FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vesting Prayers for a Bishop?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2009/0...-mass.html

In this post I cite another website's article on the traditional dress of a Bishop at a Pontifical High Mass.  What are the prayers and rubrics associated with the wearing of these items?
He arrives in the secretarium wearing his choir dress and Roman buckled shoes.

He sits and reads the Psalms from the Preparation for Mass. Meanwhile, an MC removes the buckled shoes, and put the buskins and sandals on the bishop.

The bishop stands to read the versicles and collects, and then reads all the vesting prayers straight through. There are special ones for a bishop, and you can find them in an old Missal.

Afterwards, he removes his cross and cape, his train is let down, he sits, receives his biretta, removes his ring, his hands are washed, he removes his biretta, and stands, and is then handed the vestments in order by the deacon and subdeacon.

Depending on where he actually vests (the secretarium or the sanctuary) some of the details may vary.

Liturgically speaking, bishops are really high maintenance…
shame on you Fr. Cekada.  :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.
(09-12-2009, 09:24 PM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]shame on you Fr. Cekada.   :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.

Its really poor taste to talk about someone's morality just because you disagree with them.

Fr. Cekada doesn't sprout his views on this forum, and in my experience he's respected the moderators' prohibition on the subject.  I don't agree with his views, but I think his respect for those rules has been commendable (especially when he could just as easily make similar remarks to the rest of us).

Besides, he was just sharing his knowledge on the subject (which isn't in the slightest related to sedevacantism).
(09-12-2009, 09:24 PM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]shame on you Fr. Cekada.   :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.

Where the heck do you get off speaking that way to a Catholic priest? Especially when he was simply commenting on how a Bishop vests...Wow!! that's a real controversial topic...nice segue to the insult.

So you have the gift of reading souls, like Padre Pio and can see into Fr. Cekada's?

You presumptuous, sanctimonious jerk. You are the the prideful one.
(09-13-2009, 12:38 AM)Joan of Arc Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-12-2009, 09:24 PM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]shame on you Fr. Cekada.   :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.

Where the heck do you get off speaking that way to a Catholic priest? Especially when he was simply commenting on how a Bishop vests...Wow!! that's a real controversial topic...nice segue to the insult.

So you have the gift of reading souls, like Padre Pio and can see into Fr. Cekada's?

You presumptuous, sanctimonious jerk. You are the the prideful one.

Firstly, I am not speaking.  Can you hear me?  He did not simply comment, he provided a link to his articles which are satanic in origin.

Secondly, I cannot "read souls"  that makes no sense whatever.  Admonishing a sinner is a work of mercy.

Thirdly, how quickly you do the same thing that upset you so much by calling me names.  How is that helpful? 

Have a nice day.

(09-13-2009, 06:48 AM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-13-2009, 12:38 AM)Joan of Arc Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-12-2009, 09:24 PM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]shame on you Fr. Cekada.   :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.

Where the heck do you get off speaking that way to a Catholic priest? Especially when he was simply commenting on how a Bishop vests...Wow!! that's a real controversial topic...nice segue to the insult.

So you have the gift of reading souls, like Padre Pio and can see into Fr. Cekada's?

You presumptuous, sanctimonious jerk. You are the the prideful one.

Firstly, I am not speaking.  Can you hear me?  He did not simply comment, he provided a link to his articles which are satanic in origin.

Secondly, I cannot "read souls"  that makes no sense whatever.  Admonishing a sinner is a work of mercy.

Thirdly, how quickly you do the same thing that upset you so much by calling me names.  How is that helpful? 

Have a nice day.

Wow!  What an unbelievable,  ignorant and disrespectful post - to a Catholic priest even.  And a comment way, way off topic to boot, augusztina .  And to think, I had thought I left the judgemental fundie prots. along with their mindless condemnations.  Who would have thought.......?   

PS:  Have you heard of private messaging?  A comment like yours is not charitable in a public forum.  If you're going to shame someone, at least do it in private.
(09-13-2009, 06:48 AM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-13-2009, 12:38 AM)Joan of Arc Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-12-2009, 09:24 PM)augusztina Wrote: [ -> ]shame on you Fr. Cekada.   :( 

Your pride is that of Lucifer.  Repent.

Where the heck do you get off speaking that way to a Catholic priest? Especially when he was simply commenting on how a Bishop vests...Wow!! that's a real controversial topic...nice segue to the insult.

So you have the gift of reading souls, like Padre Pio and can see into Fr. Cekada's?

You presumptuous, sanctimonious jerk. You are the the prideful one.

Firstly, I am not speaking.  Can you hear me?  He did not simply comment, he provided a link to his articles which are satanic in origin.

Secondly, I cannot "read souls"  that makes no sense whatever.  Admonishing a sinner is a work of mercy.

- Thirdly, how quickly you do the same thing that upset you so much by calling me names.  How is that helpful? 

Have a nice day.

" Firstly, I am not speaking."

- OK, you are writing. Are distinctions regarding this germane to any point you are trying to make? Or are you just trying to be a smart aleck?

" He did not simply comment, he provided a link to his articles which are satanic in origin."

-[i] All sorts of people
provide all sorts of links on this forum..You really should read the moderator's linking policy before commenting in this way. There is nothing here that violates it.

"Secondly, I cannot "read souls"  that makes no sense whatever.  Admonishing a sinner is a work of mercy."

- You cannot read Fr. Cecada's soul? And yet you call Fr. Cekada prideful and a sinner  ???..You came to these conclusions via what route? Are you telling me that no one can come to some of the conclusions that Fr. has, except through sin and pride?

In order for a sin to be present, one of course has to know that the subject matter in question is, indeed, sinful. There have been many learned men who have written on the topic in question. Many of them disagree and take opposite positions. Fr. Cekada has obviously read, prayed and come to the conclusions he has drawn via intellectual honesty and sincerely believing his opinions to be correct via the time he has invested in researching this topic. To insinuate that he is in a state of mortal sin regarding this is ridiculous.

It is entirely possible to come to the conclusions that Fr. Cekada has without the sins being present whatsoever. I also do not hold the positions you are making reference to, vis a vis Fr. Cekada. But there are many humble and holy people who are incorrect about various things they believe.

Do you honestly think that Fr. Cekada would change or benefit from instruction from you? He didn't embrace these positions last weekend  :laughing: He has held the positions that you take objection to for decades and has written many articles, as well as lectured on this topic.  He is a very intelligent man who holds an erroneous opinion on something. Such men do exist.

I think that your rude and presumptuous admonishments are not at all about trying to perform a work of mercy.  What they seem to be about are anger, arrogance and pride.

As well as an obvious agenda.

My Quebecois ancestors always taught that you never speak rudely about a Catholic priest. Even one you may have profound disagreements with.  He has devoted his life to serving God. Please be respectful of that.
That was a rotten thing to say. Father has written me personally with charity and pure altruism to questions about the Faith I posed; I have the utmost respect for him. Rotten. Just plain rotten, whoever you are.
Father obeys the rules of the forum.  He is allowed a link to his website in his signature.  He participates appropriately, offers his knowledge that most others would not have, and does not cause problems.  So, he is welcome to be here as long as he is so inclined.

I think one is deceiving one's self if they think a post on a forum would change Father's theological position.  Abp. Lefebvre couldn't do it, Father's peers couldn't do it; the repeated e-mails that I'm sure Father gets doesn't do it, debates don't do it.  So, it seems to me that setting one's self up as a Knight of the Crusade on a white stallion charging in to save the day results in nothing more than being Don Quixote on a donkey tilting at a windmill.

I'm not saying this about this particular post, but  I'm also not convinced that a lot of "fraternal correction" is rooted in charity, which is where fraternal correction needs to be rooted, as much as it is rooted in personal outrage at sin.  Fraternal correction rooted in charity shows a concern for the soul of the person more than an outrage at their sin.  Obviously, we should have a just outrage at sin - as opposed to personal indignation, but the outrage really belongs to God and our primary job is to help the person get back on the right path.  Usually admonishing someone for (paraphrasing) being in league with Satan isn't going to motivate them to change.

Using fraternal correction as an excuse to attack something one does not like, even if it is objectively sinful, is just making an excuse for one's behavior, and that is just as foul as using a personal erroneous reading of Scripture to justify some other type of boorish behavior.  Our primary motivation must be the good of the person we are correcting and/or the common good.  Our motivation must be completely pure or we are bringing the metaphorical hot coals down upon our heads.

There is also the fact that Father is in fact a priest and there is zero doubt about the validity of his orders, so his office and authority deserves a due deference.  So, all-in-all,I think this type of "fraternal correction" puts someone in a precarious situation, and, also, it is out of place on this forum.

Bottom line: this type of "correction" has no place on the forum.  If one feels, in my opinion imprudently and foolishly, motivated to give this type of "correction" please do it in e-mail or PM. 

Here are some good guidelines for what type of fraternal correction is appropriate, by whom, and when.  It might be useful for all of us to review them.


"Colin B. Donovan, STL" Wrote:There is also what is called  fraternal correction. This means correction of faults by private individuals who do not have an official duty to correct. In the Church this would include such peer to peer correction as priest to priest, or laity to laity, as well as the correction of the clergy by the laity, or higher clergy by lower.

The following principles on fraternal correction are derived from the moral theology tradition of the Church:

    Who should correct? Fraternal correction should be given by someone with the requisite knowledge and temperament to give it correctly and effectively. Those whose response to sin is to be scandalized and become ill-tempered are probably NOT the ones to give fraternal correction. They will give it badly, and therefore ineffectively.

    What should be corrected? We are obligated to correct grave sins, and grave liturgical abuses are the matter of grave sins, if the following conditions are met:

        1. It is not likely that the sinner will be corrected, either by acquiring the knowledge himself, or by the correction of an equally or better qualified person than myself. In other words, he is unlikely to be corrected by his superior, by his peers, or by a better qualified person than me.

        2. There is a well-founded hope that the sinner will profit from the correction. If such a hope does not exist then correction is not morally obliged, except when to not correct would itself give scandal.

        3. Correction can be given without great personal detriment. While those in authority have a duty to correct grave faults, private individuals do not have such a duty if giving correction entails great cost to themselves.

    We may prudently correct outside of these conditions, but observing them guarantees the probity of our fraternal correction. Correction of each and every venial sin (or all minor abuses) is clearly not envisioned by the moral tradition of the Church. One should weigh the gravity and the circumstances carefully. As I have often counseled people, pick the gravest abuses and start there. If you can’t have an impact on those the possibilities are slim to none for the rest.

    Where should it be given? Following the order commanded by Christ in Mt. 18, fraternal correction should be given privately to the individual himself, then by a number of individuals together in private, and only publicly as a last resort. Immediate public correction is justified , however, where the common good is at stake and immediacy is necessary to avoid scandal, or, where the fault is a public one and private correction would be manifestly ineffective.

    When should it be given? Circumstances can make or break the effectiveness of fraternal correction. Prudence requires making the best judgment about when and how to give correction. An anonymous flyer on the windshields of cars in the church parking lot, or an angry voice mail, is unlikely to work. Pick a time, a place, and a manner with prayer, whether a letter, a private conversation, the gift of a book on the subject or some other means. Within families especially, fraternal correction is often undone by the vehemence and imprudence of how it is given.

    How should it be given? One should maintain the order of justice oneself by treating the other person with respect, especially if in authority, and the order of charity by giving the correction in a Christian manner, regardless of the response of the other. This insures that the one giving correction does not sin in the process, and provides the best chance that the correction will produce fruit. Otherwise, it is “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:13).