Wednesday, February 29, 2012
FROM SISTER MARY ANN WALSH, RSM,
This is from a blog on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by their Director of Media Relations, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, Sister of Mercy
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
President Obama: Render Unto God the Things that Are God’s
Jesus is often quoted for his saying to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” The rest of the quote could be a message to the Obama Administration: “Render unto God the things that are God’s.”
The current tensions over religious freedom come down to a simple fact: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. That includes the right of Catholic and other religious institutions to define and carry out their ministry.
An Obama regulation that compels virtually all employers to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs, to employees without co-pay, has a religious exemption. But the exemption is so narrow that Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify. Religious ministries qualify for the exemption only if the people providing the service are Catholic, the ones being served are Catholic, and the service itself comes packaged with religious instruction.
So much for hospital ministry. Will “Where does it hurt?” have to be replaced with “Where were you baptized?” At the soup kitchen will “Are you hungry?” be replaced with “Are you Catholic?” Will we have to teach the hungry the Apostle’s Creed before we feed them?
It is the church, not Caesar, that defines ministry. We Catholics are called to serve others because we’re Catholic, not because they are. We help others because of their need, not their creed. For the government to hold fast to its new definition of ministry, one crafted by the American Civil Liberties Union, reflects deafness to the Constitution that is unbecoming to the man sworn to defend it.
There has been some talk of accommodation, whereby (it is claimed) some Catholic institutions would not have to pay for services that violate their religious beliefs. Apparently, their insurance companies would pay for the services instead. One doesn’t have to be a cynic to question where the money to pay for those services will come from, as the only pool of available funds seems to be the premiums subsidized by the objecting religious institutions. And the government’s problematic definition of religious ministry still remains. There also is the question of what self-insured Catholic organizations are supposed to do. What good does it do to say the dirty work will be done by the insurer rather than the employer, if they are one and the same?
The Administration’s intrusive decision about what does and does not constitute religious ministry should make every American pause. What falls after freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Will Caesar tell you what you have to print or air?
Days before President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the miserly religious exemption in his Administration’s regulation; the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision pertinent to religious freedom. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, the Court upheld 9-0 the right of a Lutheran Church to decide who its ministers are. The Obama Administration had taken the opposite, and losing, side, arguing that the church had no more right of religious liberty than a secular organization. One would have expected the Court’s resounding rejection of that argument to bring the Administration’s eyes into focus on the religious liberty question. Clearly it did not.
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution makes freedom of religion the “First Freedom.” The Founding Fathers stressed that this freedom was sacred. George Washington in 1789 wrote to an annual meeting of Quakers that “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extremely accommodated to them.”
Certainly our government, wise as it is, can’t be expected (and shouldn’t purport) to know everything. It might well ease its burdens by leaving some things to the Almighty and rendering unto God the things that are God’s.
Posted by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." Francis Cardinal George of Chicago 2010
President Obama: Render Unto God the Things that Are God’s
Jesus is often quoted for his saying to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” The rest of the quote could be a message to the Obama Administration: “Render unto God the things that are God’s.”
The current tensions over religious freedom come down to a simple fact: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion. That includes the right of Catholic and other religious institutions to define and carry out their ministry.
An Obama regulation that compels virtually all employers to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-causing drugs, to employees without co-pay, has a religious exemption. But the exemption is so narrow that Jesus himself wouldn’t qualify. Religious ministries qualify for the exemption only if the people providing the service are Catholic, the ones being served are Catholic, and the service itself comes packaged with religious instruction.
So much for hospital ministry. Will “Where does it hurt?” have to be replaced with “Where were you baptized?” At the soup kitchen will “Are you hungry?” be replaced with “Are you Catholic?” Will we have to teach the hungry the Apostle’s Creed before we feed them?
It is the church, not Caesar, that defines ministry. We Catholics are called to serve others because we’re Catholic, not because they are. We help others because of their need, not their creed. For the government to hold fast to its new definition of ministry, one crafted by the American Civil Liberties Union, reflects deafness to the Constitution that is unbecoming to the man sworn to defend it.
There has been some talk of accommodation, whereby (it is claimed) some Catholic institutions would not have to pay for services that violate their religious beliefs. Apparently, their insurance companies would pay for the services instead. One doesn’t have to be a cynic to question where the money to pay for those services will come from, as the only pool of available funds seems to be the premiums subsidized by the objecting religious institutions. And the government’s problematic definition of religious ministry still remains. There also is the question of what self-insured Catholic organizations are supposed to do. What good does it do to say the dirty work will be done by the insurer rather than the employer, if they are one and the same?
The Administration’s intrusive decision about what does and does not constitute religious ministry should make every American pause. What falls after freedom of religion? Freedom of the press? Will Caesar tell you what you have to print or air?
Days before President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the miserly religious exemption in his Administration’s regulation; the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision pertinent to religious freedom. In the Hosanna-Tabor case, the Court upheld 9-0 the right of a Lutheran Church to decide who its ministers are. The Obama Administration had taken the opposite, and losing, side, arguing that the church had no more right of religious liberty than a secular organization. One would have expected the Court’s resounding rejection of that argument to bring the Administration’s eyes into focus on the religious liberty question. Clearly it did not.
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution makes freedom of religion the “First Freedom.” The Founding Fathers stressed that this freedom was sacred. George Washington in 1789 wrote to an annual meeting of Quakers that “The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extremely accommodated to them.”
Certainly our government, wise as it is, can’t be expected (and shouldn’t purport) to know everything. It might well ease its burdens by leaving some things to the Almighty and rendering unto God the things that are God’s.
Posted by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." Francis Cardinal George of Chicago 2010
A SENSELESS ACT OF VANDALISM AT SACRED HEART CHURCH IN WARNER ROBINS
Monsignor Fred Nijem was my pastor when I was first ordained. We were together at St. Teresa of Avila Church in Albany, Ga from 1980 to 1985. He was very good friends with Father Eugene Walsh, SS, the famous liturgist of that period who would often visit him in Albany, during Holy Week no less, and critque my every move at the Liturgies I celebrated, but I digress. My condolences to Monsignor Nijem and the parish of Sacred Heart!
In March, Sacred Heart is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the dedication of their new Church. I was privileged to be the Master of Ceremonies for this celebration five years ago. I'm so glad that I haven't aged like the people in the post below this one from Holy Wisdom Monastery!
In March, Sacred Heart is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the dedication of their new Church. I was privileged to be the Master of Ceremonies for this celebration five years ago. I'm so glad that I haven't aged like the people in the post below this one from Holy Wisdom Monastery!
IS IT PATHETIC TO BE LIVING IN THE RECENT PAST? I REPORT; YOU DECIDE
Before you read further, please note that the "theme" song of this community of 1960's spirit of Vatican II disillusioned activists who are trying to maintain their failed attempt at creating an "alternate universe" of a Church for every single Catholic is the following:
Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford the way they were:
And the way they are: (YIKES)
(I want to live in the past too when I look in the mirror and compare myself to pictures from the 1970's, just where is this Holy Wisdom Church, I need to join!)
The Deacon's Bench Blog has a post on the Alternate Universe of Wisconsin's Holy Wisdom Monastery. You can read the whole article there by pressing The Deacon's Bench. I'll just pick out a few lines from it.
The following segment captures the Alternate Universe of Holy Wisdom Monastery:
"...Women can lead the service and preach the sermon. Gay relationships are warmly embraced. All parishioners, not just Catholics, can consume the communion wine and bread because the service is ecumenical, meaning welcoming of all Christian traditions.
It’s an alternate universe of sorts — what some think a Catholic Mass might look like today if the liberal spirit of Vatican II in the 1960s had taken root and flowered.
“We’re doing what the hierarchical church was afraid to complete,” said Jim Green, a longtime Holy Wisdom parishioner who is gay and describes himself as “a Catholic in exile.”..."
Thus far there are 335 parishioners, not all disaffected former Catholics, but many who are from Protestant denominations and who feel quite comfortable there. Most of the 335 are in their mid 60's and 70's and older.
The photos below are a glimpse into what might have been if the "spirit" of Vatican II liberalism of the 1960's (the heyday of the people of this Church, who, by the way, are so nostalgic for it, that they've created an "alternate universe" of an ecclesial community to preserve it. In the 1970's I was trained or at least prepared for the Church of the Future that would look like this. It is more like "Back to the Future."
Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford the way they were:
And the way they are: (YIKES)
The Deacon's Bench Blog has a post on the Alternate Universe of Wisconsin's Holy Wisdom Monastery. You can read the whole article there by pressing The Deacon's Bench. I'll just pick out a few lines from it.
The following segment captures the Alternate Universe of Holy Wisdom Monastery:
"...Women can lead the service and preach the sermon. Gay relationships are warmly embraced. All parishioners, not just Catholics, can consume the communion wine and bread because the service is ecumenical, meaning welcoming of all Christian traditions.
It’s an alternate universe of sorts — what some think a Catholic Mass might look like today if the liberal spirit of Vatican II in the 1960s had taken root and flowered.
“We’re doing what the hierarchical church was afraid to complete,” said Jim Green, a longtime Holy Wisdom parishioner who is gay and describes himself as “a Catholic in exile.”..."
Thus far there are 335 parishioners, not all disaffected former Catholics, but many who are from Protestant denominations and who feel quite comfortable there. Most of the 335 are in their mid 60's and 70's and older.
The photos below are a glimpse into what might have been if the "spirit" of Vatican II liberalism of the 1960's (the heyday of the people of this Church, who, by the way, are so nostalgic for it, that they've created an "alternate universe" of an ecclesial community to preserve it. In the 1970's I was trained or at least prepared for the Church of the Future that would look like this. It is more like "Back to the Future."
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
THE WORLD HATES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR ONE MAIN REASON: THE CHURCH IS OUTDATED, IT'S 2012 AFTER ALL!
If you are a believing and practicing Catholic and have not succumbed to Cafeteria Catholicism or Catholicism of Wishful thinking, be prepared to be marginalized, mocked and scorned and by members of your own family, not to mention the government and liberal media.
Why you ask?
Because the Catholic Church is outdated and refuses to modernize according to the dictates of the world and what others of good faith think is common sense.
What is it that needs to be updated in their well-meaning or bigoted estimation (depending on who is making the suggestions or infallible decrees)?
Women deacons, priests and deacons, stupid! The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the media and of government.
Birth Control, stupid! The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the media and of government.
Same sex marriage, stupid! The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the media and of government.
Abortion, stupid! The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the media and of government.
Euthanasia, stupid! The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the medial and of government.
Tolerance, stupid!The Catholic Church is standing in the way of modernity by still teaching natural law reveals divine law. If the Church would only get with it, its 2012 after all, there would be no problems and great contentment and the Catholic Church would be the darling of the medial and of government.
In other words, the world would be a better place if there was not a Catholic Church. But as it is, Catholics are neanderthals who stand in the way of government and the media in promoting a new social order where tolerance is the foundation of all truth, except if that tolerance is extended to the Catholic Church which of course is the source of all intolerance and bigotry.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE
This homily speaks for itself:
Monday, February 27, 2012
A DIVIDED CHURCH, MUCH OF WHICH IS PROGRESSIVE AND WISHY WASHY, WHO'S THE BLAME?
Two lay Catholics who epitomize the nature of the divided Catholic Church today, one who is faithful to Holy Mother Church and the other one who isn't; one who takes seriously Vatican II and the other one who perverts its meaning, especially Lumen Gentium's call to the laity to bring the truths of the Church to where they live, work and play as well as to politics and other institutions of society. Guess which one is faithful and which one is an infidel?
As the institutional Church enters yet another period of salvation history where she is being marginalized, harassed and threatened by trends and movements beyond her control, this time godless secularism, what aspect of her membership will be able to be warriors against that which would suppress her?
We know that it will not be the progressive wing of the Church which hates her authority, derides the bishops and wants to neuter the role of the Bishop of Rome. In fact this segment of Holy Church are collaborators with her enemies much like Judas in Jesus' historical public ministry, when by the way, he was in the process of founding His Church. They are the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Katherine Sebelius and many, many members of the Democrat party who say they are Catholic but are more loyal to the god of their politics rather than the true God and sell the true God out for 30 pieces of silver. Republican and independent Catholics can do the same thing but today not on the same level as fanatical democrats.
The ones who are equipped for today's spiritual battle are traditional Catholics who love Holy Mother Church, love the Magisterium and are faithful to Sacred Scripture and Tradition (not some perverted, progressive interpretation of these)as well as Natural Law, Divine Law and Canon Law, not to mention the rubrics of the various liturgies of the Church. These are not fundamentalist Catholics as though there could be such a thing, but Catholic who believe, love and embrace the fundamentals of Holy Mother Church.
Those in the Church who are unabashed and unapologetic Catholics and not of the cafeteria or "lite" type, will be the ones who will be willing to be martyrs for the faith--as it has always been and always will be. Progressive liberals in the Church are just too wishy washy and all over the place to be faithful as Catholics in difficult cultural times, rather than go underground and be faithful, they become collaborators with the enemy.
But how did we get to such a divided state as a Church when Vatican II authentically interpreted and fundamentally embraced should have prepared us to meet head-on the crisis we are now experiencing with godless secularism even in the United States of America with a president who wants to impose upon the Church by government mandate what her mission and identity should be (sounds like England under King Henry the VIII, doesn't it)?
Here are my thoughts as an eye witness to Church history since the late 1950's (or when I can actually remember things):
In pre-Vatican II times (1950's) there was a quiet, but brewing anger amongst lay Catholics who were getting better educated and resented the "authoritarianism" they experienced in Catholic parishes and schools and resented being treated as children when it came to obedience . Discipline was strong, but it was also sadistic at times and this is a fact. Keep in mind, my parent's generation (my mother is 92 and my father would be 102) usually did not even finish high school let alone college. So they were quite willing usually to acquiesce to Church authority, to Father and Sister. In 1976 when I graduated from college, I was the first in my family to do so.
But pre-Vatican II Catholics were not always helpless little sheep! When my first grade teacher, a nun who should not have been teaching first grade due to her mental health, pinched me on the arm leaving a mark and doing so in front of the class when as I stood before her trying to answer a question from a lesson and did not know the answer,my father upon seeing the mark on my arm went directly to the authority of the parish and school to have the sister reprimanded. I don't know what that conversation was about and my father never told me, but the next day that sister apologized to me privately and gave me a gift, a plastic framed image of Our lady of Perpetual Help. That apology and that gift have meant more to me over the course of my life than any pinch annoyed me.
Quite frankly, there was horrible paternalism and triumphalism mixed with clericalism that made many Catholics angry at the Church which in their minds didn't really include them but was in fact Father and Sister only, the institutional aspects of the Church. In this regard, Vatican II was a breath of fresh air for educated laity where they were asked to become more adult-like with the clergy and religious and to see themselves as much a part of the Church as the hierarchy and lower clergy and the religious. The laity had an important role, and that role was in the world and evangelizing it. The term laity was elevated to priestliness but not so much by usurping the unique role of the priest in worship or the life of the institutional Church but in the world, at home, at work, in politics, etc. At Mass, they were asked to do what the laity always had done, but altar boys represented, to be active and participative during Mass outwardly and inwardly.
But what went wrong was that we made the laity so involved in the life of the institutional Church that family life sometimes became secondary to them and issues of power and control on the parish and diocesan levels become more of an issue for them rather than empowerment as laity which is their proper role in the world and Church. The role of the laity after Vatican II and because of a corrupt interpretation of Vatican II made the role of the laity more churchy than worldly oriented and worldly oriented is the laity's true calling.
Unfortunately Vatican II occurred in the midst of a cultural world wide revolution toward authority, toward sex and toward drugs. We had the hippie movement and the drop out movement and the peaceniks and Watergate and police being called pigs and a general hatred for law and order. The Church tried to combat the more anarchist of attitudes by promoting peace and love and letting people be themselves. This may well have saved the Church of that period. Flexibility was the key word. This applied to authority and the Mass and its renewal which unfortunately gave entirely too much authority to liturgical theologians and made amateurs in the Church into self-made gnostic theologians encouraged to be creative in planning the Mass and executing it, making it banal and common place rather than sublime and other-worldly, that is pointing to the Kingdom of God which is not here--many lost sight of that profound truth thinking the Kingdom of God is here already and completely so, we just have to make it happen by our own means and ingenuity. The Missal of 1973 soon experienced such experimentation that it became the victim of this creativity. But I suspect it would have happened also with the 1962 missal had it been the official missal at the time--we'll only know that for sure in heaven though!
At the same time though, the Church was seen as a powerful and respected force in the world in the area of social justice as it concerned the dignity of people. Catholics, laity and clergy marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Catholics began to integrate Catholic schools and parishes and to speak against the sin of racism and segregation. Here the Democrat party (and most Catholics at that time were Democrats, but of a Democrat party that unfortunately no longer exists, hijacked by radical leftists)was more in tune with official Church teaching than Republicans were.
But while many clergy and laity were embracing with new zeal the so-called "social Gospel" they were abandoning the Gospel of natural law and Divine law as it concerned issues of sexuality and marriage. This is highlighted by the abysmal dissent of so many Catholics from Humanae Vitae. These Catholics loved the Church's social teaching because it was a feel good teaching for them but they hated the Church's teaching on natural law because it touched them personally and made them feel guilty and went against the principles of secularism at the time. These liberal Catholics in other words became schizophrenics when it came to the moral teachings of the Church. We see this even more today with the acceptance of fornication and adultery amongst heterosexual Catholics as well as with its acceptance amongst homosexual Catholics who hate natural law and the Church's insistence upon it and that marriage is a sacrament and as such is for only one man and one woman and for a lifetime. Sex is the most intimate aspect of who we are and the one area that can be so "screwed up" that anything the Church teaches about it is perceived as way to personal becasue the Church's teaching touches us on such a personal level and sometimes makes us feel guilty rather than good about ourselves. For progressive Catholics guilt is the worst kind of mortal sin foisted upon them by Holy Mother Church and her teachings on natural law!
And then there is the Mass and its so-called "renewal." I'm not saying that major mistakes weren't made in the implementation of Pope Paul's revision of the Mass and that the Holy Father could have been more forceful, but what happened in 1968 with Humanae Vitae--because of the sexual revolution, scientific development of the pill, etc, there was outright rebellion against the pope's authority--the hierarchy did not act as dictators from Communist Russia or Germany, but allowed for dissent to keep dissenters in.
It is not just the revised Mass that caused a certain generation that is my age and older (like Pelosi, Biden and Sebelious) to be like they are, but authority issues, worshiping now false gods of secularism and their children not having been catechized properly--that's our failure.
It's not the "renewal" of the Mass entirely, but other issues that have brought us to the state of the divided Church we have today where there are zealous Catholics who are usually traditionalist and tepid Catholics who are zealous only about their own narcissistic needs and have serious authority issues that linger from the 1960's. There is a new clericalism that also infects the laity since so many lay Catholics have been clericalized that expresses itself in the Liturgy itself.
Priests ad lib during Mass and impose their own words into the fixed parts of the English Mass thinking these are superior to what is given them by the official Church and thus treat the laity as an audience that they can manipulate for their own personal preferences and whims. And then there are laity who do the same thing and refuse to do what the Church asks them during the liturgy--this is clericalism pure and simple.
I had one priest tell me that he thought his parishioners were so dumb that they wouldn't know or couldn't learn the definition of the word "compunction" and so he changed it to a simpler term when this word was used in the Collect of the Mass recently. That's clericalism and elitism pure and simple, no doubt about it. He also thinks the words "we pray" are used too often in our revised prayers so he eliminates them altogether--this sort of shocking clericalism born of narcissism is quite prevalent today amongst many priests but not limited to them. It is even worse that the clericalism of previous generations. But clericalism, no matter what type, disrespects the laity and other clerics. Father Z is correct in calling bishops and priests "to do the red and say the black!" It is very simple really but this takes humility on the part of the priest of course a humility lacking in so many today!
But in terms of the on-going reform of the "renewal" of the Mass, what should occur? Well, I am not clairvoyant nor do I have any inside track to that reform but I have opinions which many others share, including those in high places in the Church and non other than the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. So this is what I believe and my opinion only will help strengthen Catholic, young Catholics in particular, to be warriors for the Church as she confronts and perhaps dies for her mission and identity in a secularized,godless culture and government:
1. stricter guidelines concerning art, architecture and the orientation of the sanctuary, as well as for music. These already exist and for music it goes back to the 1800's that sacred words set to secular melodies or styles of melodies are not in keeping with the nature of the sacred music for the liturgy--this applied to orchestral settings of the Mass which were for entertainment purposes but often sung at Mass especially in Europe.Today this would have different implications, but Broadway sounding sacred music or music that sounds like bar music fits this norm that says it shouldn't be brought into the Mass. Sacred Words set to music that sounds like rock music or any other trendy medium should not be allowed during Mass--outside of Mass in devotional or entertainment venues, great, we need more of that!
2. The Benedictine altar arrangement or ad orientem, either one or both (I think there needs to be flexibility here) and mandating some Latin, such as for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei and Pater Noster and the Greek Kyrie for the Mass
3. Better catechesis and a Catechism like the Baltimore Catechism for elementary, middle and high school and only one used nationwide
4. Communion kneeling and by intinction, thus lessening the need of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who should only be installed acolytes.
5. On going recovery of a strong popular devotional life in the private and communal lives of Catholics and making clear that devotion and cultural influences belong outside of the Mass, not during the Mass--but cultural differences of Catholic devotional life should be embraced and celebrated by all cultures in the Church, but not during the Mass or in only a limited way
6 Recovery of adult respect for obedience to the Church and her Magisterium in the areas of faith, morals, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, for natural and divine law as well as canon law
7. Love for the Church, a conviction about the nature of the true Church and a love for priests and priestliness. In a desire to avoid "triumphalism and clericalism" we threw the baby out with the bath water--we need a sense of pride about our Church and about the unique character of the ordained as a sacramental, visual sign of Jesus Christ, High Priest and Bridegroom and make no apologies about either truths.
8. Pope Benedict's call and agenda to interpret Vatican II within continuity with all previous Councils of the Church and everything that was good that preceded Vatican II, what he calls "reform within continuity" is the key to the authentic renewal of the Church!
But we must also recognize the need for community that we should not swing the pendulum so far back to the vertical that we forget the horizontal--not everyone is an introvert in the Church and many need community and a friendly experience at Mass and in their parish. Priests and laity need not be robotic and rigid during Mass but friendly and hospitable in a quiet and respectful way--more opportunities for fellowship should be available outside of the nave of the Church before and after Mass and at other times during the week, like Wednesday night suppers.
We know that it will not be the progressive wing of the Church which hates her authority, derides the bishops and wants to neuter the role of the Bishop of Rome. In fact this segment of Holy Church are collaborators with her enemies much like Judas in Jesus' historical public ministry, when by the way, he was in the process of founding His Church. They are the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Katherine Sebelius and many, many members of the Democrat party who say they are Catholic but are more loyal to the god of their politics rather than the true God and sell the true God out for 30 pieces of silver. Republican and independent Catholics can do the same thing but today not on the same level as fanatical democrats.
The ones who are equipped for today's spiritual battle are traditional Catholics who love Holy Mother Church, love the Magisterium and are faithful to Sacred Scripture and Tradition (not some perverted, progressive interpretation of these)as well as Natural Law, Divine Law and Canon Law, not to mention the rubrics of the various liturgies of the Church. These are not fundamentalist Catholics as though there could be such a thing, but Catholic who believe, love and embrace the fundamentals of Holy Mother Church.
Those in the Church who are unabashed and unapologetic Catholics and not of the cafeteria or "lite" type, will be the ones who will be willing to be martyrs for the faith--as it has always been and always will be. Progressive liberals in the Church are just too wishy washy and all over the place to be faithful as Catholics in difficult cultural times, rather than go underground and be faithful, they become collaborators with the enemy.
But how did we get to such a divided state as a Church when Vatican II authentically interpreted and fundamentally embraced should have prepared us to meet head-on the crisis we are now experiencing with godless secularism even in the United States of America with a president who wants to impose upon the Church by government mandate what her mission and identity should be (sounds like England under King Henry the VIII, doesn't it)?
Here are my thoughts as an eye witness to Church history since the late 1950's (or when I can actually remember things):
In pre-Vatican II times (1950's) there was a quiet, but brewing anger amongst lay Catholics who were getting better educated and resented the "authoritarianism" they experienced in Catholic parishes and schools and resented being treated as children when it came to obedience . Discipline was strong, but it was also sadistic at times and this is a fact. Keep in mind, my parent's generation (my mother is 92 and my father would be 102) usually did not even finish high school let alone college. So they were quite willing usually to acquiesce to Church authority, to Father and Sister. In 1976 when I graduated from college, I was the first in my family to do so.
But pre-Vatican II Catholics were not always helpless little sheep! When my first grade teacher, a nun who should not have been teaching first grade due to her mental health, pinched me on the arm leaving a mark and doing so in front of the class when as I stood before her trying to answer a question from a lesson and did not know the answer,my father upon seeing the mark on my arm went directly to the authority of the parish and school to have the sister reprimanded. I don't know what that conversation was about and my father never told me, but the next day that sister apologized to me privately and gave me a gift, a plastic framed image of Our lady of Perpetual Help. That apology and that gift have meant more to me over the course of my life than any pinch annoyed me.
Quite frankly, there was horrible paternalism and triumphalism mixed with clericalism that made many Catholics angry at the Church which in their minds didn't really include them but was in fact Father and Sister only, the institutional aspects of the Church. In this regard, Vatican II was a breath of fresh air for educated laity where they were asked to become more adult-like with the clergy and religious and to see themselves as much a part of the Church as the hierarchy and lower clergy and the religious. The laity had an important role, and that role was in the world and evangelizing it. The term laity was elevated to priestliness but not so much by usurping the unique role of the priest in worship or the life of the institutional Church but in the world, at home, at work, in politics, etc. At Mass, they were asked to do what the laity always had done, but altar boys represented, to be active and participative during Mass outwardly and inwardly.
But what went wrong was that we made the laity so involved in the life of the institutional Church that family life sometimes became secondary to them and issues of power and control on the parish and diocesan levels become more of an issue for them rather than empowerment as laity which is their proper role in the world and Church. The role of the laity after Vatican II and because of a corrupt interpretation of Vatican II made the role of the laity more churchy than worldly oriented and worldly oriented is the laity's true calling.
Unfortunately Vatican II occurred in the midst of a cultural world wide revolution toward authority, toward sex and toward drugs. We had the hippie movement and the drop out movement and the peaceniks and Watergate and police being called pigs and a general hatred for law and order. The Church tried to combat the more anarchist of attitudes by promoting peace and love and letting people be themselves. This may well have saved the Church of that period. Flexibility was the key word. This applied to authority and the Mass and its renewal which unfortunately gave entirely too much authority to liturgical theologians and made amateurs in the Church into self-made gnostic theologians encouraged to be creative in planning the Mass and executing it, making it banal and common place rather than sublime and other-worldly, that is pointing to the Kingdom of God which is not here--many lost sight of that profound truth thinking the Kingdom of God is here already and completely so, we just have to make it happen by our own means and ingenuity. The Missal of 1973 soon experienced such experimentation that it became the victim of this creativity. But I suspect it would have happened also with the 1962 missal had it been the official missal at the time--we'll only know that for sure in heaven though!
At the same time though, the Church was seen as a powerful and respected force in the world in the area of social justice as it concerned the dignity of people. Catholics, laity and clergy marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Catholics began to integrate Catholic schools and parishes and to speak against the sin of racism and segregation. Here the Democrat party (and most Catholics at that time were Democrats, but of a Democrat party that unfortunately no longer exists, hijacked by radical leftists)was more in tune with official Church teaching than Republicans were.
But while many clergy and laity were embracing with new zeal the so-called "social Gospel" they were abandoning the Gospel of natural law and Divine law as it concerned issues of sexuality and marriage. This is highlighted by the abysmal dissent of so many Catholics from Humanae Vitae. These Catholics loved the Church's social teaching because it was a feel good teaching for them but they hated the Church's teaching on natural law because it touched them personally and made them feel guilty and went against the principles of secularism at the time. These liberal Catholics in other words became schizophrenics when it came to the moral teachings of the Church. We see this even more today with the acceptance of fornication and adultery amongst heterosexual Catholics as well as with its acceptance amongst homosexual Catholics who hate natural law and the Church's insistence upon it and that marriage is a sacrament and as such is for only one man and one woman and for a lifetime. Sex is the most intimate aspect of who we are and the one area that can be so "screwed up" that anything the Church teaches about it is perceived as way to personal becasue the Church's teaching touches us on such a personal level and sometimes makes us feel guilty rather than good about ourselves. For progressive Catholics guilt is the worst kind of mortal sin foisted upon them by Holy Mother Church and her teachings on natural law!
And then there is the Mass and its so-called "renewal." I'm not saying that major mistakes weren't made in the implementation of Pope Paul's revision of the Mass and that the Holy Father could have been more forceful, but what happened in 1968 with Humanae Vitae--because of the sexual revolution, scientific development of the pill, etc, there was outright rebellion against the pope's authority--the hierarchy did not act as dictators from Communist Russia or Germany, but allowed for dissent to keep dissenters in.
It is not just the revised Mass that caused a certain generation that is my age and older (like Pelosi, Biden and Sebelious) to be like they are, but authority issues, worshiping now false gods of secularism and their children not having been catechized properly--that's our failure.
It's not the "renewal" of the Mass entirely, but other issues that have brought us to the state of the divided Church we have today where there are zealous Catholics who are usually traditionalist and tepid Catholics who are zealous only about their own narcissistic needs and have serious authority issues that linger from the 1960's. There is a new clericalism that also infects the laity since so many lay Catholics have been clericalized that expresses itself in the Liturgy itself.
Priests ad lib during Mass and impose their own words into the fixed parts of the English Mass thinking these are superior to what is given them by the official Church and thus treat the laity as an audience that they can manipulate for their own personal preferences and whims. And then there are laity who do the same thing and refuse to do what the Church asks them during the liturgy--this is clericalism pure and simple.
I had one priest tell me that he thought his parishioners were so dumb that they wouldn't know or couldn't learn the definition of the word "compunction" and so he changed it to a simpler term when this word was used in the Collect of the Mass recently. That's clericalism and elitism pure and simple, no doubt about it. He also thinks the words "we pray" are used too often in our revised prayers so he eliminates them altogether--this sort of shocking clericalism born of narcissism is quite prevalent today amongst many priests but not limited to them. It is even worse that the clericalism of previous generations. But clericalism, no matter what type, disrespects the laity and other clerics. Father Z is correct in calling bishops and priests "to do the red and say the black!" It is very simple really but this takes humility on the part of the priest of course a humility lacking in so many today!
But in terms of the on-going reform of the "renewal" of the Mass, what should occur? Well, I am not clairvoyant nor do I have any inside track to that reform but I have opinions which many others share, including those in high places in the Church and non other than the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. So this is what I believe and my opinion only will help strengthen Catholic, young Catholics in particular, to be warriors for the Church as she confronts and perhaps dies for her mission and identity in a secularized,godless culture and government:
1. stricter guidelines concerning art, architecture and the orientation of the sanctuary, as well as for music. These already exist and for music it goes back to the 1800's that sacred words set to secular melodies or styles of melodies are not in keeping with the nature of the sacred music for the liturgy--this applied to orchestral settings of the Mass which were for entertainment purposes but often sung at Mass especially in Europe.Today this would have different implications, but Broadway sounding sacred music or music that sounds like bar music fits this norm that says it shouldn't be brought into the Mass. Sacred Words set to music that sounds like rock music or any other trendy medium should not be allowed during Mass--outside of Mass in devotional or entertainment venues, great, we need more of that!
2. The Benedictine altar arrangement or ad orientem, either one or both (I think there needs to be flexibility here) and mandating some Latin, such as for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei and Pater Noster and the Greek Kyrie for the Mass
3. Better catechesis and a Catechism like the Baltimore Catechism for elementary, middle and high school and only one used nationwide
4. Communion kneeling and by intinction, thus lessening the need of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion who should only be installed acolytes.
5. On going recovery of a strong popular devotional life in the private and communal lives of Catholics and making clear that devotion and cultural influences belong outside of the Mass, not during the Mass--but cultural differences of Catholic devotional life should be embraced and celebrated by all cultures in the Church, but not during the Mass or in only a limited way
6 Recovery of adult respect for obedience to the Church and her Magisterium in the areas of faith, morals, Sacred Scripture and Tradition, for natural and divine law as well as canon law
7. Love for the Church, a conviction about the nature of the true Church and a love for priests and priestliness. In a desire to avoid "triumphalism and clericalism" we threw the baby out with the bath water--we need a sense of pride about our Church and about the unique character of the ordained as a sacramental, visual sign of Jesus Christ, High Priest and Bridegroom and make no apologies about either truths.
8. Pope Benedict's call and agenda to interpret Vatican II within continuity with all previous Councils of the Church and everything that was good that preceded Vatican II, what he calls "reform within continuity" is the key to the authentic renewal of the Church!
But we must also recognize the need for community that we should not swing the pendulum so far back to the vertical that we forget the horizontal--not everyone is an introvert in the Church and many need community and a friendly experience at Mass and in their parish. Priests and laity need not be robotic and rigid during Mass but friendly and hospitable in a quiet and respectful way--more opportunities for fellowship should be available outside of the nave of the Church before and after Mass and at other times during the week, like Wednesday night suppers.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
HAS PRESIDENT OBAMA DIVIDED AND CONQUERED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR WAS IT THE "sPIRIT" OF VATICAN II CATHOLICS WHO DID IT FOR HIM?
Ever since President Obama came into office he has been taking advantage of what "spirit" of Vatican II Catholics have done to the Church; he has exploited their desire to divide and conquer the true Catholic faith. Therefore he chooses men and women for his administration who profess to be Catholic but are nothing more than shrills for Planned Parenthood and the liberal wing of the democrat party.
Then he befriends Sister Carol Keenan, DC, the president of the Catholic Medical Association and with sweet rhetoric, which he is good at, seduces her, not once but twice.
Then he accepts an invitation to speak at the University of Notre Dame and sweet talks its priest-president, Father David Jenkins and he too gets all mushy and teary eyed and is seduced too.
Then President Obama with the help of his cronies burns the faith and morals of the Catholic Church right in front of these cronies' eyes and to them the smoke of it is like sweet smelling incense, prayer rising before their so-called Vatican II god to appease him/her unto eternity.
There is absolutely no apology to faithful Catholics who respect their Church, respect the Magisterium and respect Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Natural and Divine Law not to mention the faith, morals and canon laws of the Church! There is no apology for those who actually accept the authority of Vatican II and not some cynical perversion of it!
But worse yet for each and every American, with the help of dissident "spirit" of Vatican II Catholics, President Obama has burned the First Amendment rights of each and every one of us and he does so with a smile on his face and those who worship him are absolutely appalled that anyone would suggest that he has done such a thing. Hold your breath for an apology unless of course the polls suggest that he's going down the tubes politically. Only faithful Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals can help that to happen as well as atheists and agnostics who appreciate First Amendment rights!
The false god and true demagogue, President Obama, is worshiped by Catholics who prefer this type of Mass:
Speaking of "dividing and conquering" read this and weep by pressing these sentences. And where are the bishops in condemning these so-called women religious in no uncertain terms and revoking their status as women religious? I mean, really, it is only a handful of them left, but waiting for nature to take its course with all the new medicines that keep us going almost to 100 isn't the solution.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
PRAY TELL, WHAT SHALL I HAVE TONIGHT? I KNOW LINGUINI BOLOGNESE A LA SWANSON CHICKEN
My friends at other blogs love to see red, the red I make for them. So tonight I made my mom's Bolognese sauce, also known as succo or ragu. However, I had to use a gimmick in it, that of Swanson canned Chicken as I had no ground beef. Poor Italians always make do with what they have! Other ingredients are carrots, celery, onion, garlic, olive oil, Bay leaf, basil and parsley. I added some Merlot to it as well--well, it was delizioso as I stick my index finger into my cheek and turn. Pray tell, are you seeing red too? If you've ever seen Fr. Z's blog, you know he loves to do this too:
Freshly grated Parmigiano Reggiano , my favorite in the whole wide world:
MAKE PLANS NOW FOR AN AD ORIENTEM ORDINARY FORM MASS AND AN EXTRAORIDINARY FORM MASS WITH SCHUBERT'S MASS IN G AT ST. JOSEPH CATHEDRAL, I MEAN, CHURCH IN MACON, GEORGIA
1. The Propers including the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons chanted in Latin
2. The Confiteor in English ad orientem
3. The Collect, Prayer over the Offerings, Preface and Prayer After Holy Communion chanted in English
4. The Liturgy of the Word with chanted English Epistle and Latin Gradual and chanted English Gospel at the ambo
5. The Second Eucharistic Prayer chanted in English
6. The Pater Noster chanted in Latin
7. The Mass celebrated Ad Orientem
Then on Monday, March 26th at 7:00 PM, for the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (transferred) the combined choirs of Saint Joseph Church will again Sing the Schubert Mass in G as an Extraordinary Form Solemn Sung High Mass with deacon and sub deacon.
This is the Gloria of this Mass (at the end are the other parts that will be sung, Kyrie,Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus
Agnus Dei):
MY COMMENT: Be there or be square, not to be missed!
THIS IS ONE LIBERATED POPE, PART II
Now this is a Gospel Procession!
But will the Holy Father become this liberated?
Or will he become this liberated?
A youth oriented Sanctus (in Latin no less) for a papal world youth day Mass!
Liberated enough to wear this "beautiful" Viennese (not Roman) Vestment
But is Pope Benedict this liberated?
But will the Holy Father become this liberated?
Or will he become this liberated?
A youth oriented Sanctus (in Latin no less) for a papal world youth day Mass!
Liberated enough to wear this "beautiful" Viennese (not Roman) Vestment
PROPHECIES OF HUMANAE VITAE: RATHER THAN LIBERATION, WOMEN BECOME SLAVES TO SEX AND MADE OBJECTS OF LUST AND PLEASURE, IN OTHER WORDS, IT KEEPS THEM BAREFOOT, BUT NOT PREGNANT; HUMANAE VITAE IS THE KEY TO TRUE WOMEN'S LIBERATION AND DIGNITY, NOT TO MENTION MEN'S AUTHENTIC LIBERATION
Prophecies of Humanae Vitae
By Fr. Paul Marx, OSB
On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae re-affirmed the Catholic teaching on life, love and human sexuality. In that document, he listed the consequences of life lived outside Catholic teaching.
He predicted that:
1. Contraception would lead to conjugal (marital) infidelity. [adultery and fornication]
2. Contraceptive practice would lead to a “general lowering of morality.”
3. Contraception would lead men to cease respecting woman in their totality and would cause them to treat women as “mere instruments [de-humanized into sex objects only] of selfish enjoyment” rather than as cherished partners.
4. And finally, widespread acceptance of contraception by couples would lead to a massive imposition of contraception by unscrupulous governments.
In other words, Pope Paul VI predicted that contraception would evolve from “a lifestyle choice” into a weapon of mass destruction. How dreadfully his prophecy has been vindicated by population control and coercive sterilization programs, fertility reduction quotas and the promotion of abortion literally everywhere in the world.
Contraception’s destruction of the integrity of the marital act—as unitive and procreative—has dire consequences for society and for our souls. Contraception, in other words, is a rejection of God’s view of reality. It is a wedge driven into the most intimate sphere of communion known to man outside of the Holy Sacrament of the Mass. It is a degrading poison that withers life and love both in marriage and in society.
By breaking the natural and divinely ordained connection between sex and procreation, women and men—but especially men—would focus on the hedonistic possibilities of sex. People would cease seeing sex as something that was intrinsically linked to new life and to the sacrament of marriage.
Does anyone doubt that this is where we find ourselves today?
My Comment: Pope Paul VI got part of it right, men would lose respect for women and treat them as mere instruments (objects) of selfish enjoyment" rather than cherished partners.
The Holy Father could have added, but did not, that women would lose respect for men and treat them as mere instruments (objects) of selfish enjoyment" rather than cherished partners.
Friday, February 24, 2012
THE WAY OF THE CROSS
Last year's Good Friday Way of the Cross
Today, the First Friday of Lent, our parish began the traditional Alphonsus Liguori Way of the Cross. We offer this popular devotion twice each Friday, at 12:10 PM and again at 7:00 PM. We had a huge congregation for the 7:00 PM stations.
We've also begun each Monday, the Miraculous Medal novena at 5:00 PM with Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. We're getting upwards to 60 people! This will be offered throughout the year.
We've had for ages the Holy Rosary following our 8:00 AM daily Mass.
Devotions fell into disregard shortly after Vatican II. I am extremely happy these are making a come-back in our parish!
Today, the First Friday of Lent, our parish began the traditional Alphonsus Liguori Way of the Cross. We offer this popular devotion twice each Friday, at 12:10 PM and again at 7:00 PM. We had a huge congregation for the 7:00 PM stations.
We've also begun each Monday, the Miraculous Medal novena at 5:00 PM with Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. We're getting upwards to 60 people! This will be offered throughout the year.
We've had for ages the Holy Rosary following our 8:00 AM daily Mass.
Devotions fell into disregard shortly after Vatican II. I am extremely happy these are making a come-back in our parish!
RICK SANCTORUM MAY BE A DREADED "FUNDAMENTALISTIC CATHOLIC" BUT THEN WHAT WOULD MAUREEN DOWD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES BE? IS THERE AN EQUIVALENT PROGRESSIVE FUNDAMENTALISM? YES--ITS CALLED INFIDELITY, WHAT RICK MIGHT CALL AN INFIDEL
Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.
That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.
“Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”
When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.
Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”
Satan strikes, a Catholic exorcist told me, when there are “soul wounds.” Santorum, who is considered “too Catholic” even by my über-Catholic brothers, clearly believes that America’s soul wounds include men and women having sex for reasons other than procreation, people involved in same-sex relationships, women using contraception or having prenatal testing, environmentalists who elevate “the Earth above man,” women working outside the home, “anachronistic” public schools, Mormonism (which he said is considered “a dangerous cult” by some Christians), and President Obama (whom he obliquely and oddly compared to Hitler and accused of having “some phony theology”).
Santorum didn’t go as far as evangelist Franklin Graham, who heinously doubted the president’s Christianity on “Morning Joe.”
Mullah Rick, who has turned prayer into a career move, told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on contraception. And, in October, he insisted that contraception is “not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Senator Sanitarium, as he was once dubbed on “The Sopranos,” sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away independent and Republican women who like to work, see their kids taught by professionals and wear Victoria’s Secret.
He told The Washington Post on Friday that, while he doesn’t want to fund contraception through Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t ban it: “The idea that I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.”
That doesn’t comfort me much. I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny that they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions.
Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade?
The Huffington Post reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”
He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. Unlike the Bushes, he has no middle man to pander to prejudices; he turns the knife himself.
Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?
In a party always misty for bygone times bristling with ugly inequities, Santorum is successful because he’s not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward.
Virginia’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, touted as a vice-presidential prospect, also wants to drag women back into a cave.
This week, public outrage forced the Virginia legislature to pause on its way to passing a creepy bill forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, which, for early procedures, would require a wand being inserted into the vagina — an invasion that anti-abortion groups hope would shame some women into changing their minds once they saw or heard about traits of the fetus.
Democratic Delegate Lionell Spruill hotly argued that the bill would force “legal rape.” “I cannot believe that you would disrespect women and mothers in such a way,” he chided colleagues. “This legislation is simply mean-spirited, and it is bullying, bullying women simply because you can.”
While the Democrat-controlled Maryland House of Delegates just passed a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature passed a bill allowing private adoption agencies to discriminate against gays who want to be parents.
The Potomac River dividing those states seems to be getting wider by the day.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
THIS IS ONE LIBERATED POPE!
The Holy father wearing the Roman Chasuble for Ash Wednesday's Mass
Progressive Catholics are typically quite narrow in their approach to truth and liturgy; they hijack both and substitute both for something that is always, how shall we say, banal, silly, mundane, trite, pedantic, superficial, trendy and gimmicky as well as 1960's rebelliousness with very serious father issues when it comes to authority. But I protest too much.
Three of the many things these progressives hate about Pope Benedict are how he is liberated from their critiques of what is consider pre-Vatican II and thus bad, evil, outdated, and post-Vatican II, as well as liberated from their understanding of the meaning new and trendy and seriously banal.
The first is his lace alb. It drives them apoplectic. Their homophobia comes through, though they would protest that is not their disease but the one wearing it!
The second is his choosing to wear a Roman chasuble as pictured above--the worst insult a progressive Catholic can hurl against anyone in the Church is "you're so pre-Vatican II!" But the Holy Father doesn't care what names he is called; truly liberated!
The third is that he has allowed for the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated liberally and he has lifted the excommunication of the SSXP bishops in a bid to keep them in the fold maybe even with "personal ordinariate" similar to the new Anglican one.
What I have detected in Pope Benedict, consistent with who he was as a priest at Vatican II, as a bishop and now as pope is that we have a very liberal and liberated pope. He knows that Vatican II opened the door to great diversity in the faith and even in the Liturgy. How else could he approve a Anglican Use Mass and allow for the return of the Tridentine Mass as well as celebrate Masses in Roman parishes where folk groups sing the Mass standing next to the altar? All he demands is orthodoxy both in belief and practice and fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church--not really too much to ask of Catholics, I don't think!
But the Holy Father has the temerity to model what the post-Vatican II revised Mass should look like but suggesting we look to the Tridentine Mass. This is what He has done, although he is not flamboyant in his gestures and "says the black and does the red":
1. Roman and gothic Chasubles!
2. The Benedictine altar arrangement facing the people and celebrating the Mass ad orientem at times too!
3. Vernacular Masses but always with the Preface and Eucharistic Prayer (and he uses them all) prayed in Latin!
4. Kneeling for Holy Communion
I don't see the Ordinary Form of the Mass changing too much, except for what I highlight above, but I'm not clairvoyant although I think I am.
Three of the many things these progressives hate about Pope Benedict are how he is liberated from their critiques of what is consider pre-Vatican II and thus bad, evil, outdated, and post-Vatican II, as well as liberated from their understanding of the meaning new and trendy and seriously banal.
The first is his lace alb. It drives them apoplectic. Their homophobia comes through, though they would protest that is not their disease but the one wearing it!
The second is his choosing to wear a Roman chasuble as pictured above--the worst insult a progressive Catholic can hurl against anyone in the Church is "you're so pre-Vatican II!" But the Holy Father doesn't care what names he is called; truly liberated!
The third is that he has allowed for the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated liberally and he has lifted the excommunication of the SSXP bishops in a bid to keep them in the fold maybe even with "personal ordinariate" similar to the new Anglican one.
What I have detected in Pope Benedict, consistent with who he was as a priest at Vatican II, as a bishop and now as pope is that we have a very liberal and liberated pope. He knows that Vatican II opened the door to great diversity in the faith and even in the Liturgy. How else could he approve a Anglican Use Mass and allow for the return of the Tridentine Mass as well as celebrate Masses in Roman parishes where folk groups sing the Mass standing next to the altar? All he demands is orthodoxy both in belief and practice and fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church--not really too much to ask of Catholics, I don't think!
But the Holy Father has the temerity to model what the post-Vatican II revised Mass should look like but suggesting we look to the Tridentine Mass. This is what He has done, although he is not flamboyant in his gestures and "says the black and does the red":
1. Roman and gothic Chasubles!
2. The Benedictine altar arrangement facing the people and celebrating the Mass ad orientem at times too!
3. Vernacular Masses but always with the Preface and Eucharistic Prayer (and he uses them all) prayed in Latin!
4. Kneeling for Holy Communion
I don't see the Ordinary Form of the Mass changing too much, except for what I highlight above, but I'm not clairvoyant although I think I am.
OUT OF THE MOUTH OF BABES
Who says this new generation doesn't know their faith?
And another child of God who is properly catechized!
And another child of God who is properly catechized!
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
HOLY CONFESSION BATMAN!
UPDATED, THE MASTER SPEAKING ABOUT CONFESSION (TONGUE IN CHEEK):
Since becoming pastor of St. Joseph Church in Macon, along with the other priests, we have made a concerted effort to catechize our parishioners about living a sacramental life. This means, of course, understanding the nature of Holy Baptism as God's means of adopting us as His sons and daughters, making us a priestly people called to know, love and serve God especially in our worship and prayer (Mass and other forms of prayer) and how we live our lives in the world.
The Second Vatican Councils in Lumen Gentium calls Catholic laity to honor their baptismal calling and sacramental life thusly:
"It is the special vocation of the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. They live in the world, in each and every one of the world's occupations and callings and in the ordinary circumstances of social and family life—. There they are called by God to contribute to the sanctification of the world from within, like leaven, in the spirit of the Gospel, by fulfilling their own particular duties." Vatican II
So often though, we need God's grace in the Sacrament of Penance by which Jesus Christ renews the gift of forgiveness He first offers us in Holy Baptism. Although Baptism cannot be repeated, going to Confession can be repeated infinitely!
We've encouraged our parishioners to make use of the Sacrament of Penance regularly. We say shoot for weekly but go at least once a month and as a family.
Because of our emphasis on Confession, we now need to have two priests hearing confession each Saturday. And of course availability of confession is also a must. We now hear confessions each morning, Monday through Friday at 7:30 AM and of course anytime by appointment.
Also we offer a communal or liturgical Penance Liturgy twice a year during Advent and Lent.
Since becoming pastor of St. Joseph Church in Macon, along with the other priests, we have made a concerted effort to catechize our parishioners about living a sacramental life. This means, of course, understanding the nature of Holy Baptism as God's means of adopting us as His sons and daughters, making us a priestly people called to know, love and serve God especially in our worship and prayer (Mass and other forms of prayer) and how we live our lives in the world.
The Second Vatican Councils in Lumen Gentium calls Catholic laity to honor their baptismal calling and sacramental life thusly:
"It is the special vocation of the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. They live in the world, in each and every one of the world's occupations and callings and in the ordinary circumstances of social and family life—. There they are called by God to contribute to the sanctification of the world from within, like leaven, in the spirit of the Gospel, by fulfilling their own particular duties." Vatican II
So often though, we need God's grace in the Sacrament of Penance by which Jesus Christ renews the gift of forgiveness He first offers us in Holy Baptism. Although Baptism cannot be repeated, going to Confession can be repeated infinitely!
We've encouraged our parishioners to make use of the Sacrament of Penance regularly. We say shoot for weekly but go at least once a month and as a family.
Because of our emphasis on Confession, we now need to have two priests hearing confession each Saturday. And of course availability of confession is also a must. We now hear confessions each morning, Monday through Friday at 7:30 AM and of course anytime by appointment.
Also we offer a communal or liturgical Penance Liturgy twice a year during Advent and Lent.
REMEMBER YOU ARE DUST AND UNTO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN AND IN KEEPING WITH THAT A REFLECTION FROM "CEMETERY PICNIC"
And for your Ash Wednesday Lenten reflection:
From the new blog, Cemetery Picnic
CEMETERY PICNIC
A blog about things Goth, Legal, Historical, and Catholic
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Obama: A modern-day Emperor Julian the Apostate
I’ve been doing a little research on Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome. Viewing Christians as harmful to Roman society and national security, during his short time as emperor (361-63) he mounted a systematic attack on Christianity in an attempt to restore the pagan religious of the empire. Here is a summary of his campaign by two professors at Emory. The italics are mine.
Soon, Julian became very hostile to Christianity, developing a three-fold strategy effectively to disenfranchise Christians. First, he used legislation to cut off Christians from contact with the mainstream community. Next, he attempted to establish a pagan church structure to rival that of Christianity. Finally, he mounted a philosophical assault on Christianity, trying to show that its belief system was novel and harmful, and also to portray Christians as apostates from Judaism, a much older, more established, and more accepted religion. There is evidence of Julian's attempt to legally disenfranchise Christians both by taking away any special exemptions that they could claim due to their religious beliefs and by prosecuting them for actively advocating their beliefs. A law of the Theodosian Code prohibits decurions from avoiding their compulsory duties on the grounds that they are Christian, and Ammianus spoke of legislation barring Christians from teaching rhetoric and grammar.
Given that progressive collectivism has long advocated and worked to establish a compulsory social welfare system—redistributionist, supported by taxation, and enforeced by the authority of the state—can we not say that this welfare state is a “structure to rival Christianity?”
Next, aren’t adherents of the HHS rule and so-called compromise (including so-called Catholics like Pelosi et al.) arguing that the Catholic “belief system” is “harmful” in allegedly failing to see to women’s health needs (i.e., free contraceptives and abortifacients)?
Thirdly, in refusing to provide any religious waiver and discounting all First Amendment arguments that the HHS rule violates free exercise and compels speech, doesn’t the administration “tak[e] away any special exemptions that [Catholics can] claim due to their religious beliefs and . . . prosecut[e] them for actively advocating their beliefs?” Doesn’t the HHS rule “prohibit[ Catholics] from avoiding their compulsory duties on the grounds that they are Christian?”
As for the oft-repeated secular and administration observations that “98% of Catholics use birth control,” as well as Pelosi claiming to stand with her fellow Catholics against the bishops: this attempt by the administration, those sympathetic to it, and even so-called Catholics to foment dissent within the Church itself is also a tactic that Julian used. Here is a passage from a contemporary of Julian, the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus. Again, the italics are mine.
Although Julian from the earliest days of his childhood had been more inclined towards the worship of the pagan gods, and as he gradually grew up burned with longing to practise it, yet because of his many reasons for anxiety he observed certain of its rites with the greatest possible secrecy. But when his fears were ended, and he saw that the time had come when he could do as he wished, he revealed the secrets of his heart and by plain and formal decrees ordered the temples to be opened, victims brought to the altars, and the worship of the gods restored. And in order to add to the effectiveness of these ordinances, he summoned to the palace the bishops of the Christians, who were of conflicting opinions, [i.e., including Arians and other heretical bishops] and the people, who were also at variance, and politely advised them to lay aside their differences, and each fearlessly and without opposition to observe his own beliefs. On this he took a firm stand, to the end that, as this freedom increased their dissension, he might afterwards have no fear of a united populace, knowing as he did from experience that no wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most of the Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.
So, these divide and conquer tactics currently being used by secular authorities to interfere in Church governance and thus neutralize Catholic power go back almost to the days of the martyrs. Given all this, is it unreasonable to say that the Obama administration and its fellow travelers are not deliberately trying to break the power of the Church?
Finally, note Julian’s fear of Christian charity, for fear that it will detract from his own paternalistic activities. Here he is in his own words (my italics):
We must pay especial attention to this point, and by this means effect a cure. For when it came about that the poor were neglected and overlooked by the priests, then I think the impious Galilaeans observed this fact and devoted themselves to philanthropy. And they have gained ascendancy in the worst of their deeds through the credit they win for such practices. For just as those who entice children with a cake, and by throwing it to them two or three times induce them to follow them, and then, when they are far away from their friends cast them on board a ship and sell them as slaves, and that which for the moment seemed sweet, proves to be bitter for all the rest of their lives — by the same method, I say, the Galilaeans also begin with their so-called love-feast, or hospitality, or service of tables, — for they have many ways of carrying it out and hence call it by many names, — and the result is that they have led very many into atheism.
Of course, Julian thought Christians to be atheists. That isn't the problem that the world has with the Catholic Church. Quite the opposite, in fact. But the world very much does want the Church out of the adoption business, and now, it seems, out of the healthcare business as well, if it isn't going to do the will of the state in Catholic hospitals. In fact, the world would be very happy for the Church to just go away completely. What, after all, is the point of the HHS rule, if not to coerce Catholic institutions into acting no differently from secular ones?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
CHILLING REFLECTIONS ON THE CHURCH IN AMERICA FROM CARDINAL GEORGE OF CHICAGO AND MY MUSINGS ABOUT HUMANAE VITAE AND CATHOLIC DISSENT CONTRIBUTING TO SUCH DIRE PREDICTIONS AND REALITIES
In 2010, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago outlined the degree to which he believed religious freedoms (in the United States and other Western societies) were endangered. After the passage of legislation that enabled Civil Unions in Illinois, his eminence stated:
I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.
In February of 2012, Cardinal George reflected on the seriousness of the Obama administration’s health-care mandate:
At the present moment, Catholics in this country are facing challenges to our institutional existence and our mission that we thought would never arise here. … The laws that used to protect us are now being used to weaken and destroy us, and this quite deliberately.
Shortly, thereafter, when the Obama administration and the media touted the fact that the Catholic Bishops are alone on the contraception issue and that most Catholics aren’t supporting them in this battle, Cardinal George wrote:
This is the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain. What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse.
A few days later on at a press conference held at Loyola University on February 18th, he told the Chicago Tribune about the devastating effects of the HHS mandate for Catholic institutions:
The long-term effect is that the Catholic Church will be stripped of the institutions that are her instruments for public service. We will lose hospitals, we will lose universities. That’s not the country I was born in. … Something monumental is happening here.
MY COMMENTS: In the seminary of the late 1970's, I was taught the theology of "the loyal opposition" in matters of morality and doctrine. Theologians were more and more seeing themselves as a parallel magisterium to help guide the bishops in their exercise of their teaching authority. The theologians would put forward ideas that would challenge the status quo of official Church teachings, especially those in the area of sexuality and natural law and in direct opposition to Humanae Vitae in 1968.
The fruit of this experimentation with being a part of the "loyal opposition" to the bishops and their role of teaching and handing on the faith in the fashion that Cardinal George points out: "The Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse."
Whether you are on the right or the left of "loyal opposition" to the Church's Magisterium and the manner in which you pick and choose Catholic moral and doctrinal teachings as well as her canon law, you can see how dissent when legitimized undercuts the role of the Church in the world and the proclamation of the Gospel and living of the Gospel in an institutional way.
The Church is entering or has already entered the Babylonian Exile of her existence on earth. A remnant will remain faithful and persecuted for being faithful to the traditional faith and morals of the Church in union with the pope and the bishops in union with him. Many Catholics, though, will become or have become willing victims of "syncretism" mixing aspects of Catholicism with the religion of godless secularism and its outright denial of natural law and the traditional moral teachings of the Church. Other Catholics will become collaborators with the religion of godless secularism and will glory in the embrace of it as the logical fruit of their vision of the "spirit of Vatican II."
In other words there will be Catholics claiming to remain Catholic who will applaud what Cardinal George sees as evil. These Catholics will call evil, good and good evil--a insidious form of blaspheming the Holy Spirit!
There are some Catholics who actually think disobedience to the Catholic and Apostolic faith is a good thing!
FAT TUESDAY PREPARES US FOR THE AUSTERITY, REPENTANCE AND FASTING OF ASH WEDNESDAY AND THE HOLY SEASON OF LENT AND CLAIRVOYANT MUSINGS OF WHEN ASHES AND NUPTIALS SHOULD TAKE PLACE DURING THE MASS
The "Roman" custom of receiving ashes
The "American" custom of receiving ashes
The debauchery of Fat Tuesday (Mardi Gras) in New Orleans usually makes for interesting news for the mass media. But in reality much of Fat Tuesday in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is family oriented. And for Catholics and other liturgical Christians it is a time to "eat, drink and be merry" for tomorrow Ash Wednesday you die to self and live for Christ.
Ash Wednesday sees the imposition of ashes. In the United States ashes are smudged on the forehead of penitents. And the smudge is worn the whole day long unless of course you could to a late evening Mass.
In Europe, especially Rome, the ashes are more like granules and are sprinkled upon the crown of the head. There is no visible sign of the smudge. It is like "putting on sackcloth and ashes" quite literally.
Now, let's talk liturgy. As you know my clairvoyance as enabled me to see future liturgical reforms as many believe this will occur and that our Liturgy today will be "enriched" by the Liturgy prior to the Council but with Vatican II's sober, nuanced "vision" of what the reform of the liturgical rites would look like.
One enrichment from the pre-Vatican II Liturgy but with Vatican II sensibilities will be the placement of sacramentals and other sacraments within the Mass itself.
For example in the 1962 missal, the Rite of Marriage or the Nuptials took place as a prelude to the Mass similar to the Rite of Sprinkling or Asperges. The same was true of the imposition of the ashes on Ash Wednesday. These were clearly separate preludes to the actual Mass. The 1965 missal reformed this and allowed these "rites" to replace the Prayers at the Foot of the altar, but to be clearly a part of the Mass not just a prelude. The 1969 missal placed these after the homily, except for the rite of sprinkling which remained as a replacement for the penitential act.
The revised 2012 English Roman Missal has a peculiar thing in it concerning the Nuptial Mass. There is the greeting of the Mass, but the rubrics clearly state that the Penitential Act is omitted but the Gloria is sung/said. There is no formula given to introduce the Nuptial Mass or easily go forward from the greeting to the Gloria.
This tells me, the clairvoyant that I am, that a future revised "Marriage Rite" (there is a separate book for this distinct from the Roman Missal)will have the actual rite of marriage with vows and blessing and exchange of rings in the place of the Penitential Act preceding the Gloria. The Nuptial Blessing will still be after the Lord's Prayer.
I'm disappointed though that the 2012 missal still indicates that the blessing and imposition of the ashes takes place after the homily and is the penitential act, thus the normal penitential act in its normal place is omitted. The missal though states that the penitential act is omitted and the priest simply greets the people after the Sign of the Cross and then prays the Collect.
The 1965 missal has a fuller explanation of what should take place and that the imposition of ashes is the "penitential act" which replaces the prayers at the Foot of the Altar. The Ashes are blessed and imposed prior to the Collect and Liturgy of the Word. There is also a specific rubric about how the priest-celebrant is to receive his ashes. If another priest is present, that priest imposes ashes on the celebrant. If there is not another priest, the celebrant imposes ashes on himself. This rubric is totally lacking in the new Roman Missal and since 1973.
So, what do you think about the placement during Mass of ashes and the rite of marriage? And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that the rite of ordination of priests and deacons took place prior to the Liturgy of the Word,(actually after the tract but before the Gospel) similar to how the Nuptials took place as a prelude to the Mass--anyone know for sure?
Finally, having been trained in the modern way of celebrating the Mass, we were taught that these other rites (except for the Asperges) were to take place after the Liturgy of the Word as a response to it. I'm beginning to question that "theology" as symbolically it would be better for a bride and groom to be married and for the very first time as husband and wife, they would hear the Liturgy of the Word together, participate in the One Sacrifice and receive Holy Communion, as husband and wife.
The same for deacons, priests and bishops, you should be ordained and then listen to the Word of God.
Just my two cents worth. But for the imposition of ashes, it should be the penitential act and in the normal place.
Ash Wednesday sees the imposition of ashes. In the United States ashes are smudged on the forehead of penitents. And the smudge is worn the whole day long unless of course you could to a late evening Mass.
In Europe, especially Rome, the ashes are more like granules and are sprinkled upon the crown of the head. There is no visible sign of the smudge. It is like "putting on sackcloth and ashes" quite literally.
Now, let's talk liturgy. As you know my clairvoyance as enabled me to see future liturgical reforms as many believe this will occur and that our Liturgy today will be "enriched" by the Liturgy prior to the Council but with Vatican II's sober, nuanced "vision" of what the reform of the liturgical rites would look like.
One enrichment from the pre-Vatican II Liturgy but with Vatican II sensibilities will be the placement of sacramentals and other sacraments within the Mass itself.
For example in the 1962 missal, the Rite of Marriage or the Nuptials took place as a prelude to the Mass similar to the Rite of Sprinkling or Asperges. The same was true of the imposition of the ashes on Ash Wednesday. These were clearly separate preludes to the actual Mass. The 1965 missal reformed this and allowed these "rites" to replace the Prayers at the Foot of the altar, but to be clearly a part of the Mass not just a prelude. The 1969 missal placed these after the homily, except for the rite of sprinkling which remained as a replacement for the penitential act.
The revised 2012 English Roman Missal has a peculiar thing in it concerning the Nuptial Mass. There is the greeting of the Mass, but the rubrics clearly state that the Penitential Act is omitted but the Gloria is sung/said. There is no formula given to introduce the Nuptial Mass or easily go forward from the greeting to the Gloria.
This tells me, the clairvoyant that I am, that a future revised "Marriage Rite" (there is a separate book for this distinct from the Roman Missal)will have the actual rite of marriage with vows and blessing and exchange of rings in the place of the Penitential Act preceding the Gloria. The Nuptial Blessing will still be after the Lord's Prayer.
I'm disappointed though that the 2012 missal still indicates that the blessing and imposition of the ashes takes place after the homily and is the penitential act, thus the normal penitential act in its normal place is omitted. The missal though states that the penitential act is omitted and the priest simply greets the people after the Sign of the Cross and then prays the Collect.
The 1965 missal has a fuller explanation of what should take place and that the imposition of ashes is the "penitential act" which replaces the prayers at the Foot of the Altar. The Ashes are blessed and imposed prior to the Collect and Liturgy of the Word. There is also a specific rubric about how the priest-celebrant is to receive his ashes. If another priest is present, that priest imposes ashes on the celebrant. If there is not another priest, the celebrant imposes ashes on himself. This rubric is totally lacking in the new Roman Missal and since 1973.
So, what do you think about the placement during Mass of ashes and the rite of marriage? And if I'm not mistaken, I believe that the rite of ordination of priests and deacons took place prior to the Liturgy of the Word,(actually after the tract but before the Gospel) similar to how the Nuptials took place as a prelude to the Mass--anyone know for sure?
Finally, having been trained in the modern way of celebrating the Mass, we were taught that these other rites (except for the Asperges) were to take place after the Liturgy of the Word as a response to it. I'm beginning to question that "theology" as symbolically it would be better for a bride and groom to be married and for the very first time as husband and wife, they would hear the Liturgy of the Word together, participate in the One Sacrifice and receive Holy Communion, as husband and wife.
The same for deacons, priests and bishops, you should be ordained and then listen to the Word of God.
Just my two cents worth. But for the imposition of ashes, it should be the penitential act and in the normal place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)