Every voter NEEDS to watch this homily.

Let's pray that every Catholic voter in the United States gets a chance to hear this homily or one very similar from their own priests before November.

About the Novena for Our Nation - Novena for our Nation

About the Novena for Our Nation - Novena for our Nation

A major step forward in relations with the SSPX? I hope so.

A major step forward in relations with the SSPX? I hope so.



This from Life Site news and Father Z's blog. This is worth following closely.

One of the most significant points of conflict between the SSPX and the Holy See has been the issue of the document of Vatican II Nostra aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions.

Over the years, I’ve said that this document, as well as the document on religious liberty Dignitatis humanae, shouldn’t have to be an obstacle.  Of course, ecumenism and religious liberty are intimately intertwined.

The issue of religious liberty and ecumenism is difficult and susceptible of many Catholic approaches and views.  It should be acceptable to disagree about various aspects of religious liberty.  I am reminded of the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, who took a hard-line position about the truth of the Catholic doctrine, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus … outside the Church there is no salvation”.  After significant conflict with ecclesial authority, he was censured with an excommunication. Later, he was reconciled and he did not have to abure his hard-line position.

The situations of the SSPX and Fr. Feeney are not strictly parallel, but the example of the later serves to illustrate that Catholics, rather well-informed theologians, can have differing positions about difficult points of doctrine, so long as they do not dissent in a scandalous way from dogma.

There should be some flexibility when an issue is really hard, as the issue of religious liberty is.   Do people have a natural right to pursue error, or is this only a civil right?  Are there really paths to salvation outside the Church?  Does what the Second Vatican Council resolve these questions definitively?

We now see at LifeSite that an ice layer has broken in the jam at the Holy See regarding Nostra aetate.

One particular Council document with which the SSPX takes issue is Nostra Aetate (“In Our Time”), a declaration on the Church’s relationship with other religions. Some interpret it as inconsistent with or at the very least muddying the Catholic Church’s teaching that it alone is the one true religion.

Pozzo said Nostra Aetate is not dogmatic and therefore no Catholic is bound to accept it as such.

“Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority, and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as being dogmatic,” Pozzo said. “This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view — contrary to the Catholic Faith — that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Faith itself in its declaration, Dominus Iesus. Therefore, any interpretation of Nostra Aetate which goes into this [erroneous] direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected.”

Also, Fr. John Hunwicke cites Archbp. Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (my old office) which handles relations with the SSPX.   Fr. Hunwicke also relates what the LifeSite piece contained, but includes Archbp. Pozzo’s preamble about something that happened during the Second Vatican Council, specifically about Nostra aetate (my emphases):

“The Secretary for the Unity of Christians said on 18 November 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra aetate ‘As to the character of the declaration, [PAY ATTENTION] the Secretariate does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms’. [We are free to disagree with “pastoral norms”.] Nostra aetate does not have any dogmatic authority and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognise this declaration as dogmatic. This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium. For example, there exists today, unfortunately, the view – contrary to the Catholic Faith – that there is a salvific path independent of Christ and His Church. That [he apparently means “The unfortunate existence today of such an unCatholic view”] has also been officially confirmed last of all by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself in its declaration Dominus Iesus. Therefore any interpretation of Nostra aetate which goes into this direction is fully unfounded and has to be rejected”.

It is not disobedience to desire clarifications about really hard questions that result from documents that are fraught with controversial points and that are not dogmatic.

I hope this signals a major step forward in relations with the SSPX.

Ad Orientem worship

French Catholic magazine Famille Chretienne has a very interesting interview with Cardinal Robert Sarah in which he very clearly states the need for us to all face east together in our liturgies.

http://www.famillechretienne.fr/vie-chretienne/liturgie/cardinal-sarah-comment-remettre-dieu-au-caeur-de-la-liturgie-194987

Fish Fridays, not just for lent.

Did you know that the requirement for Catholics to give penance on all Fridays not just during lent was never lifted?

In fact today the Code of Canon Law 1251 states "Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday."

Why then is it that so many Catholics assume that we are no longer need to give penance outside of lent? This is most likely due to confusion and misinterpretation of a statement regarding Penance and Abstinence issued by The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (our Episcopal Conference as mentioned in Can 1251) in November 1966. In that statement the USCCB declared that "Changing circumstances, including economic, dietary, and social elements, have made some of our people feel that the renunciation of the eating of meat is not always and for everyone the most effective means of practicing penance. Meat was once an exceptional form of food; now it is commonplace.20. Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most, to many in our day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation of other things would be more penitential."(US Bishops Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence, 19-20),

In other words the need for penance has not vanished, but rather it was felt that because of the common availability of meat and fish, that giving up meat may not in all circumstances constitute a sacrifice great enough to properly show penance and so, outside of lent, an equal or greater penance may be substituted.

"Catholic peoples from time immemorial have set apart Friday for special penitential observance by which they gladly suffer with Christ that they may one day be glorified with Him. This is the heart of the tradition of abstinence from meat on Friday where that tradition has been observed in the holy Catholic Church." (ibid,18)

"Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified."(ibid,22)

It is important to remember that each Friday recollects Good Friday and as such we are required as Catholics to perform a form of penance. The United States Conference of Bishops has given us the ability to choose that form or penance on Fridays outside of lent, however they also issue the statement; "even though we hereby terminate the traditional law of abstinence...as the sole prescribed means of observing Friday, we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat" (ibid,24)

One last quote to reflect on from the letter reminds us of our need for penance, the full letter can be read at the link below."...Sacred Scriptures declare our guilt to be universal; hence the universal obligation to that repentance which Peter, in his sermon on Pentecost, declared necessary for the forgiveness of sin (Acts 2:38). Hence, too, the Church's constant recognition that all the faithful are required by divine law to do penance. As from the fact of sin we Christians can claim no exception, so from the obligation to penance we can seek no exemption." (US Bishops Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence,1)

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/us-bishops-pastoral-statement-on-penance-and-abstinence.cfm

Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?

Liturgy Guy has an excellent article today,  "Why Aren’t Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?"

In it he makes some great points about the state of vocations in our country and why it is that one Diocese is able to create a disproportionate number of vocation when compared against the rest of the country. It seems to again go at the heart of "lex orandi, lex credendi" the way we act matters, when we act with belief we encourage belief in others. Reverence fosters love and respect for God in the Eucharist, dancing and clapping in the isles, fosters love and respect for dancing and clapping.

A few quotes from the article linked above:

"Everyone seems to have a program to promote, a new strategy to increase vocations, to increase weekly Mass attendance, to keep teens from fleeing the faith… However, what’s not as widely known is that we already have a blueprint for success: the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska"

"The National Catholic Reporter (known as the Fishwrap to Fr. Z readers) once bemoaned that it was as if the “reforms” so prevalent in the aftermath of Vatican II had missed Lincoln altogether. Exactly."

"To a large extent, Lincoln has preserved a male only sanctuary "

"The Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue." - 1994 Letter from the Congregation of Divine Worship

 A very good article, read the rest at the link above.

Novena to St. Joseph - March 11-19th

March 19th, Marks the Feast of St. Joseph, which I wrote about here last year. The upcoming feast gives gives us the wonderful ability to start a novena to St. Joseph tomorrow and conclude it on his feast day.

Say this Novena for 9 Days from March 11 - March 19 and on the 9th day publish the novena with your thanks. 

St. Joseph is the guardian of the Holy Family, he is called the Terror of Demons. Truly he is the the guardian and protector of ALL families. He is called the greatest saint in heaven after our Holy Mother, his spouse. 

Oh, St. Joseph,whose protection is so great, so strong, so prompt,before the throne of God,I place in you all my interests and desires.Oh, St. Joseph,do assist me by your powerful intercession,and obtain for me from your Divine Sonall spiritual blessings, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.So that, having engaged here below your heavenly power,I may offer my thanksgiving and homage to thee most Loving of Fathers.Oh, St. Joseph,I never weary contemplating you and Jesus asleep in your arms;I dare not approach while He reposes near your heart.Press Him in my name and kiss His fine Head for me andAsk Him to return the Kiss when I draw my dying breath.St. Joseph, Patron of departed souls - pray for me.Amen. ( we always add at the end of this one. "Please pray for our priests and religious and obtain for us many more worthy ones.") 

Lord Jesus, teach me ... to give and not to count the cost, to fight and not to heed the wounds

It is easy, sitting here in the comfort of the middle of the United States, to think that martyrdom is something from history books, something that happened to the apostles, and ancient saints long ago. But the reality is that is it is happening even today, there are those that are still giving their life for Christ, first in the way they live, and then literally in the way they die.
Please pray for the Sisters of the Missionaries of Charity that were martyred only two days ago.

read more here
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sisters-martyrs-yemen-14591

Why Aren’t More Masses Offered Ad Orientem?

Liturgy guy has a great article on Ad Orientem worship. 

This was the question that I recently posed to several priests: why aren’t more masses being offered ad orientem? As we have seen numerous books and articles in recent years convincingly argue for a return to ad orientem worship, it is unfortunate to see how few priests have actually returned to the traditional orientation. Despite well received scholarly works by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, Fr. Uwe Michael Lang, and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger arguing in favor of it, few Catholics ever see the Novus Ordo offered ad orientem, with the notable exceptions of two dioceses: Arlington (Virginia) and Lincoln (Nebraska).

Discussing the topic with several diocesan priests, an explanation for the continuing reluctance to offer the Mass ad orientem can be broken out into five categories:

Read the rest over at Liturgy Guy's website. 

Interview of Bishop Schneider at Rorate Caeli

Rorate Caeli published an interesting interview with Bishop Schneider. They have graciously given permission for it to be republished and I am doing so here. 



*NB: words in bold by Rorate for emphasis:

POST-SYNOD CHURCH & UNBELIEVERS IN THE HIERARCHY

Rorate Caeli: In the recent Synod, we will not know the legal impact it will have on the Church for some time, as it’s up to Pope Francis to move next. Regardless of the eventual outcome, for all intent and purposes, is there already a schism in the Church? And, if so, what does it mean practically speaking? How will it manifest itself for typical Catholics in the pews?

H.E. Schneider: Schism means according to the definition of the Code of Canon Law, can. 751: The refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with those members of the Church who are submitted to the Supreme Pontiff. One has to distinguish the defect in belief or heresy from schism. The defect in belief or heresy is indeed a greater sin than schism, as Saint Thomas Aquinas said: “Unbelief is a sin committed against God Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore the sin of unbelief is generically more grievous than the sin of schism” (II-II, q. 39, a. 2 c). 

The very crisis of the Church in our days consists in the ever growing phenomenon that those who don’t fully believe and profess the integrity of the Catholic faith frequently occupy strategic positions in the life of the Church, such as professors of theology, educators in seminaries, religious superiors, parish priests and even bishops and cardinals. And these people with their defective faith profess themselves as being submitted to the Pope. 

The height of confusion and absurdity manifests itself when such semi-heretical clerics accuse those who defend the purity and integrity of the Catholic faith as being against the Pope – as being according to their opinion in some way schismatics. For simple Catholics in the pews, such a situation of confusion is a real challenge of their faith, in the indestructibility of the Church. They have to keep strong the integrity of their faith according to the immutable Catholic truths, which were handed over by our fore-fathers, and which we find in in the Traditional catechisms and in the works of the Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church.   

Intolerance of minorities (2)

Fr. John Hunwicke, has an excellent article on his blog. .

Here is Fr. Hunwicke's article.
Intolerance of minorities (2)

Intolerance of minorities (2)

The Priestly Fraternity of S Peter, FSSP, was erected with lightning speed after the uncanonical episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. The promise was that the participants would be given, within the canonical unity and structures of the Church, the 'deal' which had been agreed with Archbishop Lefebvre; the 'deal' which he had signed, but had thought better of overnight, and had repudiated the next morning.

Broadly, this is what the FSSP was given ... although the most significant item in that package, the provision for them to have a bishop, never materialised, and, to this day, never has.

Little more than a decade later, things, apparently, were not well. In the middle of 2000, the Fraternity priests learned that their canonical election of a new superior had been suspended, a new superior was to be parachuted in, and the Rectors of the Fraternity's seminaries were replaced. A letter referred to "a certain spirit of rebellion against the present-day Church" among the seminarians. And one (otherwise generally sympathetic) Cardinal later explained to journalists that the "Fraternity's members must be helped in their endeavour to strike a balance between their original charism ... and the outcome of their insertion within the ecclesial reality of today". Markthat phrase!

It is not easy to see how the ecclesial reality of today can mean anything other than the prevalent ethos of Novus Ordo Catholicism. "Striking a balance" looks to me horribly like the old "Latinisation" as it used to be applied in a "uniate" context: the intolerance of the majority towards a culturally different minority, of which, for some reason, they feel dreadfully fearful. Or is the problem that Traditionalists are not humble enough? That they continue to address reasoned questions to the ecclesial reality of today?

Ecumenism is fashionable in some Catholic circles. I have long suspected that 'liberal' Catholics, who profess a sympathy for Ecumenism, favour it because their real desire is to change their own Church so that it conforms to the paradigms of Liberal Protestantism. Be that as it may, there is something strange about Catholics who have aprofessed warm ecumenical enthusiasm for ecclesial bodies which have been separated from them for half a millennium ... but who yet have a visible and vocal visceral intolerance towards fellow Catholics living loyally in canonical structures confirmed by the Church.
To be continued.

Why Families Need Traditional Priests

Here is a good article from the Liturgy Guy. I have often thought about this myself, the difference between the traditional parish and the modern parish is down to the attitudes of the parishioners, the support that they offer to each other outside of just the regular Sunday Mass, and what is expected of them by the priests.

http://liturgyguy.com/2016/01/19/why-families-need-traditional-parishes/