FROM THE ALIVE SOUTH TO THE NORTH ON LIFE SUPPORT

Last week I was able to celebrate Mass while on vacation at a beachside parish packed with about 1,500 people. Wonderful!

Last night I attended a cathedral Mass in a large northeast diocese. Spectacular cathedral about 100 people in attendance. This is one of those areas where about 12% of Catholics attend Mass. sad!

The main priestly problem with the Ordinary Form is that it becomes perfunctory and the priest rushes the words of prayer turning these prayers simply into a "read" Mass where one wonders if there is actual prayer or not. The style of each priest in the Ordinary Form either makes or breaks the Mass.

Ad Orientem and more spiritual silence, sacred silence, is needed, such as a low voice Roman Canon, would go a long way in making a Mass that is rushed in the manner of "reading" it into a Mass that is actual prayer.

The Mass began promptly at 5:00 pm and the recessional hymn was finished promptly at 5:30pm.
Some like it that way!

ANOTHER PRE VATICAN BAD IDEA

From Rorate Caeili:

Paul Claudel at Le Figaro (1955): Mass facing the people means there's no longer an Altar (full translation)

By one of the greatest writers of the 20th Century, Paul Claudel, writing for the most important French daily, as the proponents of the "Liturgical Upheaval" that would lead up to the post-Vatican II disasters, especially the New Mass, started to abuse the Traditional Mass with the illicit posture "facing the people".

Paul Claudel

Le Figaro

January 23, 1955

I wish to protest with all my strength against the growing practise in France of saying Mass facing the people.

The most basic principle of religion is that God holds first place and that the good of man is merely a consequence of the recognition and the practical application of this essential dogma.

The Mass is the homage par excellence which we render to God by the Sacrifice which the priest offers to Him in our name on the altar of His Son. It is us led by the priest and as one with him, going to God to offer Him hostias et preces [Victims and prayers]. It is not God presenting Himself to us for our convenience to make us indifferent witnesses of the mystery about to be accomplished.

The novel liturgy deprives the Christian people of their dignity and their rights. It is no longer they who say the Mass with the priest, by “following” it, as the saying very rightly goes, and to whom the priest turns from time to time to assure them of his presence, participation and cooperation, in the work which he undertakes in their name. All that remains is a curious audience watching him do his job. Small wonder that the impious compare him to a magician performing his act before a politely admiring crowd.

It is true that in the traditional liturgy the most touching, the most moving part of the Holy Sacrifice is hidden from the view of the faithful. But it is not hidden from their hearts and their faith. To demonstrate this, during Solemn High Masses the sub-deacon stays at the foot of the altar during the Offertory, hiding his face with his left hand.We too are invited to pray, to withdraw into ourselves, not in a spirit of curiosity but of recollection.

In all of the Eastern rites the miracle of transubstantiation takes place unseen by the faithful, behind the iconostasis. It is only afterwards that the celebrant appears on the threshold of the sacred door, the Body and Blood of Christ in his hands.

A vestige of this idea lingered for many years in France, where the old missals did not translate the prayers of the canon. Dom Guéranger protested energetically against those who had the audacity to do away with this custom.

Today’s deplorable practice has turned the ancient ceremony upside down, to the great consternation of the faithful. There is no longer an altar. Where is it, this consecrated stone which the Apocalypse compares to the Body of Christ Itself? There is nothing but a bare trestle covered with a tablecloth, reminding usdepressingly of a Calvinist workbench.

Naturally, as the convenience of the faithful was held up as the guiding principle, it was necessary to rid the aforementioned table of the “accessories” cluttering it up: not only the candlesticks and the vases of flowers, but the tabernacle! The very crucifix! The priest says his Mass in a vacuum!When he invites the people to lift up their hearts and their eyes…to what? There is no nothing left in front of us to focus our minds on the Divine.

If the candlesticks and crucifix were kept, the people would be even more excluded than in the old liturgy, because then not only the ceremony but the priest himself would be completely hidden from view.

I would resign myself to this situation with the greatest grief, as henceforth, it would appear that not the slightest spiritual effort will berequired of the common people. It seems necessary to stick the most sublime of mysteries in their faces, to reduce the Mass to the primitive form of the Last Supper and in doing so, change the entire ritual. What is the meaning of  Dominus vobiscum [The Lord be with you] and orate fratres [pray brethren] spoken by a priest separated from his people and requiring nothing of them? What is the significance of the sumptuous vestments worn by those we have delegated as ambassadors to the Divinity?

And our churches, is there any reason to leave them as they are?

THE CATHOLIC HERALD BASICALLY CONFIRMS TODAY WHAT THE NOW BELEAGUERED CARDINAL PELL SAID DURING THE FIRST INFAMOUS SYNOD ON THE FAMILY IN 2013

Catholic observers can take little pleasure from this unfolding saga, for we too wrestle bitterly with modernism at present. We too face the threat of division and of capitulation to the prevailing culture. One must hope that the fate of modern Anglicanism serves as a stark lesson to those in Rome who are tempted by liberalisation. For there is now little doubt – given the experience of recent years – that orthodoxy unites Christian bodies via shared proclamation of truth, whereas liberalism only pulls them apart via ambiguity, worldly agendas and rebellion.

Cardinal Pell in 2013 at the first and very divided synod on the family, and I can't help but think that the persecution Cardinal Pell is undergoing in Australia has much to do with his talk against the liberal positions that some in the Catholic Church want to mimic in the Anglican Church, such as homosexual "marriage" and the like:



The UK's Catholic Herald today:

The lesson of Anglicanism: liberalism will tear you apart

by Fr Ed Tomlinson

posted Wednesday, 26 Jul 2017

The ordination of the first 32 female priests in the Church of England, in Bristol Cathedral on 12 March 1994 (Getty) 

Highly political synods shattered Anglicanism's fragile unity. Catholics should take note

A former Anglican Chaplain to the Queen, the Revd Gavin Ashenden, is spearheading a revolt in the Church of England Synod over the thorny issue of homosexuality. Anglicans are talking openly about schism. Catholics the world over should be watching very carefully.

Anglicanism’s real problem has always been a theological schizophrenia – the result, perhaps, of it having formed to appease a lusty monarch rather than to preach a creed with clarity. Ask a hundred Anglicans what Anglicanism actually is and expect a hundred answers. The Church of England isn’t, really, one Church at all. It’s an Erastian umbrella organisation holding together, by virtue of the Crown, a huge range of competing theologies.

For most of the 20^th Century this diversity was even viewed as its strength because, thanks to a shared pension board and the clever use of ambiguity in official statements, the three main factions within Anglicanism – which one wag labelled ‘high and crazy’, ‘broad and hazy’ and ‘low and lazy’ – were happy enough to rub along together despite their radically different set of beliefs. It seemed as if the Nicene Creed, a very loose application of the 39 articles and strong civic approval gave just enough common ground to hold the show together.

Two major developments in the 20^th Century brought this uneasy truce into question. The first was the adoption of synodical governance which led to a radical politicisation of the Church of England.

With everything suddenly up for grabs, by virtue of majority vote, the factions no longer pulled together in unity but began to plot and lobby against each other. General Synod became a battleground on which theological opponents could be put to the sword. And it didn’t take long for the liberal lobby, strengthened by trends in society and over-represented on the bench of bishops, to realise synod worked in their favour. Did the Holy Spirit said no to women priests in July’s Synod?

Fret not: table the motion again in February, then repeat ad nauseum, until the Holy Spirit finally gets the message! That is how democratising the deposit of faith tends to work, though the system admittedly tends to favour Barabbas over Jesus.

The second development which disrupted Anglican unity occurred when the Book of Common Prayer became optional not mandatory. You are what you pray: lex orandi, lex credendi. With the shackles removed, parishes started to go their own way. Today, there is almost no common ground between an evangelical parish on one side of town and its liberal counterpart on the other. This represents a massive problem for the Church of England: how can you bring people together in love when there is zero shared praxis between them? The situation has become so grave that the Lambeth Conference can no longer be held, due to deep divisions even at the level of the episcopacy.

Throw into this toxic mix the effects of the sexual revolution, and the strong secular ideology of the present culture with its LGBTQ crusade, and the writing seems to be on the wall. Historically the Church of England kept to a via media, teetering between Catholic and Protestant claims. But neither of these is destined to win out. Instead the body will fall between the gaps. Its Catholic claim (and ecclesiology) ended with the defeat of Anglo-Catholicism over the issue of women priests; its authentic Protestant claim ended via an inevitable creeping embrace of “gay marriage” and notions of gender fluidity.

Unless a miracle occurs, the CofE seems destined to fracture into various splinter bodies, as already happened in America. Expect bitter legal disputes as competing bodies take up residence on your high street, each claiming to be the voice of authentic Anglican witness. So it is that the Revd Gavin Ashenden finds himself embroiled in this final battle for the soul of modern Anglicanism. He and a few others are making their last stand against the powerful modernist liberal consensus that dominated the most recent Synod.

Catholic observers can take little pleasure from this unfolding saga, for we too wrestle bitterly with modernism at present. We too face the threat of division and of capitulation to the prevailing culture. One must hope that the fate of modern Anglicanism serves as a stark lesson to those in Rome who are tempted by liberalisation. For there is now little doubt – given the experience of recent years – that orthodoxy unites Christian bodies via shared proclamation of truth, whereas liberalism only pulls them apart via ambiguity, worldly agendas and rebellion.

RALEIGH'S NEW CATHEDRAL IS HIGH CHRISTOLOGY! MILWAUKEE'S OLD CATHEDRAL, BASED UPON THE BASILICAN/ROMANESQUE HIGH CHRISTOLOGY STYLE WAS RENOVATED TO A LOW CHRISTOLOGY STYLE: WILL THERE BE A BEFORE AND AFTER HOLY NAME OF JESUS CATHEDRAL IN THE FUTURE, PRAY GOD NO! AND SOME OTHER MUSINGS ON TRIUMPHALISM IN CATHOLIC MODERN MUSIC

Both Milwaukee's old before and after Cathedral and Raleigh's new Cathedral are of the Romanesque style of architecture which is based upon a High Christology. But during the reign of Pope Benedict, the now disgraced (and not just for his abuse of this once magnificent cathedral) former progressive Archbishop of Milwaukee renovated his magnificent high Christology Cathedral and tried to remake it into a low Christology facility or worship space as progressives like to call it:

Before:

after:

Raleigh's Most Holy Name of Jesus just consecrated in the now. Will some bishop in this cathedral's future make it into an after concoction according to the Milwaukee's cathedral's attempt at imposing a low Christology on it?:

 And now some musing on modern Catholic liturgical music today:

Tom Makin formerly of Macon, a former parishioner of mine from years and years ago at St. Joseph in Macon, made this comment on yesterday's liturgy dedicating this magnificent new Cathedral:

Watched for a while....very ecumenical, lacked solemnity and gravity, too much music as entertainment. When living in Omaha, was part of the building and dedication of a new and magnificent church, St Vincent dePaul. It was a solemn occasion...dedication with great dignity befitting the moment a church is brought to life so to speak. Sorry to see what happened today in what has to be a most wonderful space.

Vatican II's document on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, asked for noble simplicity in the Liturgy, which I believe to this day, referred to the pontifical Solemn High Mass with deacon, subdeacon and very, very complicated rubrics and choreography, not your typical parish Low Mass or High Mass.

Vatican II also called the Church to move away from "triumphalism." Yet, when it comes to Ordinations of clerics, be they deacons, priests or bishops as well as the consecration of churches and cathedrals, the music in American Catholic dioceses is anything but noble simplicity. It is triumphalism that boarders on or actually becomes "entertainment."

Instead of chant without accompaniment or simply the pipe organ, orchestras are chosen, trumpets and tympani are used with fanfares and flourishes and it all sounds like the music score from Star Wars or some other Hollywood (and now Georgia) movie music score.

I wish, oh, how I wish, bishops and pastors would take their cue for appropriate liturgical music which isn't triumphalism from papal Masses at St. Peter's Basilica. I have been to many outdoor Masses there with an extremely multi-cultural attendance and this is what is sung:

1. There may be an entrance hymn to accompany the procession, but once the pope approaches the altar to incense it, the Introit of the day is chanted. Why or why couldn't there be a Latin chanted Introit added to a hymn with only organ accompaniment at yesterday's dedication? There is a Latin Introit for the consecration of churches!

2. Why or why do we have to cater to everyone's language group or at least some or ethnic style of music at these cathedral Masses? At St. Peter's there is none of this. The only nod to doing this is at the Universal Prayer with different individuals praying in their native language  (a bit contrived I think and unnecessary.)  At St.Peters' the propers and the congregation's sung parts of the Mass, such as the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei are chanted in one of the appropriate Latin chants of the Church's chant patrimony. Cathedrals in particular should use only these Latin chants to unify the congregation rather than "Balkanize" the congregation by trying to appease each language or ethnic group. This is long past its expiration date!

Chant and sober anthems would go a long way to being faithful to Vatican II's desire for the Liturgy!

LOW AND HIGH CHRISTOLOGY: BOTH/AND OR EITHER/OR? AND HOW LOW CHRISTOLOGY OF THE 1970'S RUINED THE FAITH OF COUNTLESS SEMINARIANS, WARPED THE PRIESTHOOD OF THOSE ORDAINED AND DESCONSTRUCTED AND TRIVIALIZED THE LITURGY OF THE POST VATICAN II CHURCH CONSTRUCTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE VATICAN:

The priesthood and Mass founded on a High Christology:

The priesthood and the Mass warped by a low Christology:

The quest for the historical Jesus, or as some scholars would say, the "real" Jesus intentionally finds its bitter conclusion in a "low" Christology.

Kevin Kim shows us the differences in low and high Christology as it concerns Scripture alone, which is a Protestant concept, but an important tool in studying Scripture, especially for those who are the of Sola Scriptura tradition:

high and low Christology

"The term christology is analogous to theology: it refers to ordered discourse about the Christ.* Who was Jesus? Was he truly the son of God, or just a particularly talented teacher? Did Jesus even exist? What does it mean when Christians declare that Jesus is the Christ? What is the significance of the crucifixion and resurrection events? What scriptural, historical, philosophical, and psychological arguments can be made regarding who this Christ was? Christology deals with all these matters.

Two other terms are in common use among biblical scholars:  low christology and high Christology,sometimes also called low, ascending christology and high, descending christology. These terms refer, in the main, to the attitudes taken by the New Testament writers toward Jesus's role and significance: low christology emphasizes Jesus' humanity; high christology emphasizes Jesus divinity, his cosmic nature.

I thought it might be appropriate to focus on these varying christologies for a moment. One of my favorite approaches to this topic is to ask people to compare the four gospel accounts at the moment of Jesus' death on the cross. In each case, what are Jesus' final utterances?

Mark is, according to most biblical scholarship, the first of the four gospels (Matthew was written later). How does Mark portray Jesus' final moments?

Mark 15:33-37

When it was noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “Listen, he is calling for Elijah.” And someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.

Let's move on to Matthew.

Matthew 27:45-50

From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, “This man is calling for Elijah.” At once one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.”

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.

Now Luke:

Luke 23:44-46

It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, while the sun’s light failed; and the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

Finally, the Fourth Gospel:

John 19:28-30

After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Note that, in Mark and Matthew, Jesus' final utterance is a scream-- this coming after a lorn cry of abandonment. Mark and Matthew's depiction of Jesus constitutes a low christology: the emphasis, here, is on Jesus' humanity. Luke, meanwhile, seems to offer us a slightly loftier perspective, but it's in John's gospel that we see a radical shift to high christology: John's version of Jesus proclaims, "It is finished" (some render this as "It is accomplished."). That's the sort of utterance you'd hear from someone who has orchestrated events to turn out as they did. This gospel moment, then, is an example of high christology: Jesus is exalted in death.

None of this is to say that Mark and Matthew are entirely low-christological works, or that John is entirely high-christological. I chose the above passages because they illustrate, quite clearly, what the terms mean. The exercise for the budding biblical scholar is to see whether he or she can spot high- and low-christological moments throughout each respective gospel, and to form an opinion, after doing such research, as to which gospels lean more one way or the other. (You can probably guess which way John leans!)" 

My commentary: However, liberal Protestants of the Enlightenment period wanted to discover the true Jesus of history, not influenced by conflating the Gospels into one single "Life of Christ" but rather tearing each Gospel apart, showing discrepancies and how a more primitive understanding of Jesus might show the "real Jesus" For example, although there is a high Christology in Mark's Gospel from the readers' point of view, the apostles themselves are ignorant of the divinity of Christ, which these scholars would say is the actual nugget of truth, that the apostles would not have seen Jesus as divine during His historical or public ministry. This then would be the basis of the real Jesus stripped of post resurrection theology, doctrine and dogma.

Wikipedia has a good summary of it all which you can read by pressing HERE, but this paragraph captures what I was taught in the 1970's by Catholic theologians who wanted to undermine the high Christology of our Church and for what purpose I can't really understand to this day, but it shook the faith of the seminarians of that time causing many of them to leave the seminary and the Church and warping the priesthood of others as well as deforming the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass by bringing a warped low Christology to it:

Albert Kalthoff (1850–1906), in the chapter "Was There An Historical Jesus?" of his 1904 work, How Christianity arose. New contributions to the Christ-problem (published in English 1907 as The rise of Christianity) wrote, "A Son of God, Lord of the World, born of a virgin, and rising again after death, and the son of a small builder with revolutionary notions, are two totally different beings. If one was the historical Jesus, the other certainly was not. The real question of the historicity of Jesus is not merely whether there ever was a Jesus among the numerous claimants of a Messiahship in Judea, but whether we are to recognise the historical character of this Jesus in the Gospels, and whether he is to be regarded as the founder of Christianity."^[30]

WATCH THE DEDICATION MASS OF RALIEGH'S NEW AND MAGNIFICENT CATHEDRAL TODAY, JULY 26 AT 2 PM EST!

This should be nice and a reminder that reconciling our church and cathedral architecture and liturgies with what was experienced in pre-Vatican II times, although with renewal in continuity not rupture, is possible and will be a great grace for Holy Mother Church!

You can view the live-stream of the dedication of Raliegh's new and magnificent cathedral, today, July 26th by pressing HERE at 2 pm EST!

 If watching on a smartphone/tablet/etc, watch here:

NOTE: If there are any technical issues with the live stream, or if there is an interruption in your internet service, you must refresh your browser and restart the live stream. Restarting the video will bring the live stream back.

LOW CHRISTOLOGY AND A DESIRE FOR NOSTALGIA GONE BIZERK DAMAGED THE REVISED MASS BY THOSE WHO IMPLEMENTED WHAT SOME BISHOPS WANTED PRIOR TO VATICAN II!

In my previous post, I printed some comments of bishops throughout the world as to their desire for the liturgy prior to Vatican II actually convening.

One comment on the liturgy that really caught my eye and opened them to what I experienced in the 1970's seminary and in the first few years of my priesthood is this:

It should be allowed to celebrate Communion as the early Christians did, without all the extras – for example, an altar, fasting, altar cloths, candles, altar adornments, etc.

At St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, around the very early 1970's there was an actual "para-liturgy" (a term one no longer hears about today, praise God) where the high altar of the seminary chapel was stripped of its candles, tabernacle, altar clothes and other accoutrements and placed in a wheelbarrow that was then ceremoniously processed down the main aisle of the church and dumped somewhere.

Then a new free standing table was placed in front of the old altar with one candle and a corporal cloth for the celebrtion of the Lord's Supper.

When I was in the seminary in the late 70's we had small group Masses in priests' apartments where there was no altar, no vestments and the bare necessities needed (often these Masses were invalid).

I have been to Mass where there was no altar--simply a blanket spread on the ground. At the so-called consecration the bread was passed to all of us as the priest said the words of consecration and the same with the cup. There wasn't any species left for the rest of the made-up prayer.

In addition to this nostalgia for the early Church was the very early Church's low Christology prior to the last Gospel being written which has a very high Christology.

It was the use of the failed Protestant "critical-historical" method of studying Scripture developed by them during the Enlightenment which Pope Pius X eventually condemned as the Hersey of Modernism, that post Vatican II Scripture Scholars began to use hook, line and sinker coming up with some of the same heresies of the liberal Protestant movement which eventually led concerned Protestants to follow the Fundamentalist movement of the early 1920's in reaction to the heresies promoted by the liberal Protestant scholars.

Mark's Gospel, the most primitive would help us to get to the "real Jesus" just as stripped as our Liturgy had become. Jesus' prior to the high Christology of the other Gospels especially John's Gospel and subsequent organic development in doctrine and dogma developed by the Church over the course of centuries in an organic way and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was seen as nought.

Will we ever recover from all of this stupidity? I am afraid not in our lifetime unless the SSPX is canonized by a future pope. Time will tell.

THIS IS WHAT SOME BISHOPS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WANTED FOR THE LITURGY, PRIOR TO THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL ACTUALLY BEGINNING--EYE OPENING TO SAY THE LEAST!

This is a portion of an article from Praytell. Press HERE for the full article. It is a commentary on work done by The New Liturgical Movement. The so-called pre-Vatican II liturgical movement spearheaded by the much maligned Bugnini is evident in bishops prior to the council wanting to promote a liturgical movement that Pope Paul VI's post Vatican II committee called consillium would accomplish. It has Bugnini written all over it and would be the thread pulled on the liturgy that would lead to only 12% of Catholics in some dioceses actually participating in the Mass today. In other words in some dioceses, there is absolutely no actual participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by 88% of Catholics, compared to almost 95% of Catholics actually participating in the Mass prior to and up to and shortly after Vatican II!

From Praytell:

In addition to the official preparatory (pre-Vatican II) document on the Liturgy, the online treasury includes many of the vota, or responses, from bishops around the world, who were asked what they would like to see the Council discuss. And it provides much of the Analyticus Conspectus; in this collection, as Matthew notes, “all the responses of the bishops, prelates and religious are distilled into 9,348 brief propositions, organised by subject, with each proposition having one or more diocese/religious order cited in the footnotes.”

I found these propositions fascinating, because they again reflect a combination of the “conservative” and the “progressive”. The Conspectus makes it clear that many changes to the liturgy were in the mind of the worldwide Church long before the Consilium started its work, indeed well before the beginning of preparatory work for the Council.

[As with the translations, I have selected material rapidly and not systematically, and I welcome corrections and challenges.]

Quidam in administratione sacramentorum neglegunt « caeremonias secundarias » utpote non ad validitatem necessarias. Ideoque Concilium affirmet praeter efficacitatem signi attendendum esse ad significationem ipsam secundum multiplices sensus in signis sacramentalibus contentos.

Some people, as they administer the sacraments, regard “secondary ceremonies” as of no consequence because they are not necessary for validity. Accordingly, the Council insists that, beyond the mere effectiveness of any sign, it is important to pay attention to its deeper meaning, exploring the many senses entailed in a sacramental sign. 

Permittatur laicis designatis administratio Baptismi.

Designated laypeople should be permitted to administer Baptism.

Permittatur laicis designatis S. Communionis distributio.

Designated laypeople should be permitted to distribute Holy Communion.

Aliqui laici etiam uxorati, auxiliares cleri in statu quodam clericali constituantur.

Some lay people, even married ones, should be established as auxiliaries to the clergy, and given a standing that is to some extent clerical.

Si diaconatus restauratio non convenit, concedantur sororibus missionariis facultates convenientes circa praedicationem, conservationem, distributionem Eucharistiae, etc.

If it is not practical to restore the diaconate, missionary sisters should be allowed to preach, reserve the Sacrament, distribute Holy Communion, etc. 

Agatur de potestatibus quae dari possint mulieribus (praesertim monialibus) in cultu divino.

Consideration should be given to the roles that women – especially monastics – could be given in divine worship.

In administratione sacramentorum adhiberi possit lingua vernacula, exceptis verbis quae « sacramenti formam » exprimunt.

The vernacular should be allowed in the administration of the sacraments, except for the words which convey “the form of the sacrament”. 

Baptismus in pluribus sectis acatholicis invalidus est ex intentionis defectu, ergo, iudicio Ordinarii, baptizari debent omnes ex his sectis neo-conversi.

In many non-Catholic sects, Baptism is invalid because it lacks the right intention; therefore, based on the judgement of the Ordinary, all who convert from these sects should be baptised. 

Ritus Baptismi parvulorum, praesertim quoad primam partem, notabiliter brevietur.

The rite of infant baptism, especially the first part, should be greatly abbreviated.

Abrogentur infusiones salis et salivae.

The imposition of salt and saliva should be removed from the baptismal rite.

Agatur de usu et abusu S. Communionis.

Consideration should be given to the use and abuse of Holy Communion.

Osculum anuli Episcopi ante Communionem supprimatur. 

The kissing of a bishop’s ring before Communion should be eliminated from the rite.

Catholici, in pagis sine ecclesia et sacerdotibus catholicis, recipere possint S. Communionem in ecclesiis acatholicorum. 

Catholics in regions lacking a Catholic church and Catholic priests should be able to receive Holy Communion in non-Catholic churches.

Liceat S. Communionem ministrare, ut in primis christianismi diebus, sine tot requisitis secundariis ut v. g. altari, ieiunio, paramentis, mappis, cereis, etc. 

It should be allowed to celebrate Communion as the early Christians did, without all the extras – for example, an altar, fasting, altar cloths, candles, altar adornments, etc.

Maior fiat simplificatio legum circa ieiunium eucharisticum. 

Rules concering the eucharistic fast should be greatly simplified.

* * *

The vota call into question the notion that the Council fathers could not possibly have anticipated the changes that appeared in the post-conciliar work of the Consilium, or the way in which parishes around the world have implemented the Mass of Paul VI. They also illustrate the inability of simple narratives or labels (“traditional”, “conservative”, “progressive”, etc.) to shed much light on the Second Vatican Council and its work.

WE'RE NOT A CHAIN!

I am sitting out on the beach as I am on vacation. Four teenage girls from Iowa approached me with a free cold water offer. They are Christians. I declined the water and they asked if they could pray for me. I said yes, that I would stay on the straight and narrow!

Then I asked if they were Christians and they said yes. The one said to me they don't belong to any of the chains but a church her parents started!

Then she said she liked my "necklace" which for men is a chain--a gold chain and crucifix I wear!

CATHOLICS ON VACATION DO ATTEND MASS, PRAISE GOD AND DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE DEVIL AT MASS YESTERDAY? AND CATHOLICS DO SING! PRAISE GOD!

I am on vacation at a beachside community and the beachside Catholic Church, near where I am staying allowed me (the pastor that is) to celebrate the 9:30 AM Mass.

The church was packed and only when I began to preach the homily, which some say, not all, though, is not a part of the Mass, I said "good morning" to everyone. I never say good morning or hello, or glad you're here as a part of the official greeting of Mass, unlike some priests who have a compulsion to do so. But I digress.

After the good morning, I told everyone that I was a vacationer too and that I, like them, had to fulfill my Sunday Obligation and I was grateful to the pastor for allowing me to celebrate this Mass with them. I praised all the people there with young families, in particular, for taking the Sunday obligation so seriously.

The church seats about 1,500 souls, bodies too. I then asked those who were vacationers to raise their hands and almost 99.9% of the congregation raised their hands! I then asked the parishioners to raise their hands and it numbered about 20! (The 9:30 Mass is added during the summer to accommodate the vacationers.). They also have an 8 AM and 11:15 Mass and a 1 PM Spanish Mass.

And this diverse congregation of people from all over, but especially the Midwest, sang their hearts out and responded to the spoken parts of the Mass with gusto. So Catholics can sing after all is sung and done.

I tied in last Sunday's Gospel in which I quoted Pope Francis' Angelus address on last Sunday's Gospel into my homily. The pope stated Jesus is the sower and we are the soil and he spoke of the kind of soil that is not good for the reception of God's seed sown by Jesus and now the Church and the soil that is good. God proposes but does not impose.

As one who was warped by some of the theology of the 1970's, and I am not sure what heresy this is, but so often we were taught that because of freewill and God not imposing, it was up to us to save our souls by how well we receive the Word of God. Pope Franics seems to buy into this 1970's theology as he does on so many other 1970's thinking. What do you think about this and what heresy is it that it all hinges on our reception, our works,  in terms of being saved?

I bridged this to yesterday's Gospel where Jesus explains the parables and that  the devil is the culprit. Then I spoke about Pope Francis' emphasis on the devil as a real fallen archangel, Lucifer, who is not just a symbolic of evil personified, but an actual fallen being who has other lesser minions to assist him in tempting the world to follow him and not the true God.

Did you hear about the devil yesterday?????

ISN'T IT ACTUALLY POLARIZATION CAUSED BY THE CHANGES PROGRESSIVES CRAM DOWN THE THROATS OF THE MAJORITY THAT IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE HERESY OF MANICHEISM?

This article is in Crux this morning:

Manichean-style hatred must be resisted on both left and right

A supporter of Donald Trump faces protesters outside Trump Tower. (Credit: Associated Press.)

• Charles C. Camosy
  July 24, 2017
  CRUX CONTRIBUTOR

A recent 'La Civiltà Cattolica' article denounced an 'ecumenism of hate' in the U.S. between fundamentalist Evangelicals and 'Catholic Integralists,' but Charles Camosy says that ironically, the article trafficked in the very dualistic thinking it denounced, and that 'Manichean poison' of either left or right damages the Body of Christ.

A recent 'La Civiltà Cattolica' article denounced an 'ecumenism of hate' in the U.S. between fundamentalist Evangelicals and 'Catholic Integralists,' but Charles Camosy says that ironically, the article trafficked in the very dualistic thinking it denounced, and that 'Manichean poison' of either left or right damages the Body of Christ

WHY IN THE NAME OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY DO THE LITURGICAL BLOGS, BOTH HETERODOX AND ORTHODOX IGNORE THE ORDINARIATE'S DIVINE WORSHIP, THE MISSAL PROMULGATED BY POPE FRANCIS?????

I don't get it. So much of what Robert Cardinal Sarah is proposing to reconcile the Ordinary Form of the Mass with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass has already been acccomplished with the Ordinarite's Divine Worship, the Missal. No one brings this Roman Missal into the discussion as the template for this reconciliation that is so desperately needed to resacralize the Ordinary Form, that is to reconcile the reverence of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass with the Ordinary Form which lacks reverence, awe and mystery, not to mention, silence, in so many instances.

The Ordinariate's Missal has done a wonderful job of reconciling the Roman Calendar of the EF Mass to its calendar. No longer is there Ordinary Time but Time After Epiphany and Time after Pentecost. The ember days and rogation days are restored. Septuagesima is restored. The Octave of Pentecost is restored.

The format of the Missal itself restores the format of the EF Missal with the traditional form of the Introit, the inclusion of the Offertory Antiphon, the restoration of the Gradual/Tract.

There are the PATFOTA, the traditional Offertory Prayers and more usage of the rubrics of the EF Mass for the Roman Canon, which is expected to be used on Sundays and the option of only Eucharistic Prayer II (called the alternate canon) for weekday usage. There is also the thrice said, "Lord, I am not worthy...."

Ad Orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion are restored.

What has not been reconciled is the lectionary of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. But how difficult would that be? As I have recommended time and again, simply make the Extraordinary Form's Lectionary, the new Year A. Then based on its template, have a Year B that has a primarily Old Testament Componant for the first reading and Gospel Readings not in the Year A cycle. Then have a Year C that includes more New Testament Epistles and Gospels not in the Year A or B Cycle.

How hard would that be? Come on Cardinal Sarah, do it!

BISHOP SCHNEIDER WOULD DISAGREE WITH THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH MEANS THE UNREALISTIC DESIRE, SIMPLISTIC DESIRE, TO GOING BACK TO A TIME WHEN FATHER COULD BUY A CHRYSLER PRODUCT EVERY OTHER YEAR

FROM RORATE CAELI:

Guest Op-Ed - Bishop Schneider: The interpretation of Vatican II and its connection with the current crisis of the Church

Once again, we are honored to post this guest op-ed, submitted to us by His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider. We not only allow but encourage all media and blogs to reprint this as well.

By Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Special to Rorate Caeli

July 21, 2017

The interpretation of Vatican II and its connection with the current crisis of the Church

The current situation of the unprecedented crisis of the Church is comparable with the general crisis in the 4th century, when the Arianism had contaminated the overwhelming majority of the episcopacy, taking a dominant position in the life of the Church. We must seek to address this current situation on the one hand with realism and, on the other hand, with a supernatural spirit – with a profound love for the Church, our mother, who is suffering the Passion of Christ because of this tremendous and general doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral confusion.

We must renew our faith in believing that the Church is in the safe hands of Christ, and that He will always intervene to renew the Church in the moments in which the boat of the Church seems to capsize, as is the obvious case in our days. 

Read more »

POPE BENEDICT SAID THE SAME THING TEN YEARS AGO!

Pope Benedict envisioned mutual enrichment of the two forms of the Roman Mass. He desired an organic renewal and reconciliation of the OF Mass with the EF Mass.

As Cardinal Sarah desires, the OF would be very similar to the EF with Latin required for some parts, but an all Latin OF Mass is not now or in the future abrogated.

I agree with a return to one standard Latin Rite Mass more EF in order than IF.

This is from Rorate Caeli:

A reply to Cardinal Sarah on 'liturgical reconciliation'
It seems that the most trad-friendly Prelates of the Church actually want the Traditional Mass to disappear. Thus, Cardinal Burke said in 2011:

It seems to me that is what he [Pope Benedict] has in mind is that this mutual enrichment would seem to naturally produce a new form of the Roman rite – the 'reform of the reform,' if we may – all of which I would welcome and look forward to its advent.

Cardinal Sarah has now said the same thing.

It is a priority that, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can examine through prayer and study, how to return to a common reformed rite always with this goal of a reconciliation inside the Church,

Cardinal Sarah's concrete suggestions point to an intermediate state, in which the two 'Forms' have converged somewhat. I have addressed these suggestions in a post on the Catholic Herald blog here. Notably, the Novus Ordo Lectionary cannot be simply be inserted into the Vetus Ordo Missal, because it reflects a liturgical vision which is completely different from that of the ancient Mass: which is why all the other changes were made at the same time. A compromise between these two two understandings of what the liturgy is for and how it should work will not produce a perfect synthesis, but a muddle.



I've made the argument about the Lectionary at length, on this blog, here, and about the 'Reform of the Reform' falling between two stools here.

Leaving open the question of how Cardinal Burke's thinking may have developed since 2011, why would he or Cardinals Sarah want to get rid of the ancient Mass?

One justification appears to be the idea that the existence of two Forms of the Roman Rite is, regardless of the merits or demerits of the forms themselves, itself a problem. I suppose this idea is related to a certain conservative yen for centralisation and uniformity, but I doubt either Cardinal would want to apply it to the Eastern Rites, even in the West, and I suspect they would not really want to stop the Dominicans, Norbertines, or Carthusians - or the former Anglicans - from celebrating their own rites and usages. So although talk of 'disunity' has a superficial force I don't think this is really driving their thinking here. They don't really want to contradict Vatican II's praise of liturgical diversity. (I have written about liturgical pluralism here.)

I think the more powerful consideration is that they are unhappy with the Ordinary Form. Cardinal Sarah, in particular, has taken up points hammered by Cardinal Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, notably about how celebration 'facing the people' was a mistake, and how the reformed Mass should have more silence in it. This is the argument of the 'Reform of the Reform', and it is an argument which has no direct connection with the Extraordinary Form. But Sarah and others seem to think that the existence of the Extraordinary Form creates an extra reason to undertake the Reform of the Reform. 'Look!' he seems to be saying: 'Here are a whole lot of Catholics who refuse to go to the Novus Ordo because it lacks silence, and the priest usually faces the people. Let's make those changes and draw these people back in.'

In other words, his sympathy for some of the arguments about the merits of the Traditional Mass made by its adherents has given Cardinal Sarah the idea of making a purely tactical use of the movement to leverage his position on the future development of the Ordinary Form.

Perhaps things would be different if the EF looked about to take over the whole Church, but if that is going to happen, it would seem it would take at least a century.

I can't say I'm too worried by these proposals. They revive discussions on liturgical matters, which is positive, but opposition by progressive and - let's be honest - middle-of-the-road Novus Ordo priests and faithful to the Reform of the Reform makes the implementation of Cardinal Sarah's programme by fiat from Rome unimaginable, even if he were to become Pope tomorrow.

It should, all the same, stimulate supporters of the Church's ancient liturgical traditions to explain ever more forcefully the point of the ancient Lectionary, and any other threatened features of the Mass they love.

TO AFFLICT THE COMFORTABLE AND COMFORT THE AFFLICTED

As a child of the 1970's seminary, I have to tell you that the ethos of our preparation for the priesthood, especially as it concerns preaching, was to be prophetic, meaning that we were to afflict the comfortable (the rich) and comfort the afflicted, i.e., the poor.

This meant that we were to be prophets challenging the rich in our parish, calling them out for being members of country clubs that did not admit the poor and challenge their labor practices.

I wonder, if all of this, along with poor liturgical practices, has contributed to the decline in active membership of the Catholic Church, in some places, like New York and New England having only 12% of Catholics actually attending Mass on Sunday?

Progressives in the Church shifted the manner in which they would lay guilt trips on Catholics from sex to not being caring enough toward those on the margins of society, the poor and dispossessed.

In the Jansenistic good old 1950's it was sex that most Catholic were the most ashame of and heard the most sermons on. In the 1970's it was being mean and unchristian to the poor. We could never do enough and money spent on bricks and mortar and educating well to do children of rich parents were the ultimate mortal sins.

As you know, the 1970's have returned with a vengeance under the current papal magisterium.

How many of the 12% of Catholics who actually bother to attend Mass in New England will dismiss the Church as so many did in the 1970's? Time will tell.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT! HALF CROCODILE AND HALF ANGLICAN BISHOP, MAKING CROCODILES LOOK SILLY AND BAPTISM DOWN RIGHT DANGEROUS!

This speaks for itself! Anglicans should immediately rid themselves of silly mitres but I like the versatile copes and dry or wet use!

Story is sad…but true, ”Tanzanian police have detained a pastor after two worshippers drowned while being baptised in a river near Rombo in the north of the country.

The two victims were overwhelmed by the current of the River Ungwasi, a police spokesman has told the BBC.

It is not clear how the pastor and the other worshippers involved managed to survive, the BBC's Odeo Sirari says.

They are members of a local church, Shalom, which is part of the charismatic Christian movement.

Baptism in a river rather than in church is seen as a way of re-enacting the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan.

The ceremony is a symbol of washing away sin and the start of a new life.”

I AM PRO LIFE! BUT THIS? I DON'T THINK SO!

I grew up in Augusta and this slaughter house has always been there. When the poor souls are being "processed" the air nearby smelled like peanut butter as most kids my age would attest as we passed by the "processing plant" next to a major highway leading downtown. What could be better than peanut butter? A DELICIOUS RUTHS CHRIS FILET!

Protesters act to show compassion to cattle

By Nefeteria Brewster Staff Writer

MICHAEL HOLAHAN/STAFF Animal rights protesters gather outside the FPL Food plant in Augusta on Tuesday to bring awareness to the Save Movement.

For much of the past year, Dee Spencer has stood outside FPL Food LLC on New Savannah Road carrying signs supporting an international movement that “bears witness” to farm animals before they are slaughtered, packaged and processed for food.

The Save Movement is composed of groups that document the transportation of pigs, cows, chickens and other farm animals being sent to slaughter.

Spencer, an Augusta resident, was joined Tuesday at the intersection of Skyview Drive and New Savannah Road by several activists from the Carolinas and Florida to support the cause and bring public awareness to the movement.

NEFETERIA BREWSTER/STAFF Dee Spencer, the founder of the Save Movement in Augusta, holds up signs on New Savannah Road. The movement documents the transportation of farm animals that are being sent to slaughter.

One by one, the activists placed their signs alongside the road and walked up to the trailer of each truck, snapped a photo or two of the cows inside while telling them they were loved and offering them water.

The goal, according to Yvonne Newman, who protested alongside her friend Bill Steinbuechler, is to make people think about the processing of farm animals, consider alternative diet options and to show the animals compassion.

“This love and compassion is the only compassion they will ever see in their life before death,” Newman said as a cattle truck pulled from the intersection onto New Savannah Road.

As the protesters approached cattle trucks at a stop sign on the intersecting roads, they were often greeted with prolonged honks and swerves om of the vehicles as the workers drove the livestock into the processing plant.

Most of the drivers did not stop. Those who did gave the protesters a couple of minutes to take photos of the cattle, give them water and share words of comfort before they were driven away, said Spencer, who founded the local chapter of the movement and became interested after participating in a similar protest in North Carolina last year.

The photos were then posted to Facebook and other social media platforms as a way for the group to document the animals before they die.

“We try to get as close as possible to them, make eye-to-eye contact with them, and if they’re thirsty, we’ll give them water before they go there,” Spencer said.

“If we bear witness and show people what it is really like, we can help a lot of people make that connection of their food on the plate. That’s where it came from, and we’re hoping that we can change that.”

Carla King and her sister Linda King Jackson traveled from North Carolina to participate in Tuesday’s protest. King, a participant of the movement in her hometown, said she did not mind driving five hours to support Spencer’s protest.

“We go to slaughterhouses in our county for pigs,” she said. “We decided actually last minute to come down and bear witness to the cows because we’ve never done that and just to show Dee support because she came all the way to Clinton to support ours.”

FPL Food LLC released a statement Tuesday afternoon saying that the family-owned operation is committed to humane treatment of all cattle in its care and meets regulations for animal handling practices. 

Animal rights protesters stand outside the FPL Food plant in Augusta. The company said in a statement Tuesday that it is committed to the humane treatment of all the cattle in its care.MICHAEL HOLAHAN/STAFF

“From the producers we work with to our facility in Augusta, we are dedicated to providing the utmost care and treatment of livestock throughout the supply chain,” the statement says. “We assure animal welfare through standard operating procedures and compliance with USDA regulation. We also were the first beef processor in the U.S. to install third-party video monitoring to verify animal handling practices.”