Sunday, June 17, 2018

EUCHARISTIC PROCESSIONS IN TEXAS

This is a great, short video. There are two "Benedictions." The one in the Texas State House is great. I wonder how they got permission?

But the rigid doctor of the law in me has to complain about the young priest carrying the Monstrance in Procession in front of the Austin Cathedral. I do believe it is not appropriate for the priest to wear his biretta while in procession and certainly not in giving the Benediction. In fact a bishop would not wear his zucchetta either and certainly not his miter! But apart from that, it is splendid.


YES TO MEN ONLY IN HOLY ORDERS; YES TO CATHOLICS ONLY RECEIVING HOLY COMMUNION; YES TO THE PROLIFE WAY OF CATHOLICISM; YES TO NATURAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE!

The Holy Father is hitting the ball out of the park and this one will hit progressives in the world square in the forehead and make them scream against the Holy Father, which means, the Holy Father is speaking the Truth, with a capital "T"!

And we all know how politically incorrect it is to equate abortion to the Holocaust and the Nazi mentality. When will the progressives start howling over this one!

First here is a google translation of what the Pope say off-the-cuff as recounted by Sandro Magister:

 

Given that "it takes courage" to "talk about the family today", Francis expressed himself with politically very incorrect words in at least two moments:
Against the so-called "gay marriages":
"The greatest gift God gave to humanity is the family, because after the story of the creation of man, God shows us that he created man and woman in his image and likeness, and Jesus himself, when he speaks of marriage, he says: 'Man will leave his father and mother and his wife will become one flesh.' Because they are the image and likeness of God. You are an icon of God: the family is an icon of God. the woman: it is precisely the image of God. He has said it, I do not say it, and this is great, it is sacred.
"Today - it hurts to say - we are talking about 'diversified' families: different types of families Yes, it is true that the word 'family' is an analogical word, because we talk about the 'family' of the stars, the 'families' of the trees, of the 'families' of animals ... It is an analogical word, but the human family as an image of God, man and woman, is only one.
And even harder against selective abortions:
"Children are the greatest gift: children who welcome themselves as they come, as God sends them, as God permits - even if sometimes they are sick.I heard that it is fashionable - or at least it is habitual - in the first months of pregnancy make certain examinations, to see if the child is not well, or comes with some problem ... The first proposal in that case is: 'We send him away?' The murder of children. out an innocent.
"When I was a boy, the teacher taught us history and told us what the Spartans were doing when a child was born with malformations: they took him to the mountain and threw him down, to treat 'the purity of the race.' And we remained stunned: 'But how , how can you do this, poor children! "It was an atrocity.Today we do the same.You wondered why you do not see so many dwarves on the street? Because the protocol of so many doctors - many, not all - is to do the question: 'Is it bad?' I say this with grief: in the last century, the whole world was scandalized by what the Nazis did to treat the purity of the race, but today we do the same, but with white gloves ".


And this is the associated press account:

Pope: Abortion is 'white glove' equivalent to Nazi crimes

NICOLE WINFIELD

WHAT THE CATHOLIC LITURGY NEEDS IS A RECOVERY OF BEAUTY AND PEACE AND THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS IS THE ANSWER

Commonweal is a progressive Catholic periodical. Thus it is heartening to read this article from it. The author gets it.

The other thing that ad orientem gets extremely right to the question, "who is the priest celebrating the Mass in the photo below?," is the answer "it doesn't matter!"

(Creative Commons)

Silent Grace

Finding Peace in the Latin Mass

Saturday, June 16, 2018

THE PRE-VATICAN II CHURCH'S TRIUMPHALISM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF THE CHURCH TODAY AS THIS PRE-VATICAN II TRIUMPALISM WAS APPLIED TO WHAT THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL WOULD BRING ABOUT!


I disagree that Pope Paul VI was the worst pope. There was a giddiness  blowing throughout the Church by 1965 (a pre-Vatican II triumphalism applied to a "pastoral ecumenical council") that convinced the pope and bishops that Vatican II would usher in the Holy Spirit as though at a new Pentecost bringing about a "new springtime" for the Church.

In other words, Vatican II was imposed onto the Church in the most Pre-Vatican II way possible, by the triumphalism of authority and obedience!

People believed that for the most part, especially those in the the clergy and religious. 

In fact, by 1967 or 1968 in the USA, very pious, pre-Vatican II faithful Catholics ushered in the Charismatic movement as a result of unbridled ecumenism with fundamentalist, pentecostal Protestants.

If there was ever a 20th century symbol of the meaning behind the Old Testament "Tower of Babel" passage, this is it!

Pope Paul VI began to realize the folly of what was happening with the "spirit of Vatican II" by 1968 but was impotent or unwilling to apply pre-Vatican II disciplinary methods on post-Vatican II idiots. He was weak but not corrupt.

Pope Francis has not moved from applying pre-Vatican II triumphalism onto the Second Vatican Council and the new pastoral paradigm it presents in a triumphalist way. In fact Pope Francis uses the term of the 1960's of the "God of surprises" to justify the post-Vatican II chaos.

Pope Francis is also more interested in charismatic Catholics and their enthusiasm than in pre-Vatican II Catholics. Just this past year he met with a convergence of Pentecostal Catholics and joined them in their free-wheeling style of prayer, but did not meet with Extraordinary Form Catholics who gathered in Rome and for a Mass at St. Peter's Basilica.

COLORING BOOK JEOPARDY CONTESTANTS AND 40 DAYS AFTER EASTER


Last night, a Jeopardy contestant swept the television category to the audience's adulation as well as that of Alex Trevec.

But this was the "Final Jeopardy" answer:

This island was discoverd by Alphonse d'Alburquerque 40 days after Easter who gave the island its name. 

ALL THREE CONTESTANTS GOT THE QUESTION WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, the humanity!

Do you know the question?

Friday, June 15, 2018

THE DIVINE LITURGY SWEEPING US UP INTO HEAVEN AND ITS PEACE AND BEAUTY

Vatican II did not intend this, but his is what happened:

Before Vatican II:
They said Vatican II mandated this:
 They said, no Vatican II didn't mandate stripping things and it was restored

When you look at the current mast photo of an ordination in the Extraordinary Form, you see why 95% of Catholics attended Mass each Sunday: it was otherworldly and it brought peace and beauty to people's lives. Something important was happening in the Church--a foretaste of heaven where everything would be made right and beautiful.

How is it that the implementation of Vatican II's liturgical suggestions got it so wrong? Did Vatican II mandate the stripping of churches, altars, railings, art, statuary and icons, the dismantling of reredoes?

No, only those who listened to liturgical theologians after Vatican II who promoted an "anti-Council" or the Protestantization of our liturgy and churches are the ones that caused this. I hope they repented before they died.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

THAT'S INCREDIBLE!



The church above is being moved from contaminated ground caused over the decades by the Atlanta Gas-light company. It was slated to be torn down but because of its historic nature, they are moving it across the street. I had no idea a brick church, that size, could be moved. Incredible!

Church is just two blocks behind my former parish, The Church of the Most Holy Trinity, and yes our ground was contaminated too, but not like the ground where the church being moved was. 

Here is the Augusta Chronicle article that accompanies the above video:


Supporters prayed and sang as the historic “Mother Trinity” church, considered the birthplace of the Christian Methodist Episcopal denomination, began her short but slow journey across Taylor Street on Wednesday.

“What a glorious day it is,” said the Rev. Herman “Skip” Mason, pastor of Augusta’s new Trinity CME, where members relocated in the late 1990s from downtown Augusta. “We give glory to God, but we also must give thanks to the Augusta Canal Authority.”

Mason said the short move, about 250 feet to a new site closer to the Augusta Canal, “doesn’t take it too much out of its historical context” and that he hopes the church enjoys “a new life and a new purpose” in its new location.

The canal authority spearheaded the latest in a nearly 20-year push to save the historic church, which was built by former slaves in the 1890s at the site of CME’s founding a half-century earlier. Despite its historic past, the church was targeted for demolition by Atlanta Gas Light as part of a massive remediation effort to remove coal tar contamination from the soil that began in the 1990s.

he authority led the “Save Mother Trinity” effort which raised $475,000 to relocate, rather than demolish the church, and Authority Executive Director Dayton Sherrouse said the church’s story continued Wednesday as organizers determine how to renovate and put the church to new use.

“Eventually we’ll find the right thing to do with her so she can shine her light into the 21st century,” said Rebecca Rogers, authority director of marketing and public relations.

The relocated church’s future remains uncertain, but will be aided by a $15,000 grant the canal authority obtained last week to develop a plan and make recommendation for its use, Rogers said. Plans could include a connection with nearby Dyess Park, she said.

Gil Gilyard watched the move on the 47th anniversary of his wedding there on June 13, 1971. Gilyard said he’d been involved when the church served as lead plaintiff in litigation against Atlanta Gas Light, which eventually settled the contamination claims.

Louise Lee, 92, likely one of the oldest Trinity members to witness the church move Wednesday, said she recalled some in the congregation crying over the decision to relocate in the 1990s, but she did not. Now things are turning around.

“If it had to be done, it had to be done,” Lee said. “I try to deal with things as they happen.”
Teresa Shanks Brooks said she first attended Trinity as a child while visiting her aunt, who lived on Taylor Street. “This is history here,” Brooks said.

Frank Lampkin grew up on Taylor Street and watched the church move in disbelief. “I’m just surprised because I had no idea they could do that,” he said.
The move was slow and the church hadn’t reached a platform across Taylor Street by noon. The move was later halted and will begin again at 9 a.m. today.

During the move, Melody Meriweather said she had the “best seat in the house” as she fished in the nearby canal with a perfect view of the move.

The estimated 400-ton brick church was hoisted on steel girders and special dollies in preparation for the move, which was orchestrated by John Landers of Hercules House Movers. The schedule for moving the church was delayed by recent heavy rains.
Observer Darrin Nix said he was pleased to see the community come together to accomplish the move.

“People have to rally behind a cause,” Nix said. “They can’t just armchair quarterback.”


Wednesday, June 13, 2018

DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW IT ALL YOU GNOSTIC??????

Sandro Magister tells us by way of another great theologian, Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap. what Gnosticism actually is!

Gnosticism, an Ancient Heresy. But Here's How It's Reappearing Today

Francesco
The language of Pope Francis has already been the object of numerous analyses, which converge in recognizing his great communicative efficacy. But there are two epithets that he often applies to his adversaries within the Church, and yet are incomprehensible to most: “Gnostic” and “Pelagian.”

Not only that. Even the few who understand the ordinary significance of these two epithets find that many times Jorge Mario Bergoglio uses them contrary to their meaning. (I have said that time and time again! And that's why I believe Cardinal-Elect Ladaria clarified it!)


It is breathtaking, for example, that he - in the book-length interview with the French sociologist Dominique Wolton - should apply the term “Pelagian” to none other than the mathematician, philosopher, and man of faith of the seventeenth century Blaise Pascal, who was the polar opposite of this and wrote that masterpiece which is “Les Provinciales” precisely in order to unmask the Pelagianism, the real thing, of many Jesuits of his time.

In the agenda-setting document of his pontificate, the exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium,” Francis dedicated an entire paragraph, 94, to what these two epithets mean to him.

But since then he has always used them in such an offhanded and interchangeable way as to induce even the congregation for the doctrine of the faith - in the recent letter to the bishops “Placuit Deo” - to bring a bit of order to the matter, stating in what really consist the two “deviations” now present in the Church “that resemble certain aspects of two ancient heresies, Pelagianism and Gnosticism.”

But once again without any appreciable effect on the elocution of Bergoglio, who never names the targets of his invective but lets everyone imagine who it may be, for example in the person of Cardinal Robert Sarah, he too covertly accused by the pope of “Gnosticism” and another time of “Pelagianism,” in the same way - entirely undeserved and improper - as a Pascal.

The following commentary is an attempt to bring clarity to the use of one of the two terms - “Gnosticism” - by an American theologian already known to the readers of Settimo Cielo, who had the opportunity to appreciate the open letter that he wrote to Pope Francis last summer: Thomas G. Weinandy, a member of the international theological commission consolidated into the Vatican congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

Fr. Weinandy shows how the dispute over “neo-Gnosticism” is not at all marginal, because it affects the transition underway in the Catholic Church, a transition set in motion by Pope Francis and feared and criticized by some, and by others eagerly pursued.

The commentary appeared on June 7 on the American website “The Catholic Thing” and is reproduced here in its entirety.

GNOSTICISM TODAY

by Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.

There is much discussion today concerning the presence of a new Gnosticism within the Catholic Church.  Some of what has been written is helpful, but much of what has been described as a revival of this heresy has little to do with its ancient antecedent. Moreover, attributions of this ancient heresy to various factions within contemporary Catholicism are generally misdirected.  To bring some clarity to this discussion of neo-Gnosticism first demands a clear understanding of the old form.

Ancient Gnosticism came in various forms and expressions, often quite convoluted, but some essential principles are discernible:

-  First, Gnosticism holds a radical dualism: “matter” is the source of all evil, and “spirit” is the divine origin of all that is good.

- Second, human beings are composed of both matter (the body) and spirit (which provides access to the divine).

- Third, “salvation” consists in obtaining true knowledge ("gnosis"), an enlightenment that allows progress from the material world of evil to the spiritual realm, and ultimately communion with the immaterial supreme deity.

- Fourth,  diverse “Gnostic Redeemers” were proposed, each claiming to possess such knowledge, and to provide access to this “salvific” enlightenment.
In light of the above, human beings fall into three categories:

1) the "sarkic" or "fleshly" people, are so imprisoned in the material or bodily world of evil that they are incapable of receiving “salvific knowledge”;

2) the "psychic" or "soulish", are partially confined to the "fleshly" realm and partially initiated into the spiritual domain. (Within “Christian Gnosticism,” these are the ones who live by mere “faith,” for they do not possess the fullness of divine knowledge.  They are not fully enlightened and so must rely on what they “believe.”);

3) finally, there are people capable of full enlightenment, the "Gnostics", for they possess the fullness of divine knowledge.  By means of their saving knowledge, they can completely extricate themselves from the evil material world and ascend to the divine.

They live and are saved not by “faith” but by “knowledge.”

Compared to ancient Gnosticism, what is now being proposed as neo-Gnosticism within contemporary Catholicism appears confused and ambiguous, as well as misdirected. Some Catholics are accused of neo-Gnosticism because they allegedly believe that they are saved because they adhere to inflexible and lifeless “doctrines” and strictly observe a rigid and merciless “moral code.”  They claim to “know” the truth and, thus, demand that it must be held and, most importantly, obeyed.

These “neo-Gnostic Catholics” are supposedly not open to the fresh movement of the Spirit within the contemporary Church.  The latter is often referred to as “the new paradigm.”

Admittedly, we all know Catholics who act superior to others, who flaunt their fuller understanding of dogmatic or moral theology to accuse others of laxity.  There is nothing new about such righteous judgmentalism.  This sinful superiority, however, falls squarely under the category of pride and is not in itself a form of Gnosticism.

It would be right to call this neo-Gnosticism only if those so accused were proposing a “new salvific knowledge,” a new enlightenment that differs from Scripture as traditionally understood, and from what is authentically taught by the living magisterial tradition.

Such a claim cannot be made against “doctrines” that, far from being lifeless and abstract truths, are the marvelous expressions of the central realities of Catholic faith – the Trinity, Incarnation, the Holy Spirit, the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Jesus’ law of love for God and neighbor reflected in the Ten Commandments, etc.  These “doctrines” define what the Church was, is, and always will be.  They are the doctrines that make her one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Moreover, these doctrines and commandments are not some esoteric way of life that enslaves one to irrational and merciless laws, imposed from without by a tyrannical authority.  Rather, these very “commandments” were given by God, in his merciful love, to humankind in order to ensure a holy god-like life.

Jesus, the Father’s incarnate Son, has further revealed to us the manner of life we are to live in expectation of his kingdom. When God tells us what we must never do, he is protecting us from evil, the evil that can destroy our human lives – lives he created in his image and likeness.

Jesus saved us from the devastation of sin through his passion, death, and resurrection, and he poured out his Holy Spirit precisely to empower us to live genuinely human lives.  To promote this way of life is not to propose a new salvific knowledge.  In ancient Gnosticism, people of faith – bishops, priests, theologians, and laity – would be called psychics. Gnostics would look down upon them precisely because they cannot claim any unique or esoteric “knowledge.” They are forced to live by faith in God’s revelation as understood and faithfully transmitted by the Church.

Those who mistakenly accuse others of neo-Gnosticism propose – when confronted with the nitty-gritty of real-life doctrinal and moral issues – the need to seek out what God would have them do, personally. People are encouraged to discern, on their own, the best course of action, given the moral dilemma they face in their own existential context – what they are capable of doing at this moment in time.  In this way, the individual’s own conscience, his or her personal communion with the divine, determines what the moral requirements are in the individual’s personal circumstances.  What Scripture teaches, what Jesus stated, what the Church conveys through her living magisterial tradition are superseded by a higher “knowledge,” an advanced “illumination.”

If there is any new Gnostic paradigm in the Church today, it would seem to be found here.  To propose this new paradigm is to claim to be truly “in-the-know,” to have special access to what God is saying to us as individuals here and now even if it goes beyond and may even contradict what He has revealed to everyone else in Scripture and tradition.

At the very least, no one claiming this knowledge should ridicule as neo-Gnostics those who live merely by “faith” in God’s revelation as brought forward by the Church’s tradition.

I hope that all this brings some clarity to the present ecclesial discussion over contemporary “Catholic” Gnosticism by placing it within the proper historical context. Gnosticism cannot be used as an epithet against those “unenlightened” faithful who merely seek to act, with the help of God’s grace, as the Church’s divinely inspired teaching calls them to act.

I AM IN FAVOR OF LITURGICAL UNITY AND OPEN-MINDEDNESS, SO LET ME BANG THIS DRUM AGAIN--LET'S ALSO HAVE THE 1965 ROMAN MISSAL AS A LEGITIMATE OPTION FOR PARISHES AND LET'S MAKE SURE THE ORDINARY FORM HAS THE OPTIONS THAT THE GLORIOUS ORDINARIATE'S MISSAL HAS, WHICH IS A REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE 1970 MISSAL IN TERMS OF OPTIONS--HECK LET'S HAVE IT FREELY CELEBRATED AS AN OPTION TO THE 1970'S REVISED ROMAN MISSAL

1965 Roman Missal:
Divine Worship: The Missal:



Jonathan Day at Praytell has an interesting post with even more interesting comments. He is, of course, opposed to the  EF Mass but he attends a church in London that provides an all Latin Ordinary Form Mass which he likes, I guess because of its ecclessiology, which like the liturgy, we can make into a false god if our Catholic Faith doesn't prevail within us.

You can read the whole post by pressing the excerpt I post below:

When did the rupture first take place?


Some liturgical commentators who once called for pluralism and ‘reform of the reform’ have hardened their views. Where they once held that Summorum Pontificum established two legitimate and equal forms of the Roman Rite, and that mutual (two-way) enrichment of the two forms was possible, the most ardent ‘traditionalists’ – and they proudly own that label — now believe that the only effective ‘reform of the reform’ would be the abolition of what is now called the Ordinary Form, and its replacement by some version of the older Mass.

My comments:

There are some of "the most ardent 'traditionalists'" who are apoplectic that Robert Cardinal Sarah allowed the Solemn High EF Mass His Eminence celebrated to have a "Liturgy of the Word" facing the congregation, at the ambo and in French. I complained that the French wasn't chanted and that was a problem but not the French itself. Many disagreed with me.

Thus, I have a better proposal to get more people to experience the EF Mass and that is to allow the 1965 Roman Missal as a legitimate option.  It would be celebrated exactly as an EF Mass, but with the allowance of the vernacular that is in this Roman Missal.

But Latin would still be preserved for all the priest's quiet parts including the soft-voice Roman Canon with all its EF rubrics.

The lectionary would be the EF lectionary with Latin or English, at the altar or ambo.

In addition to this progressive permission, I would also say that every English speaking parish in the world be allowed to use the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship, the Missal."

Of course the current OF Missal would be allowed in the interim and the 1962 Roman Missal in perpetuity for the boutique "most ardent 'traditionalists'". 

So there!

POPE FRANCIS WOULD LOVE THIS GEORGIA INITIATIVE!

This Georgia barrier island is only accessible by boat. It is Richmond Hill's barrier island and if it were accessible by bridges, it would be our beach access and about 10 miles to the beach from my rectory! But alas I have never been there though it is in my front yard.

The island next to it to the south is another uninhabited island, St. Catherine Island, home of the Georgia Franciscan martyrs  which our diocese is seeking canonization.

If Ossabaw Island had public access it would be another Hilton Head Island and a tourist destination:

Ossabaw still wild after 40 years

Ossabaw Island Heritage Preserve is about to turn 40, with Friday marking the anniversary of the day in 1978 when then-governor George Busbee signed the Executive Order making the barrier island Georgia’s first heritage preserve.


As it’s been for millennia, the 26,000-acre island in Chatham County is home to alligators, otters and bald eagles. It plays nursery to sea turtles, with 314 loggerhead nests erupting with hatchlings on its beaches last year. And there’s still not a single condo near the 13-mile stretch of beach on this island, which is 12 times bigger than neighboring Tybee.In these respects, Georgia has “absolutely” achieved what it set out to do with the purchase of Ossabaw and its designation as a preserve, said Patricia Barmeyer, who helped shepherd the deal as a young attorney working in the office of the Attorney General. Ossabaw is still accessible only by boat and there’s no commercial development.


“Ossabaw has been preserved,” Barmeyer said. “You can argue if it’s been utilized in the best possible way. You can debate that. But nobody made any mistakes. It is as it was except to the extent nature has done her work on it.”


The development of nearby Hilton Head Island in the 1960s alerted many in Georgia to the prospect of intensive development on barrier islands here, Barmeyer said. It motivated the state to acquire land on barrier islands.

And it motivated Ossabaw’s Eleanor Torrey “Sandy” West, whose parents had bought the island for $150,000 in the 1920s, to figure out a way to keep it protected despite a mounting tax burden.


West and her family sold the island to the state for $8 million, half its assessed value, with the additional guarantee Ossabaw would be a heritage preserve used only for “natural, scientific and cultural study, research and education and environmentally sound preservation, conservation and management of the island’s ecosystem.” Philanthropist and longtime president of Coca-Cola, Robert Woodruff, donated $4 million toward the purchase and the state provided the rest. West, who was 65 at the time of the sale, remained on a 23-acre life estate on the island until 2016 when she moved to an assisted living facility in Savannah where she celebrated her 105th birthday in January. Her life estate ownership remains in place.


The Heritage Preserve designation prohibits construction of a bridge or a causeway connecting Ossabaw to the mainland or other barrier islands. The order places Ossabaw Island under the management of the state’s Department of Natural Resources, who continues to be its manager. In 1998, the not-for-profit Ossabaw Island Foundation and the DNR signed an agreement giving the foundation the right and responsibility to manage programming and facilities on Ossabaw Island in accordance with the Heritage Preserve guidelines. Over the last 20 years, the foundation has shared Ossabaw Island with thousands of people from across Georgia and around the world through natural, scientific and cultural programming on the island and on the mainland; and has restored, renovated or stabilized 10 historic buildings on Ossabaw Island for related use.


“So many Georgians in the 1970s had the wisdom to see our coast as a treasure worth preserving, and to see Ossabaw Island as a unique jewel among many coastal jewels,” said Elizabeth DuBose, executive director of the Ossabaw Island Foundation. “Forty years later, thanks to the Heritage Preserve protections, Ossabaw is not only a critical element of the coastal ecosystem, but also allows scientists and historians to share important information about our nation’s past. On Ossabaw, new information is revealed every year through archaeology, ecological study, and related historical research on the mainland.”


Last year the foundation brought 1,100 people from 28 states and 12 countries to Ossabaw for programs ranging from indigo workshops to artists’ retreats. Even coastal residents who never visit Ossabaw benefit from it, said Jerry McCullom, an ecologist who was among the first DNR employees to live on the island.


“The ecological significance of all the barrier islands can’t be overstated,” said McCullom, who later became the head of the Georgia Wildlife Federation. “They’re protecting the mainland from catastrophic storms. They’re providing a real look at what the coastline looks like if it’s natural.”


After completing her role in creating the heritage preserve, Barmeyer has continued to support Ossabaw, returning to visit often and serving on the board of the Ossabaw Island Foundation.

“It’s a magical place,” she said.

AMEN TO THAT

The media and the Church:another letter to the editor from Hilton Head's "Island Packet."

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Catholic church on homosexuality

I shudder whenever the secular media attempts to report on the Catholic church. My worst fears were realized in reading your recent front-page article, “Hilton Head Catholic school rejects same-sex couple’s kids.”

It states, “For centuries the Catholic church has opposed homosexuality.” Actually, the Catholic church does not condemn homosexuality if homosexuality is understood to mean sexual attraction (inclination) to the same sex. The church does hold that homosexual acts are morally wrong. See St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It quotes Pope Francis as saying to a gay man, “God made you this way and loves you this way, and the pope loves you this way.” You apparently regard that statement as intended to usher in a new level of “tolerance” within the Catholic church.

However, even if the pope knew the “gay man” to be in a homosexual relationship, the quoted statement is fully consistent with traditional Catholic moral teaching, which has been characterized as holding “love the sinner and hate the sin.”

In another statement indicating lack of knowledge of the subject, you describe divorce as “another action the Catholic church has taken a strong stance against.” The Catholic church does not condemn civil divorce but refuses to recognize a second marriage as valid, unless the first marriage is found by the church to be invalid (annulled).

Why would the “mothers” want to place children where their “marriage” is not recognized and the thereby implied sexual activity is considered morally wrong? I wonder.

– George Loud
Hilton Head Island

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

FROM THE REALM OF "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?????????????"

This moving photo shows you how this church was designed. Then in the 1970's how it was renovated to have the altar not in the sanctuary but on the side so that the so-called new ecclesiology could be imposed on the liturgy and that dreadful practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament could be as far away from the altar as possible so as not to confuse the laity. Fortunately the church was restored:

WHEN WILL THE 1962 ROMAN MISSAL AND THE CURRENT ORDINARY FORM ROMAN MISSAL BE REPLACED WITH ONE MISSAL FOR THE LATIN RITE CHURCH? AND WHAT WILL THAT MISSAL RESEMBLE?

Vatican II and its document on the liturgy did not call for this:


It was changed to look like this.

I don't and won't get hysterical over Cardinal Sarah allowing the Solemn High Mass in France to have the Scriptures read in French and facing the congregation. It is an organic development. The only thing I would fault in the Solemn High setting is that the Epistle and Gospel were not chanted in French but merely spoken.

But this leads me to the hoped-for "new" Roman Missal that is an organic development rather than a contrived one that so many say the 1970 Ordinary Form Missal was, contrived.

Having the EF Mass celebrated regularly helps us to look at Sacrosanctum Concilium again and make the minor adjustments to this Missal that it called for.

1. More lavish amount of Scripture for the Mass of Catechumens (Liturgy of the Word)

2. Some vernacular

3. Full, conscious and actual participation

4. Noble simplicity

We need to look at what was not said as well in any reform of the Roman Missal and backtrack:

1. there was no call for standing for Holy Communion and receiving in the hand or from the common chalice.

2. There was no call for the Mass facing the congregation

3. There was no call for renovation and stipping of existing churches to accommodate a new ecclesiology

4. There was no call for laity to be involved as lectors and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (although I'd like to know what happened in parishes where Father due to health issues couldn't distribute Holy Communion and there weren't other priests)

A new Roman Missal for the Latin Rite will recover the reverence and beauty of the EF Mass but also the sensibilities of the Mass that is comprehensible and what is directed toward God is directed toward him in bodily posture and the same for what is directed toward the Congregation. 

In fact, I would recommenced that for Ad Orientem Masses, the priest turn to the congregation even in the EF for the Preface Dialogue as this is the only place in the EF Mass where the priest does not turn to the congregation for this type of greeting.  

Monday, June 11, 2018

WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T

Splendid: The Gospel being read in French, versus populum, at the Solemn Pontifical Mass
Now that the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is no longer a museum piece hidden in the deep recesses of a locked vault in the archives of Church liturgy, it is once again a living reality, breathing and organically developing.

Thank God for Robert Cardinal Sarah. He gets it! He understands that Pope Benedict when His Holiness unlocked the locked vault in the archives of Church liturgy, that having the EF and OF Masses celebrated together would lead to "mutual enrichment" not just of the EF's influence on the OF but just as importantly the OF's influence on the EF.

It has come to fruition, although Father Z lamments it. He should be doing a dance, a liturgical dance of happiness.

I lift this from Fr. Z's blog:

At the end of the Chartres Pilgrimage, during the splendid Mass with Card. Sarah in the Usus Antiquior, the Subdeacon faced the people instead of ad orientem, and spoke (didn’t sing) the Epistle in French.  The Deacon spoke the Gospel in French.  Epistle HERE – Gospel HERE.

I personally think this is marvelous and in fact this is what I have done had some of the EF High and Solemn High Masses I've had over the years. 

What do you think about Pope Benedict's organic development of the EF Mass as Cardinal Sarah promotes in this splendid Mass?

EVERY CATHOLIC KNOWS THAT JESUS IS CATHOLIC, AND NOW THE BAPTISTS ADMIT IT

Baptist church’s ‘Catholic’ Jesus statue to find new home


Church’s ‘Catholic’ Jesus statue to find new home

COLUMBIA — A statue of Jesus that a Baptist church in South Carolina voted to remove because the congregation deemed it too Catholic has found a new home.

The hand-carved, 7-foot statue and accompanying reliefs depicting scenes from Christ’s life have been displayed outside the front entrance of Red Bank Baptist Church in Lexington for a decade. But church members voted last month to move it. The Rev. Jeff Wright, the church’s pastor, would not say when the statue will be taken down but said it is going to another church.

Church members meant no harm in the decision, and the attention has turned what was a simple church issue unfairly into a social justice issue, Wright said.

“This is not a denomination issue, it’s a church decision,” Wright said. “We are removing it to end some confusion. Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, ‘Why is this on the front of a Baptist church?’”

In a letter to the artist Delbert Baker Jr., Wright wrote that the statue and reliefs bring into question “the theology and core values” of the church.

“We understand that this is not a Catholic icon, however, people perceive it in these terms,” the letter read.
“We are removing it to end some confusion. Some people have seen it, guests that have been here and have asked, ‘Why is this on the front of a Baptist church?’” The Rev. Jeff Wright

Sunday, June 10, 2018

THE GOOD OLD NATIONAL CHISMATIC REPORTER (NCR) REPORTS ON HOW DISMAYED THE WOMEN'S ORDINATION CONFERENCE IS ABOUT WOMEN'S EXCLUSION FROM THE SEXIST INSTITUTION FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST, THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS (IS THIS BLASPHEMY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT DESCRIBED IN THE 10TH SUNDAY OF THE YEAR'S GOSPEL?)

Below are carefully selected excerpts of the NCR's article, but be forewarned you may want to hold you nose! This colon discharge really stinks!

"The Vatican's affirmation of its ban on women priests as 'definitive' teaching rests solely on patriarchal church authority. In doing so, it denies the workings of the Spirit within the people of God."
-- Bridget Mary Meehan

Advocates dismayed by reaffirming ban on women priests

"Archbishop [Luis] Ladaria's arguments are unconvincing and simply nothing new," said a statement from the Women's Ordination Conference, following the release of Ladaria's article. "How long can the Vatican hide behind its sexist arguments that because Jesus was a man, he intended only men to become priests?" the statement read.
The archbishop said he decided to write "in response to doubt" about John Paul's teaching, adding that expressing doubt about the barring of women from the priesthood "creates serious confusion among the faithful."

"The only 'serious confusion' among the faithful is just how long the Vatican will continue to parade indefensible arguments that attempt to limit the reaches of God's call," Kate McElwee, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference, told NCR.

According to British theologian John Wijngaards, "Yes, there is confusion among the faithful, but not because they doubt the validity of their inner sense of what is genuinely Christian and Catholic, but because the persons who are supposed to guide them keep ignoring their just concerns."

"Confusion is healthy if it leads to a process of honest reassessment," added Wijngaards, professor emeritus of Missionary Institute London and founder of the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

Janice Sevre-Duszynska, ordained a Roman Catholic Woman Priest in 2008, said, "Our movement is growing with enthusiasm among Catholics in grassroots communities, especially with marginalized LGBTI and divorced [Catholics], and all who seek a bigger table where God's beloved family gathers to celebrate sacraments and to serve their sisters and brothers in mutual love in a community of equals."

Both women priests noted that Ladaria's newspaper article coincides with the 10th anniversary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issuing a general decree excommunicating the members of their movement and its supporters. The decree stated, "Both the person who attempts to confer holy orders upon a woman, and the woman who attempts to receive holy orders, incur the excommunication latae sententiae [automatically]." 

YOU CAN READ, SMELL FEEL, TASTE AND SEE ALL  OF THIS COLON OUTPOURING HERE.

10TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME OR THIRD SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST--WHICH SOUNDS BETTER?

Green unity!


No matter how you cut it, it is in fact the Third Sunday after Pentecost in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass, but for some peculiar reason in the Ordinary Form of the Mass it is the 10th Sunday of Ordinary Time.

But, to my puzzlement, how is it that it is the 10th Sunday? When was the 9th Sunday? The 8th Sunday; the 7th Sunday? The 6th Sunday?

Well, okay, the First Sunday in Ordinary Time this year, if you really want confusion, was Epiphany Sunday, January 7th because the very next Sunday was the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, January 14th.

But you might ask, but Father, wasn't and isn't Epiphany Sunday in the Christmas Season, Christmastide? Well yes, why do you ask?

Of Course in the Extraordinary Form calendar, January 7th was in the Christmas Season and was Holy Family, but the very next Sunday, January 14th was the Second Sunday after Epiphany which made Holy Family Sunday the 1st Sunday after Epiphany since Epiphany is a fixed date of January 6th which this year was a Saturday.

But in the Ordinary Form, while in fact January 14th was the Second Sunday after Epiphany, it was called, now get this, the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time making January 7th the First Sunday in Ordinary Time although it was clearly Epiphany in my Roman Missal!

At any rate unless the Extraordinary Form Mass you attended on June 3rd was the External Solemnity of Corpus Christi, last Sunday the EF Mass could have been green, but not the OF Mass since it was Corpus Christi, not an external Solemnity.

But fret not, today in both forms we are back to green! Praise the Lord for Catholic green unity!

Saturday, June 9, 2018

DOES THE POPE REALIZE THAT WHEN YOU PULL OUT ONE THREAD OF CATHOLIC MORALITY ALL THE OTHERS BECOME UNRAVELED? AND HAS CARDINAL KASPER, WHOM POPE BENEDICT SIDELINED AS A CARDINAL, LOST FAVOR WITH THE POPE? IT IS ALL SO VERY PECULIAR AND POINTS TO A VATICAN IN A MESS

There is something in the German culture, perhaps a disorder in their genes, that has cause two world wars and now a segment of this superiority complex is trying to create one in the Church--in fact they have been doing so ever since Vatican II and German theologians like Kasper began to exert their superiority complex onto the Church universal.

This is an excerpt from CRUX which you can read in full HERE and we see that good old and aging Cardinal Kasper is trying to manipulate things again in his favor.

German bishops react to Vatican decision on communion for Protestants

German bishops react to Vatican decision on communion for Protestants
Cardinal Walter Kasper. )Credit: Bohumil Petrik/CNA.)

...On June 6, the Chairman of the Ecumenical Commission of the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK), Bishop Gerhard Feige of Magdeburg, published an editorial on katholisch.de, a DBK website, in which he expressed disappointment at the response from Rome, and sharply criticized the “moral double standards” of bishops raising concerns over the proposal to the Vatican while allowing Protestants to receive Communion in their own diocese for pastoral reasons.

The Bishop of Magdeburg drew a connection between allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion in some circumstances, which the German Bishops Conference, amongst others, introduced in guidelines issued in the wake of Amoris Laetitia.

“A similar conflict, on the grounds that this was a topic that ‘pertains to the faith of the Church and is of relevance to the universal Church’, could have been triggered by the wording of the German Bishops’ [Conference guidelines] on marriage and family ministry, given the statements about the possibility for individuals who remarried after a divorce to receive the sacraments. Why, then, has there been an escalation when it comes to interdenominational differences?”

One day after Feige’s remarks, Cardinal Walter Kasper also went public with an editorial published by the German bishops’ conference website.

After writing that he is “furious” that the letter to Marx apparently was leaked to the press before even reaching its destination, Kasper expressed “puzzlement” at “the impression that even those who should know better should claim that non-Catholic Christians are fundamentally excluded from communion, or that this should at least first be clarified by the Universal Church.”

Kasper, who is the emeritus Archbishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart, also flatly rejected concerns that the German proposal constitutes a Sonderweg, i.e. a form of German exceptionalism.

Furthermore, Cardinal Kasper wrote that he is “all the more surprised” since in German dioceses “there already is a widespread practice of non-Catholic spouses, who consider themselves serious Christians, stepping up to [receive] Communion, without any bishops, who after all know of this practice, thus far voicing concerns.”

In his comments, Kasper also rejected concerns - raised by several other cardinals and bishops - that the German “pastoral handout” would constitute a normalization of Protestants receiving Holy Communion in general, explaining that proposal’s approach pertained to an “individual decision of conscience and pastoral counseling.”

IS THE POPE STARTING TO REVERSE COURSE GIVEN THE NATURE OF PUBLIC CRITICISM HE HAS RECEIVED FROM CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS?

Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising and Cardinal Rainer Woelki of Cologne in Rome March 14, 2013.
Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich and Freising and Cardinal Rainer Woelki of Cologne in Rome March 14, 2013. (Paul Badde/EWTN)
COMMENTARY |  JUN. 8, 2018
Pope Francis’ Intercommunion Reversal
COMMENTARY: Three weeks after he instructed the German bishops to find a ‘possible unanimous’ solution on their own, the Holy Father told them to abandon their proposal instead.
Fr. Raymond De Sousa has an article on Pope Francis recent about faces. He attributes it to public, not private criticism of the pope. You can read the full article here.

Will we see public criticism of the subversive, stealthy Amazon Document and statements by Cardinal Baldisseri who subversively push through a heterodox first synod on the family?

Here is the excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter:


Then came a veritable thunderbolt. Cardinal Willem Eijk, the archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands, wrote a blistering commentary in the Register, published only four days after the Vatican meeting. His language was not diplomatic.

“The response of the Holy Father … that the [German bishops] should discuss the drafts again and try to achieve a unanimous result, if possible, is completely incomprehensible,” Cardinal Eijk wrote. “The 
Church’s doctrine and practice regarding the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist to Protestants is perfectly clear.”

It was not a carefully worded rebuke like Cardinal O’Malley offered in January. It was not formulated in the form of legitimate, limited questions like the dubia on Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Eijk said baldly that Pope Francis got it massively wrong and, for good measure, pointed out it was not the first time.

“The Holy Father should have given the delegation of the German episcopal conference clear directives, based on the clear doctrine and practice of the Church,” Cardinal Eijk wrote. “He should have also responded on this basis to the Lutheran woman who asked him on Nov. 15, 2015, if she could receive Communion with her Catholic spouse, saying that this is not acceptable, instead of suggesting she could receive Communion on the basis of her being baptized and in accordance with her conscience. By failing to create clarity, great confusion is created among the faithful, and the unity of the Church is endangered.”
Message received.

By mid-May, the CDF was working on a draft letter to the German bishops doing exactly what Cardinal Eijk said should be done. On May 24, Archbishop Ladaria — in the interim named by Pope Francis to become a cardinal in June — met with the Holy Father to agree upon the text of the letter, which was then addressed to Cardinal Marx the next day. Pope Francis had changed his mind. The draft proposal was dead, no matter how many German bishops were in favor of it.

There was another intervention along the lines of Cardinal Eijk, by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, writing in First Things. However, his commentary was published May 23, further amplified by an interview in Crux May 28. By that time, though, the Holy Father had already reversed course. It was Cardinal Eijk’s intervention that appears decisive.

Do the Chilean and German examples mean that that Holy Father is adopting a different style in response to rebukes from his cardinals? It remains to be seen. But it does seem clear that, while in previous pontificates, the norm was to offer criticism privately through official channels, the most effective way to effect change is by recourse to public statements.