Editor’s Note: Some words of wisdom from Fr. George W. Rutler of the Church of St. Michael in New York City:
“Egyptian embalmers assumed that the brain would not be needed in the afterlife, and so they threw it away. Since there will be no need for sun or moon in the Heavenly City, for ‘the Lamb is the lamp thereof’ (Rev. 21:23), the ‘glorified body’ may enjoy immediate perception. But God expects us to use our brains in this temporal world. Jesus did not commend the dishonesty of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-12), but He said we should use our minds as justly as the steward did unjustly….
“Within a ten-minute walk of our church in these past few days, one man attacked an officer with a meat cleaver, and another man planted two explosives. The first man had shouted Islamic slogans outside a Brooklyn synagogue in July and was declared ‘not a terrorist threat.’ The human brain can rationalize unreality if it replaces true faith in God with its own agenda.
“In 1899 William Hughes Mearns wrote about a ghost:
“ ‘Yesterday, upon the stair,/ I met a man who wasn’t there./ He wasn’t there again today,/ I wish, I wish he’d go away….’
“Terrorists are not ghosts and will not go away even if reasonably intelligent people misuse their brains to pretend they are not there.”
Q. During his homily today, our parish priest informed the congregation that the priest who offers the Extraordinary Form could potentially commit many sins if he doesn’t exactly follow the rubrics. He said the priest would be sinning if he “held his hands too far apart” as an example of how every movement and gesture is regimented. Is this true? — M.P., Pennsylvania.
A. A friend of this column checked with a priest from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), and here is his response:
“Your parish priest is mistaken. Over the centuries, those who taught the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) wanted, sensibly, to ensure regularity and uniformity. When there are multiple options available to the priest, his ‘personality’ can emerge and Holy Mass may then take on an individuality which, of course, is not its rightful property. [This is a euphemism for expressing concern about ubiquitous liturgical abuses which have sullied the Ordinary Form for fifty years.] Over time, certain commentaries about the TLM employed a strict, admonitory, and exaggerated style to warn the new priest away from improvisation in celebration. [The pendulum swings, doesn’t it? We could have used such an ‘admonitory style’ this past half-century!] It is important, then, to differentiate between such a commentary and authoritative Church teaching.
“Here a bit of theological common sense is needed. The elements of mortal sin (complete consent, grave matter, and full knowledge) come into play. If a priest, in either Form of the Mass, decides in a cavalier or arrogant manner to disregard the rubrics and, in effect, to subvert Holy Mass, he sins (see the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 24, the Catechism, n. 1125, and Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 22).
“In the TLM, for instance, the priest makes the sign of the cross 52 times. Suppose he unintentionally omits one. Is that a mortal sin? Of course not. Suppose, however, that he sets out to make a mockery of Holy Mass. He then sins grievously.
“Your priest should have taken the trouble to research his statement. I hope he will consult with a reliable authority (such as the FSSP at 570-961-1205) and then, in charity, correct his remarks.”
Q. I know what the Church’s teaching is on same-sex “marriage,” but how are we to respond when critics denounce the Church for “homophobia,” for not being welcoming to everyone, or for not following the lead of Pope Francis in urging mercy and compassion for sinners, especially those involved in the homosexual lifestyle? – M.K., Florida.
A. We would suggest responding in the same way that Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Providence did recently when asked to reverse the removal from a parish of a recently “married” homosexual music director. First of all, a spokesman for the Diocese of Providence said that “any person who holds a ministerial position in the Church, as an employee or a volunteer, is expected to live in a way that is fully consistent with the teachings and faith of the Church. If an individual deliberately and knowingly enters into a relationship or engages in activity that contradicts the core teachings of the Church, that individual leaves the Church no choice but to respond.”
As for the position of Pope Francis, Bishop Tobin noted that “when Church leaders have to respond to situations involving persons living an openly ‘gay lifestyle’ these days, we’re often scolded and told that we should be ‘more like Pope Francis,’ presumably the ‘Who-am-I-to-judge’ Pope Francis. Perhaps those critics should also remember:
“The Pope Francis who said same-sex ‘marriage’ is destructive in families and the work of the Devil.
“And the Pope Francis who has now supported the Mexican bishops’ campaign to oppose ‘gay marriage’ in their country.
“And the Pope Francis who rejected the nomination of the Ambassador from France because the Ambassador is openly ‘gay.’
“And the Pope Francis whose administration immediately fired and disciplined a priest who was working in the Vatican upon learning that the priest was ‘gay’ and involved in a relationship.
“When we uphold the faith and teachings of the Church about homosexuality,” said Bishop Tobin, “we are indeed a lot like Pope Francis.”
Q. Discussing with a friend the recent feast of the Archangels Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael, he said that there was a fourth archangel, Uriel. Is that true? — A.C., Ohio.
A. No, it is not true. The name Uriel, which in Hebrew means “God is my light,” is given to two men in the Old Testament: the leader of the Levitical clan who was commissioned by King David to help move the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (cf. First Chronicles 15:1-5, 11), and the father of Micaiah, the Queen Mother of Judah during the reign of King Abijah (cf. Second Chronicles 13:2).
In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, a non-Catholic work, the name Uriel is applied to the two men mentioned above, but also to “an archangel, one of the holy angels who led Enoch on his visionary journeys through the heavens.” The citations include the Book of Esdras and the Book of Enoch, which are not included in Catholic Bibles. Enoch was popular with Christians in the first three centuries and is quoted in the Letter of Jude, verses 14 and 15.
Regarding Esdras, Fr. A.L. of North Carolina once informed us that, when Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) published the revised Vulgate, he placed this book in an appendix after the New Testament with the rest of the Apocrypha (books Protestants do not believe are divinely inspired), and several liturgical texts are taken from Esdras. According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, “the Fourth Book of Esdras is reckoned among the most beautiful productions of Jewish literature. Widely known in the early Christian ages and frequently quoted by the Fathers (especially St. Ambrose), it may be said to have framed the popular belief of the Middle Ages concerning the last things. The liturgical use shows its popularity.
“The second chapter has furnished the verse Requiem aeternam to the Office of the Dead, the response Lux perpetua lucebit sanctis tuis of the Office of the Martyrs during Easter time, the introit Accipite jucunditatem for Whit-Tuesday, the words Modo coronantur of the Office of the Apostles; in like manner, the verse Crastine die for Christmas Eve is borrowed from xvi, 53.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress