaccinated people.” But “the acceptable risk is the one that is accepted.”

3. A danger may have to be accepted for a greater good, no doubt, as general immunity might be.

However, according to Didier Febvrel, director of the Health Service of Marseille, “ensuring that the vaccine presents no danger and that it is the decisive weapon against the virus comes from a utopian and military communication of the last century that coincides with propaganda.”

4. Unfortunately, many times in the history of accidents have taken place precisely because of the politicization of vaccination campaigns, as with hepatitis B, rubella in England, the H1N1 crisis, the POR Walkefield affair, and chickenpox disappeared but for which we continue to vaccinate with deadly risks …

Throughout all of this, the only problem would be that it results in bad publicity for the vaccine! So those who object to it are increasingly every day, to the point of avoiding some vaccines considered important. numerous and some vaccines considered important are avoided…

And the vaccine’s protection is certainly not guaranteed by universally mandating it, an obligation in fact already decided on September 12, 2019 (before the “pandemic”) at the Global Vaccination Summit.

Then we are told that we would have herd immunity with 75% of the population vaccinated, “except that this is not science,” said Dr. Didier Raoult, of the IHU in Marseille, one of the greatest living infectious scientists. “For the same microbe, the contagiousness is different between one strain and another. In fact, the very idea, apparently very logical, that the more a population is vaccinated the less the virus circulates, is not entirely accurate.”

5. Also according to this ideology, one could therefore let part of the population be free not to get vaccinated, but things are not like that, vaccination must be something global, without limits or discernment. But how can we hope for immunity if the vaccinated themselves are carriers of the virus?

“Although vaccination is advancing at an increasing pace, the virus is not going away and patients will need safe and effective treatment,” said Stelle Kyriakides, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety.

6. So it happened that over the past year, I’d like to point out that all members of the Swiss Guard who tested positive for COVID-19 had been vaccinated, at most, a few months earlier. And what about Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, but then in a very critical pandemic situation?

7. Dear authorities, in response to the pressure that has been put on us, I could have defended myself with medical certificates, declaring that I was immune for having contracted the disease at the end of last year.

Surely one cannot be immunized better than by recovery from the disease itself. I could then have logically been justified in saying that I did not need a vaccine: but this would not have been accepted either!

And it is still preferable for me to testify in full truth, without hypocrisy, what is my duty to testify and thus support all those who allow themselves to think differently, to react with intelligence and avoid with conviction what is not reasonable.

How many of my dear colleagues have unfortunately succumbed to a medical treatment to which they did not give full consent, compelled by force, in order to regain their freedom? For me, it is fundamental to defend Freedom with determination.

Why should I force myself to do something I know to be absurd? Who could force me?

8. In this regard I quote the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which on December 21, 2020 said: “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

What are we to understand? Is this not the indication that comes to us from the Catholic Church?

9. In every way, and especially in the most hypocritical ways, governments have gone so far as to scare people under the guise of prevention. What is really frightening are those who take advantage of this “window of opportunity,” who were waiting for nothing else than for the reconstruction of the world, the abolition of community-based societies, the denaturalization of the human species with the proliferation of specific laws (early abortion, human/animal chimera embryos, PMA/GPA).

What is even more frightening is the neglect of Life where Life should be defended! In such a dramatic situation, people would expect nothing but spiritual support: in such a crisis only Faith could allow them to accept the situation.

Unfortunately, the greatest scandal is right there. [The Catholic hierarchy] has come to suppress spiritual and sacramental support and to abandon people in need. The situation has certainly been difficult to manage: there have been government threats, but in many places Church authorities played it by ear and it is these same ecclesiastical authorities who refused to bring supernatural help to those in need. The Vatican set this example! There would be many anecdotes to report here that would prove the absurdity of the decisions made by men of little faith.

Many times we’ve been told about the history of the Church, the faith of the Early Church Fathers, the commitment of the Holy Church during the great plagues. But nothing can justify the absurdity of the current situation.

How many times have we asked ourselves these questions when admiring so many concrete episodes in the history of Rome and of all Italy. Strangely enough, morality is disguised; it seems that in case of urgency everything is allowed.

10. What about the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cited above? Does it have no bearing, even juridically, in the Vatican?

What about this obligation against the conscience of honest people?

What about the document issued by the Pontifical Academy for Life on June 5, 2005 [on use of vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines]?

This document clearly states that illicit vaccines, prepared from cells from aborted human fetuses, must be combated, while then admitting that in case of need their use could be accepted.

“Doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), (cf. John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, n.74), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.”

So according to the doctrine of the Holy See, certain vaccines are clearly defined as illicit, at least as far as their production is concerned, and although it is tolerated to use them in case of necessity, it is said that the governments that spread such vaccines should be opposed.

“Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”

Even the Academy’s own July 31, 2017 document, while more permissive regarding the use of such products, does not fail to mention the necessary “joint commitment to ensure that any vaccine has no reference in its preparation to any material of abortive origin.”

Now the Vatican, the institution of the Church, has chosen the Pfizer vaccine, tested on abortive cell lines. What should we think? It even imposes the vaccine on all its employees, although as a sovereign state, it would have the possibility to choose products not contaminated by abortion, which also exist.

As a Catholic who follows the Magisterium, I have a duty to fight against the vaccine choices of the Vatican City? If one reads the documents cited, one must answer yes.

11. Yes, I have followed up to this point the evolution of these restrictions, of the vaccination obligation, and I have endured until today, as a victim, all that we have had to endure.

12. I have witnessed all the pressure that’s been progressively and subversively placed on people to convince them to undertake a burden they didn’t want to take.

I have witnessed situations of injustice, all the more oppressive in that they weighed on people whose situation was more difficult than mine, even though I myself was exhausted. I have endured it all until the end, trying to serve as best I could.

By the intuition of my conscience, and after praying about it, I was moved to discern things in this way, and, once persuaded of my duty, I thus defend Liberty and stand up for those who have been so severely tested.

What is certain is that, in all this, what we are experiencing has nothing human let alone Christian about it, and it is truly intolerable to see the holy Vatican City come to this point!

May St. Michael deign to always protect and defend the Holy City!

Acriter et fideliter

Pierre-André Udressy

Former Swiss guard and current poor citizen of the Vatican.”

THERE ARE ARTISANS AND CRAFTSMEN AS IN DAYS GONE BY THAT CAN STILL DO WHAT THE MASTERS DID CENURIES AGO

 I do believe with all the dumbing down that has happened to our Liturgies and churches/cathedrals since Vatican II, a new renaissance is occurring and on a popular level to recover what was lost and to make new what is our heritage. Noble simplicity that leads to ugliness is not what Vatican II had in mind no matter how many in high places seem to think so. I received this as an advertisement for the firm that creates this kind of art. It is stunning what they are able to do:

Cathedrals & Basilicas

“Art is capable of making visible our need to go beyond what we see, and it reveals our thirst for 

infinite beauty, for God.” – Pope Benedict XVI

A cathedral is not constituted by its grandeur, but by housing the cathedra, the seat of apostolic authority in each diocese.

Some cathedrals are humble parish churches elevated to seat of the diocese and tell the story of the birth 

and growth of the local church. Other cathedrals are purpose-built icons of the diocese. 

As eclectic the style of the world’s cathedrals may be, each serves as mother church, and 

within each is a unique opportunity to catechize and evangelize through beauty.

EverGreene has been entrusted with the restoration, conservation, and new design 

of liturgical artistry programs and furnishings in dozens of cathedrals, basilicas, and national shrines.

We would love to work with your community. Tell us about your sacred space.

NICE!

 Before and After: St. Joseph's Chapel at St. Dominic's Parish in Brick, New Jersey



Tuesday, October 12, 2021

THIS IS GREAT FOR OCTOBER AS RESPECT LIFE MONTH

 I just saw this on someone’s Italian Facebook. Never thought of it this way! This is the translation: “A father does not carry a child in his womb for nine months, but carries him eternally in his heart!“


Monday, October 11, 2021

GUIDO REPLACED BUT NOT BY ANOTHER MARINI…

 

Msgr Ravelli with Pope FrancisMsgr Ravelli with Pope Francis 

Pope appoints new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies

Pope Francis appoints Msgr Diego Ravelli as new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies.

By Vatican News staff writer

The Holy Father has appointed the Most Reverend Diego Giovanni Ravelli as Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations and as head of the Pontifical Sistine Chapel Choir.

Curriculum vitae

Monsignor Diego Giovanni Ravelli was born on 1 November 1965 in Lazzate, Italy. He was ordained a priest for the Public Clerical Association Priests of Jesus Crucified in 1991, then incardinated in the diocese of Velletri-Segni. In 2000 he obtained a diploma in pedagogical methodology from the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the Salesian Pontifical University in Rome, and in 2010 a doctorate in sacred liturgy at the Liturgical Institute of the Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm in Rome. From 2013 he has served as office head in the Office of Papal Charities, where he had held the role of official since 1998. After collaborating with the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff as Assistant Master of Ceremonies, he was appointed Papal Master of Ceremonies in 2006.

Msgr. Ravelli takes over the role of Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations from Monsignor Guido Marini, who earlier this year was appointed bishop of Tortona by Pope Francis.

Appointment of Pontifical Master of Ceremonies

The Reverend Cristiano Antonietti, nunciature secretary, in service in the Section for General Affairs of the Secretariat of State, has been appointed as Pontifical Master of Ceremonies.

DID SHE GET HECKLED AND JECKLED AT MASS OR NOT?


Circulating on social media is that Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a good Italian, was heckled at Mass in Rome. This was perceived as a security threat and she was whisked away by secret service.

Then, I saw at the National Chismatic Reporter yesterday that the heckles and jeckles were outside the church.

But today, that story is removed from their website.

Well, what is it?

It is thoroughly plausible that OF. Catholics would heckle a sinner at Mass but implausible that it would occur at an EF Mass.

WHAT WILL THE SYNOD ON SYNODS PRODUCE? WHAT IS THE POINT OF IT? DOES ANYONE KNOW?


Perhaps Pope Francis has given us a clue—it’s not a parliament. Thus what is it?

I know many Catholics who don’t accept many moral teachings of the Church. They don’t agree that sex outside of marriage is immoral; they don’t believe marriage is for one man and one women and for a lifetime and for pro-creation and they don’t believe that artificial contraception or abortion are wrong. 

Is the God of surprises going to change Scripture, Tradition and natural law by synodal agreement? Is the Deposit of Faith up for discussion and change by consultation widely accomplished?

I always thought the challenge for priests is to help Catholics who waffle on Church teaching or don’t agree with it to at least know the logic behind it and the reasons why God has established these teachings. 

One of the things that has helped me (and this is so pre-Vatican II) is that we are all called to the perfection of heaven. This call to perfection begins in this earthly pilgrimage and with Holy Baptism and the Sacramental life of the Church immersed in the Deposit of Faith. 

Will any of us reach perfection in this life and is the quest for it meant to make us neurotic and guilt ridden? NO! But embraced by Christ through the Sacraments He instituted and the Church He founded, He makes a way for us by which He makes us perfect at our death, personal judgement/purification and then the experience of the fullness of heaven where we will be perfect once for all by God’s grace.

Thus consulting widely with people, be they Christian or not, what will it accomplish? What is the goal? Does anyone know? I earnestly ask that because I am clueless quite frankly!

This pope is elevating pastoral theology to a doctrine. Pastoral theology is personal and often within the context of sacramental confession or spiritual direction. It isn’t a one size fits all and often is confidential and under the seal of confession. 

For example, if a promiscuous homosexual finds a partner he or she truly loves and enables a sort of “marital chastity” a pastoral response to that within a spiritual counseling session might endorse this lifestyle over a promiscuous one. And to establish secular benefits a civil union aka marriage might be endorsed. All of this for a greater good but still falling short of the perfection of celibate chastity to which this couple is still called. 

Might Pope Francis’ pastoral doctrine lead to some sort of public acknowledgment of this such as same sex blessings? Sinners of course have always been blessed and I just did it at Mass on Sunday at the final blessing and dismissal which occurs at every Catholic Mass although in the EF it is the dismissal and final blessing. But in blessing the sinner, the sin is not blessed be it venial or mortal—will that change?

The pope has said it is not a parliament. But he continually freaks out over rigid people especially those who prefer the Ancient Order of the Mass along with the certitude of the pre-Vatican II Church along with its “triumphalism” of proclaiming the Catholic Church as the True Church and the sole means of communicating and establishing Christ’s salvation for everyone in the world. 

Is there another way and will the synod establish it? 


Sunday, October 10, 2021

THE QUEST FOR RELEVANCY IN THE GREAT EPOCHAL CHANGE OF THE TIME--THE SYNOD BEGINS TO DO AGAIN WHAT HAS FAILED FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS, BECOME RELEVANT TO THE WORLD AND ITS SPIRIT

 Relevancy has worked so well for the post-Vatican II Church, the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians and other liberal Protestant communions. Will the quest for relevancy, inclusivity, and being "hip" and "groovy" work this time or will history repeat itself again and again and again?

And I presume this is Bishop-Elect Guido Marini's swan song as papal MC:

Pope: Celebrating Synod means walking together on the same road

Pope Francis celebrated Mass at St Peter’s Basilica for the solemn opening of the Synod of Bishops, which will take place in three stages over the next two years.

By Christopher Wells

Pope Francis formally opened the Synod of Bishops on Sunday with a solemn Mass in St Peter’s Basilica.

Faithful from around the world – including laymen and -women, priests, seminarians, women and men religious, cardinals and bishops – took part in the liturgy, which marked the beginning of a two-year synodal process.

In his homily, Pope Francis took the day’s Gospel reading, recounting Jesus’ encounter with a rich young man, as the starting point for a reflection on synodality: “Celebrating a Synod,” he said, “means walking on the same road, together.”

Following the example of Jesus, he emphasized three verbs that characterize the Synod: encounter, listen, and discern.

Encounter

In the Gospels, we often see Jesus on a journey, open to an encounter with those He meets along the way, present to them, and concerned about their questions. Like Jesus, the Pope said, “we too are called to become experts in the art of encounter.”

This involves an openness to God, taking time for prayer and adoration, and listening to what the Holy Spirit tells us.

It also requires openness to others, as well as courage and “a willingness to allow ourselves to be challenged by the presence and the stories of others.

Participants in the Mass
Participants in the Mass

Listen

Pope Francis that a true encounter only comes through listening to others, noting that Jesus listens not just with the ears, but with the heart. When we follow Jesus in listening with the heart, “people feel they are being heard, not judged; they feel free to recount their own experiences and their spiritual journey.”

The Pope invited us to ask ourselves if we are good at listening, if we allow others to express themselves. He said that the Holy Spirit is asking us to listen to the “questions, concerns, and hopes of every Church,” and to the challenges and changes presented by the world around us.”

“Let us not soundproof our hearts; let us not remain barricaded in our certainties,” he pleaded. Instead, “Let us listen to one another.”

Pope Francis during the celebration of the Mass
Pope Francis during the celebration of the Mass

Discern

Pope Francis insisted that “encounter and listening are not ends in themselves,” but must lead to discernment. “Whenever we enter into dialogue,” he explained, “we allow ourselves to be challenged, to advance on the journey.”

As with the rich young man, Jesus helps us to discern, “to look within” and to discover what God reveals to us, “to discern in that light” what our hearts “truly treasure.”

This “is a valuable lesson to us,” Pope Francis said, adding that “the Synod is a journey of spiritual discernment that takes place in adoration, in prayer, and in dialogue with the Word of God.”

A moment of the Mass to mark the start of. the Synodal process
A moment of the Mass to mark the start of. the Synodal process

Where God is leading us

In these days of the Synod, the Pope said, “Jesus calls us, as he did the rich man in the Gospel, to empty ourselves, to free ourselves from all that is worldly, including our inward-looking and outworn pastoral models; and to ask ourselves what it is that God wants to say to us in this time – and the direction in which He wants to lead us.”

“Let us have a good journey together,” Pope Francis said in conclusion. He expressed the hope that we might be “pilgrims in love with the Gospel and open to the surprises of the Spirit.” And he urged us  not to miss out “on the grace-filled opportunities born of encounter, listening, and discernment.”

OH MY! DO YOU THINK SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI, WOULD HAVE BEEN HECKLED AT AN EXTRAORDINARY FORM MASS? NO MATTER YOUR POLITICAL PERSUASION, HECKLING ANOTHER CATHOLIC, NO MATTER HOW MORTALLY SINFUL AND MORALLY CORRUPT SHE IS, WOULD NOT HAPPEN AT AN EF MASS; BUT AT AN ORDINARY FORM MASS, YES SHE WOULD!


ANOTHER ORDINARY FORM MASS TRIUMP! SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NANCY PELOSI, IS HECKLED AT AN ENGLISH SPEAKING ROMAN PARISH'S SATURDAY VIGIL MASS AND HAS TO BE REMOVED BY SECRET SERVICE BECAUSE THE HECKLING IS PERCIEVED AS A SECURITY THREAT TO HER. YES, AN ORDINARY FORM MASS--WOULD IT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM RITE?????

AND YOU GO, BISHOP STRICKLAND! ALTHOUGH I DO WONDER WHEN HE WILL BE CANCELED!

 

In wake of her audience with Pope, House Speaker and Mr Pelosi “forced to leave” Vigil Mass at Rome’s parish for US expats due to security threat…

…and a lead figure of the Stateside resistance to Francis responds with warning of “grave peril” for a Constitutional officer:

  •  

PRAYTELL, WHAT IS GOING ON THERE WITH COMMENTS THEIR POLITBURO NORMALLY DELETES?


These are the comments that the politburo of Praytell, a sometimes obnoxiously progressive liturgical blog, allowed to be posted or haven’t had time to delete some of them. These are comments about a less than stellar academic talk given by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship to an elitist group of academics who are studying the liturgy. Hopefully they were snickering under their breath at his mostly inane presentation. But here are Praytell’s comment section. Interesting, no?

  1. The of late increasingly popular assertion of some that the Pauline Missal is “irreversible” is amusing given the passion with which it’s been asserted by the same people that the Missals of other popes are most certainly reversible. Consistency please.

    1. An ecumenical Council is the deciding factor here. It is Vatican II that in effect did away with previous Missals and set the foundational terms for future missals.

      So, if another ecumenical Council decides otherwise, then you’re in business! 🙂

      awr

      1. Benedict disagrees with you. Paul and Francis agree. A future pope may agree with Benedict. Who knows.

      2. Here’s the real question: Did Benedict disagree with Vatican II? The key question will be a proper interpretation of Vatican II. As you know, I think the evidence is that Benedict is the outlier and his views will not prevail. But as you say, a future pope could do who knows what.

        Enough said on this one. I think your position and mine are abundantly clear to anyone who cares. And I think that most of our readers don’t care – not if it’s repeating old material.

        awr

      3. I think I remember (old age!) a spoof interview written by Michael Frayn at the time of Humanae Vitae, where a Vatican Official is asked about the Church’s position regarding the Pill. Asserting that the Church was aginst it, he said ‘The Church holds a position of absolute certainty on this.’ 

        The Reporter then asked ‘So what if the Pope changes the teaching?’ The Official answered ‘Then the Church will have moved from one position of absolute certainty to another position of absolute certainty.’

        Hey Ho.

        AG.

      4. For the sake of clarity, it must be pointed out that the Missal of Paul VI is not the product of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium is. The Missal is just one interpretation of the recommendations of the Council, albeit with papal approval. Nor did the Council call for the old Missal to be replaced, just modified. Other than the call for an expanded Lectionary, the revised Missal of 1965 fulfilled the recommendations of the Council. A future pope could return to the Missal of 1965 (with an expanded Lectionary) without rejecting anything of Vatican II.

        I would be satisfied if we could just accept the new Missal as is, without the de facto suppression of the options for a traditional form of the new Mass. Those who oppose this are rejecting the reformed Mass and Vatican II just as much as those who reject the new Missal as a whole.

      5. Thanks for your comments, but I disagree.
        Modified and replaced.
        1965 was seen as interim by those who issued it, and there were things in SC not yet fulfilled in it. Joseph Shaw, who is a critic of the reform, has pointed this out.
        awr

    2. I don’t see ‘irreversible’ as meaning irreformable. The 1962 Missal, before the Council, was a significant modification of the previous editio typica of 1920. Foillowing the Council, and in accord with it, the 1962 Missal was modified with a new rite of Concelebration, a new editio typica of the rubrics (1965), and a further revision of the rubrics in 1967 by an ‘Instruction’. It is this 1967 edition which is “the Missal antecedent to the reform of 1970”, as Paul VI made explicit when granting its continued use to aged priests, and in the “Heenan indult”. 1962 was as thoroughly superseded as 1573.

  2. This is a wise and well-grounded exhortation. Archbishop Roche’s comments are the fruit of many years of study and experience, and he is also speaking out of a deep love for the church. We cannot afford to neglect the role of liturgy as an ecclesial ministry. His comments about the Missal of Paul VI were right on target.

    1. I hope to respond to Matthew Hazell – if I find the time and I make no promises! 🙂 I think there is something profoundly mistaken about Matthew Hazell’s starting points, and hence there is a certain tragic quality to his very careful and industrious work.
      awr

      1. I’ll do what I can, Matthew, but it’ll be a challenge. I’m doing a teaching overload to offer Gregorian Chant online this term, and laboring mightily to bring to complete a hardbound hymnal of nearly 1,000 hymns, only for our use (for copyright reasons).
        awr

  3. What seems tragic to me is the dismal state of the liturgy in most parishes and the overwhelming obsession of some , to obliterate the old rite for those Catholics who are nourished by it.

    1. It’s because the Second Vatican Council decided to reform it out of existence.
      It’s tiresome repeatedly having to defend the basic and fundamental teachings of an ecumenical Council. There was a reason why they reformed the church, and reformed the liturgy to be, as they put it, an expression of the true Church. They gave a long, detailed list in Sacrosanctum Concilium of things to change in the liturgy which is, in effect, a list of reasons why the old liturgy would not remain in use in their minds
      All this is church teaching. But to state it is highly controversial. That is where we’re at.
      awr

      1. Where exactly did the council fathers state that the liturgy up to that point was not an expression of the true church and that it needed to be reformed in order to become such an expression?

  4. “…combining of parts of two or more orations to create what is effectively a newly-composed prayer”
    “edited in some manner”
    “found their way unchanged into the reformed Missal”
    These quotations from Hazell’s article suggest that the criteria used for “measuring” the amount of change is a bit slippery. “combined”…how? why? how much? are we talking about a few words, a sentence or two, or whole pages? Have historically obscure references been modified for clarity? Have other aspects of the text been modified for clarity? What’s meant by “found their way unchanged”? Does a single change ( a comma, a period) “count” in the “measurement” ( a quasi scientific sounding term–with charts!–promising dead certainty that in fact isn’t applicable when it comes to textual criticism). And has Mr. Hazell enquired or reported anywhere as to the rationale behind the changes mentioned? Etc.

    I would suggest a comparison with Shakespeare’s texts. We have a few first folios, but ambiguities abound. After all, printing errors, variances between portfolios, etc. require interpretative evaluation. Attempting to solve the issue of what constitutes the most “authentic” version of Hamlet…through “measurements”….(!!!!) misses the point. Hamlet…measured out to find the best text?
    We can’t measure our way to understanding prayer. The missal isn’t information that can be measured. It’s a living text abounding in meaning that opens out over time.

    1. You are more than welcome to download the PDF file linked to in my article, which contains all the relevant texts (except the centonised texts, as that’s a much more complex issue that requires further analysis), side by side for edited orations, in which some of your questions will no doubt be answered.

      Or, just click here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ts4aWa4zof6rtX2d5BJmp2_ul45vKtK/view

      In that file, I have also provided references to the Corpus orationum, for those who wish to do their own text-critical study of the prayers. The CO gives all the necessary information – how many manuscripts a given oration is extant in, its usages, textual differences (if any) in each manuscript, biblical allusions, etc.

      (For what it’s worth, even a cursory glance at the CO will demonstrate that the majority of edits Coetus XIII and XVIII bis made to extant prayers cannot justified with reference to the textual tradition. E.g. «in tot adversis» was removed from the collect for Holy Monday – an edit not attested in any of the 44 manuscripts dating from at least the 8th century that this prayer appears in.)

  5. So it was the Council Fathers intention for the Roman Church to have dry truncated liturgy with stripped down churches devoid of beauty? When these unfortunate alterations were enacted in 1970 the Church possessed gravitas and a willing faithful. This is not the Church we have now, having squandered its spiritual capital with poor catechesis and an iconoclastic purging of Catholic tradition.This is why I suppose repeating over and over again that the Council ‘s liturgical changes are non negotiable and will bear much fruit is tiresome;
    Catholics today either no longer care or know better , and hold tightly to the Old Rites.