He was outspoken about the debacle of the preliminary synod on the family in terms of those who tried to hijack it for ideological purposes.
Progressives (heterodox, false) seem to be dismayed which is Cardinal Sarah's best credential!
Saturday, November 22, 2014
STRONG RUMORS HAVE IT....
Cardinal Robert Sarah to be the new prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship? Is His Eminence wearing a modified cappa magna?
He has spoken at the recent conference in Rome on Summorum Pontificum, so he must not be hostile to the EF Mass.
He was outspoken about the debacle of the preliminary synod on the family in terms of those who tried to hijack it for ideological purposes.
Progressives (heterodox, false) seem to be dismayed which is Cardinal Sarah's best credential!
He was outspoken about the debacle of the preliminary synod on the family in terms of those who tried to hijack it for ideological purposes.
Progressives (heterodox, false) seem to be dismayed which is Cardinal Sarah's best credential!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
That's a ferraiolo or whatever, not a cappa.
close enough though! :)
Seriously...if I was at Mass and a priest came in with a costume like that...I'd just go on back home. And it wouldn't be a sin.
I'm pretty sure that's a super hero cape.
It's indeed a ferraiolo, although it should only be worn in 'abito piano', not with a choir cassock as shown here.
If the rumours are true, he would be the second African to hold the prefecture in ten years - Francis, Cardinal Arinze, had the job from 2002 to 2008.
He's also papabile, being only 69 and in addition to his native French is fluent in Italian and (crucially) English.
Anonymous at 5:16,
If you've ever watched reruns of Bishop Fulton Sheen's famous old TV show, "Life is Worth Living," you've seen the bishops' version of this same outfit (abito piano with cape). In every episode I've ever seen Bishop Sheen dressed this way. Bishop Sheen was no joke. I hope you wouldn't have walked out on him!
Further, the Popes wear their white version of this outfit (with or without their special version of the red cape) all the time. I remember seeing quite a few pictures of JPII in his white cassock with the red cape with the toggle closure. Would you have walked out on Pope Saint John Paul II as well?
One can buy one for a bishop friend here:
http://www.churchproducts.com/ferraiolo-rjt-380-bishop-apparel.html
Joseph Johnson...I have never watched reruns of Bishop Fulton Sheen's famous old TV show, "Life is Worth Living". I did, however, see it live when I was in college. Before I got married, I lived at the Newman Club. The priest who was "in charge" of the Newman Club would sometimes emerge from his room (He had a quite serious drinking problem. He often didn't come out for days.) and round up all of us "residents" who were in the house at the time and "invite" us into the TV (black and white...I couldn't tell Rev. Sheen's cape was red.)room to watch the show. He would invariably "fall asleep" shortly, and yes...we would ALL walk out on our inebriated host and Bishop Fulton Sheen. (And, alas, he was indeed a pompous joke.)
As for walking out on Pope StJPII if he wore such a costume, I suppose that the decent thing for me to do is to is to take the fifth....
If I decide to buy such an awesome garment from churchproducts.com, I'll take a selfie. Maybe Fr McD will publish it.
All of the above comments show the arrogance and lack of knowledge of liberals. Apparently any kind of formality or expression of piety makes them crazy. Why is it that Catholics are the first to ridicule the practices of their own religion. Orthodox bishops all wear diamond studded crowns and huge palliums and embroidered damask vestments. And they aren't going to be giving up their crowns to please protestants. Would you run out of church because of that. to all the critics who just hate just about everything in the Church here is an idea, just leave. You don't like the practices or the teaching then why stay? It seems mentally unbalanced to have such hate for the Church yet you all seem determined to stay. Why?
The Cardinal is not going to head the Congregation for Divine Worship. It's going to be Piero Marini. He will also be made a cardinal at the next consistory. Let's not forget who is pope.......for now.
Is that a picture of Cardinal Sarah?
You might have to check with Fr. Godfred. Maybe he would know for sure if it is..
Anonymous at 9:08,
Actually, rather than red, Bishop Sheen's cape (as well as his zuchetto, or skullcap, and his fascia) would have been episcopal purple (which, to me, looks more like a magenta than an actual purple). Some of his later shows were in color.
You call Bishop Sheen a "pompous joke." Actually, I simply see him as a man of his times. He was born in the late 1800's and was ordained a priest in, I believe, 1919. His speaking style was formed by the style of that time. Like a stiff Arrow collar, it may have seemed pompous and overly dramatic to a young person of the 1960's. I admire much of the way things were done before the Second World War (except Jim Crow!). To me, things were on a higher plane then and have declined into over-simplicity and banal casualness today.
B
Anyone who wold walk out on this wonderful priest is not worth having at mass.
Dear Sir, we dont wear "costumes" we wear holy vestments to please God with beauty and dignity. Yes, we use lace, gold, silver and ornate jewels all that Our Lord has given us to make things befitting to worship Him. As for you walking out on this priest for wearing a "costume" you do not like,you sir are really walking out on Jesus. It just shows your liberal anti-TLM views and that is your right. Still I wish you would attend the TLM and give it a chance you might be awestruck!!
"Costume" Anonymous is only awe-struck when he looks in the mirror.
Anonymous said "Seriously...if I was at Mass and a priest came in with a costume like that...I'd just go on back home. And it wouldn't be a sin."
November 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM
Any comment that is vitriolic and disrespectful of the laity in general, and Pope Francis, bishops and priests in particular will not be posted!
The farce continues.
Anonymous said, "Bishop Fulton Sheen...alas, he was indeed a pompous joke."
November 22, 2014 at 9:08 PM
Any comment that is vitriolic and disrespectful of the laity in general, and Pope Francis, bishops and priests in particular will not be posted!
The farce continues on and on.
Why is Anonymous allowed to post such vitriolic and disrespectful comments about the posting decisions of the reverend Southern Orders comment moderator? This farce is funny.
I think FR. wants us to get a good look at what liberals and progressives are really like. He needs to let them continue to dig their hole.
And, seriously, is anyone on here really so weak and helpless that words (or perhaps a flag) is threatening to them?
Question for Gene.
What does that flag symbolize? I have never seen it before.
Gene,
I, for one, am deeply offended by the flag of Sweden. Their neutrality against the Nazis, their repugnant treatment of meatballs, their bizarre take on massage, and their prominent role in the creation of the so-called winter "Olympics" (in which gravity clearly does most of the work), leaves me unable to bear that national emblem, which threatens my calm.
I think these problems with the ornate vestments are indicative of of the USA's repulsion of royalty. It's the pageantry equals nobility and nobility equals indifference on its subjects.
A Cardinal, a Bishop or a priest are servants of the faithful and our Lord and are owed honor for that service. It's kind of like how we like to honor our soldiers and first responders. They dress in beautiful vestments to be their best in worship of our God.
It sad when people put up other reasons for the vestments. It usually tells more about them then whom they are commenting about.
Anonymous at 2:41, That flag is the official flag of the Confederate States of America, adopted in 1861. The flag that the historically ignorant and politically hysterical find so offensive is the Confederate battle flag, which symbolizes bravery, loyalty, sacrifice, and valor and has nothing to do at all with racism or slavery. After all, the vast majority of men who fought for the Confederacy were not slave owners…do you really think that several hundred thousand of those boys would have fought and died for a bunch of slaves. No…they fought and died for State's rights, independence, home and family and against Yankee usurpers.
Even our ignorant liberals' darling, Abraham Linbcoln, said he was fighting to preserve the Union and would do so with or without slavery. All politicians are opportunists…and liars.
Yes, Fr. JBS, but even you, a Priest, must have noticed that the Swedes produce beautiful women…I notice them strictly for the purest aesthetic reasons, of course, and …well, that reminds me of massage…oops…never mind…we were talking aesthetics..I don't like those stupid meatballs, either, and any activity in which you must wear seven layers of clothing in order to go flying through the air on a flimsy pair of sticks is best shunned. However, I did once see a video of Swedish women ski jumping nude…it was a most aesthetic experience and my appreciation for art was increased immensely.
"The will know we are rednecks by our flag, by our flag. Yes they'll know we're dumb-ass crackers by our flag."
Anonymous,
I suspect you know well that it is the flag of a certain defunct republic.
Anonymous, you remind me of the snot-nosed kid who is afraid to play with the big boys but who stands on his porch (close to Mama) and yells, "nananana-booboo," then runs in the house. LOL!
Ahem.
Getting back to the topic at hand...
Mr. Nolan, thank you much for that information at 5:51 on Nov. 22.
It seems to me that beauty in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (I'll let the board argue about EF or OF) is disdained by some, for whatever reason, and I cannot wrap my (I'll admit) backwoods mind around this.
I mean I *like* this because it tells me that something *very special* is happening here. Something other-worldly. Something eternal.
Good grief if it really does not matter how we celebrate *the* Sacrifice of all sacrifices... (including what the celebrant is wearing) then for Goodness' sake, why don't we just use Dixie cups and paper plates for that sacrifice? While were at it, why don't we just let the celebrants wear whatever-the-Purgatory they want for this same sacrifice? (oh wait, some already do)
All hyperbole aside, I would have no problem at all with what Cardinal Sarah is wearing. Tells me that he takes his role in Persona Christi Capitas seriously. That is to say, for the salvation of souls.
Catechist Kev
Alexander Stephens, vice-president if the Confederate States of America: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." The infamous "Cornerstone" speech.
Yes, the Confederacy was based on the unChristian belief in the superiority of the white race over the "negro" and on its logical historical and economic outgrowth, slavery.
Anonymous at 9:08 AM,
Wow! It's really hard to believe your condemnation of Venerable Servant of God Bishop Fulton Sheen. Have you ever read any of his books or really listened to his retreats or television shows. I guess not.
I wish you could talk to my late grandmother who was Methodist and no real friend of the Catholic Church. She had nothing but praise for Bishop Sheen. She never missed watching his show in the 1950s, even with it being on at the same time as Frank Sinatra and Milton Berle.
Even though my grandmother remained a Protestant her entire life, Bishop Sheen brought many converts to the Catholic Faith and helped to destroy many myths about the Faith that many Southern Protestants held.
Looks like you were right, Fr. McDonald.
(scroll down to the bottom)
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2014/11/24/0882/01897.html
Catechist Kev
Quite right, Pater Ignotus. However, are we not more than the sins of our fathers?
Ignotus, I am familiar with the cornerstone speech. It does not constitute the foundation of the Confederacy. A firebrand speech by Stephens does not make a very good basis for understanding the Confederacy, the War Between the States, or the South. The question of the relative genetic basis for intelligence among various races is still undecided and is avoided by the mainstream because they fear they may discover unpleasant truths…perhaps that Hebrews and Asians are superior in intelligence to Caucasians, and Caucasians to Negroes...and possums, electric toasters, and flounders to Ignotus.
What is it about civil wars that they constantly have to be re-fought? When push comes to shove, I have to confess to being a Cavalier, not a Roundhead.
Actually, John, we do not consider it a "civil war." That is a Yankee term. We call it "The War Between the States." The Confederacy was an established nation ( a State) with a Constitution, a President, a Congress, its own currency, and newspapers. The Confederate army was led by the man the Union wanted to lead their army, but Lee would not take arms against his native Virginia. Had Lee led the Union army with all those resources and men, the war would have been over in two years or less. The Union army got its butt kicked by Lee for over two years until Lincoln fired all his generals. He got to General Grant, whom he called "the man who can live with the arithmetic it will take to defeat Robert Lee." Grant was not afraid to meet Lee head on and take the casualties it would require to box Lee in. Lee almost escaped at Appamatox, but as he topped the hill leading to his only route of retreat, he saw the Union's General Sheridan moving into position across the valley. Lee said to his aides, 'Well, I guess it is time for me to go and see General Grant."
Actually, John, everyone considers it a civil war and refers to it as the American Civil War. I say this as a Son of the South who had two - TWO ! - great-grandfathers fight for the Confederate States of America in regiments based out of Charleston, SC. Also, my mother's paternal grandfather was a slave owner in Charleston.
The only people who call it "The War of Northern Aggression" or, more euphemistically, "The Late, Great Unpleasantness," are those who have been reading far too many cheap romance novels or those who believe it was 1) legal or 2) a good idea to attempt to dissolve the union that was won at so great a sacrifice by those who helped establish "Home Rule" in the "Colonies."
General Lee would not take sides against his native state, but he did take sides against his native country in an act that, while not treacherous - Lee was not capable of treachery, I don't think - was treasonous.
The Civil War has been called "The Last Battle of the American Revolution" because, when our Constitution was written, the issue of slavery was not settled. It was the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the work of the Abolitionists that brought slavery to an end. Economically, it was starting to become unfeasible, but in the middle of the 1800's, slavery was still necessary for the landed aristocracy of the South - the plantation owners - to maintain their way of life.
We talk about the Civil War in the South, but Northerners rarely bring it up at all. The great immigration of Europeans to the USA that came in the later 1800's and early 1900's saw hundreds of thousands moving to the northern, industrial areas of the USA. Poles, Czechs, Swedes, Germans, Irish, Italians, etc, settled north of the Mason-Dixon line. Hence, there was a tremendous dilution of the percentage of the population who had direct connections through family to the war.
In the South a far larger percentage of the population is connected to the war. My great Aunt Mary, born in 1876 (d. 1972), would tell of the return to Savannah of one of her uncles when she was a young teen. He had been captured and was a POW in the North; when released, he stayed in the North for many years before returning to Savannah.
As I write this post, I am sitting in my sister's home about 25 miles from the site of the Battle of Bentonville, NC (March 19-21, 1865), which was the last full-scale engagement of the Civil War. It was also the battle in which one of my great-grandfathers was captured and released so that he could return, with his arms and horse, if he had one, to his home and family in Charleston, SC.
I don't think Phil Robertson, The Duck Commander himself could have said it any better, Pastor. You did leave out an important part, though, the part about the war not being about slavery, but about state's rights.
Several of my dear blog friends have indicated that they would like it if I had a "name" other than anonymous. Now, thanks to another anon, (who may have actually been me) I have one. I bet you'll all be SO pleased...(I'll use it when it pleases me.)
"War of Northern Aggression" is sometimes used as a joke. Actually, it was a war between two nations…a War Between the States. So, Ignotus wants to trot out his ancestors. My Uncle Joe Tucker was a Confederate artillery commander at the Battle of Petersburg in 1864. I have his sword and letters. My great, great grandfather was Douglas Williams, a cavalry officer in the Western theater under…you guessed it…Nathan Bedford Forrest (Jack Bauer looks under his bed at night for Nathan Bedford Forrest!). My Grandpa used to tell me stories about how his parents remembered their parents burying the silver and other heirlooms so the Yankees would not find them, and of how the Union soldiers would ride through the farm and just cut pigs in half with a saber and take the hams. It was, indeed, a war about much, much more than slavery. It is popular now to make everything about blacks…we have trained them to believe it is all about them, too. That is why we have Ferguson...
POP-QUIZ: If (when) Pope Francis OKs married priests, will you quit being a Catholic? How about if (when) he or some other Pope OKs women priests? (We got quite a few married priests when the Episcopalians let in women priests.)
Isn't this fun? Now that I have a new name, I feel a new sense of freedom....
Juden, I would say that, if the Church allowed married Priests (not as serious a problem as female priests) and women Priests, it would indicate that dogma and the Magisterium are up for grabs and that, in theory, anything goes. It would open the door for gay priests, gay marriage, abortion, etc. and would be only a matter of time and more PC whining until all the structures came tumbling down. Yes, I would leave for SSPX, the East, or to find, alas, some isolated, conservative Calvinist church once again. Such a development would set adrift (liberate?) many, many devout, believing Catholics who would seek a remnant of true believers wherever they could find it. Luther wins...
Gene, it's not just theory. The 'issue' of married priests aside (it's a discipline of the Western Church, not dogma, and therefore not a serious problem), any sort of 'back-tracking' with regard to 'woman priests' would essentially be an admittance by the Papacy it was at one time wrong—which also means the Pope could be wrong about his position of authority over the whole Church.
In such an event, I'd probably go back to Orthodoxy; or, less likely, I'd return to nihilism, and spend the rest of my days happily working to destroy the Roman Catholic Church and its 'delusional belief in an imaginary sky-man'.
Or maybe I'd just troll the internet again. That was fun when I was fourteen.
Flavius, oh, you would either go East or become like Ignotus…I see. I hope not the latter. Are you the same Flavius I know from RCIA? If so, you have become much more aggressive…I like it.
Gene, it's possible. My pseudonym (F. Hesychius) means "The light-haired, calm one". During RCIA, my 19 year-old self rarely said 5 words at a time.
PS: I'm enjoying Calvin's Institutes. It's been interesting, to say the least. You were right; Calvin's theology appeals to logic, whereas Luther's seems to have been written with the intent to appeal to my presumed outrage over the Papacy.
I'm inclined to agree with Pater Ignotus on his reading of history. A civil war is exactly what it says; in the 1640s it was described as 'this war without an enemy'. To call the American Civil War 'The War between the States' is fair enough, if a little quaint; but it does nothing to obscure the fact that the conflict of 1861-1865 was a civil war on any understanding of the term.
A greater problem is referring to the conflict in the 1640s as the English Civil War, since it involved the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.
John,
I thought that particular series of conflicts was called the War of the Three Kingdoms, with the English Civil War being just one among many conflicts in the Stuart domains.
At least, I would label it that, and it's how my history professor labelled it.
Post a Comment