Friday, June 29, 2018

WILL THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS OF THE LATIN RITE CHURCH SQUAWK AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE USE OF THIS CAPPA MAGNA WITH A CLERIC HOLDING THE TRAIN AT POPE FRANCIS' CELEBRATION OF THE SOLEMNITY OF SAINTS PETER AND PAUL THIS MORNING AT SAINT PETERS? OR WILL THEY REMAIN SILENT AS CRICKETS?

So many elitists in the Latin Rite have degraded, complained and changed so many of our Latin Rite traditions since Vatican II which while differing from the Eastern Church's traditions are fully in accord with the cultural aspects of these and from whence they came.

I find it thoroughly dispicable that we in the Latin Rite have such self-loathing for what was handed down to us and completely and puritanically removed after Vatican II!

I wonder what's going through Pope Francis' mind with this cappa magna, it being carried, and the papal tiara?



Pope on feast of Sts. Peter and Paul: We cannot separate Christ’s glory from His cross (My Comment: And neither can we separate Christ's Cross from His glory! And while I am at it, Holy Father, please, please, pretty please restore the Solemnity of the Most Precious Blood to July 1st of every year and even on a Sunday, or better yet, make it a yearly feast the Sunday following July 1st!!!!!)

Pope Francis on Friday celebrated Holy Mass in Rome’s St. Peters Square on the solemn feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, during which he blessed the pallium which will be sent to 30 new metropolitan archbishops he appointed throughout the world during the past year.
By Robin Gomes
Pope Francis in his homily on Friday urged Christians not to be a stumbling block in the path of Christ, the Anointed One, whose glory cannot be separated from his cross.
“By not separating his glory from the cross, Jesus wants to liberate his disciples, his Church, from empty forms of triumphalism: forms empty of love, service, compassion, empty of people,” the Pope said in his homily during Mass in Rome’s St. Peter’s Square on June 29, the solemn feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the patrons of Rome who were both martyred in the Eternal City.

Pallium


During the Mass the Pope blessed the pallium which will be sent to 30 new metropolitan archbishops that he appointed around ‎the world during the past year.
Listen to our report
The pallium is a band of white wool which metropolitan archbishops wear around their shoulders as a symbol of their authority and their unity with the Pope.  A metropolitan archdiocese is ‎one under which suffragan dioceses are grouped together to make up a geographical territory of the ‎Church.

Christ anoints His people


Pope Francis centred his homily on the episode of St. Peter in Matthew’s Gospel where he confesses his faith in Jesus saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”   The Pope said Peter had seen how Jesus “anointed” His people with hope, walking from village to village with the sole aim of saving and helping those considered lost – the dead, the sick, the wounded and the repentant.
The Argentine Pope said that “God’s Anointed One kept bringing the Father’s love and mercy to the very end.”  “This merciful love,” he said, “demands that we too go forth to every corner of life, to reach out to everyone, even though this may cost us our “good name”, our comforts, our status… even martyrdom.”

Peter a stumbling block


The Pope pointed out that when Peter couldn’t accept that Jesus should die, he becomes the Lord’s enemy and a “stumbling stone in the Messiah’s path”.  Peter’s life and confession of faith, the Holy Father said, “also means learning to recognize the temptations that will accompany the life of every disciple.”
Like Peter, the Pope said, we will always be tempted to hear those “whisperings” of the evil One, which will become a stumbling stone for the mission. The devil, he explained, seduces with “whispering” from hiding, because like a hypocrite he wants to stay hidden and not be discovered.

Separating Christ’s glory from cross


Sharing in Christ’s anointing, also means sharing in his glory, which is his cross. “In Jesus,” the Pope said, “glory and the cross go together; they are inseparable.
The Pope explained that that once we turn our back on the cross, even though we may attain the heights of glory, we will be fooling ourselves, since it will not be God’s glory, but the snare of the enemy.
He pointed out that we often feel the temptation to be Christians by keeping a prudent distance from the Lord’s wounds.  Jesus touches human misery and he asks us to join him in touching the suffering flesh of others. 
“To proclaim our faith with our lips and our heart,” the Pope said, “demands that we – like Peter – learn to recognize the “whisperings” of the evil one, those personal and communitarian “pretexts” that keep us far from real human dramas, that preserve us from contact with other people’s concrete existence and, in the end, from knowing the revolutionary power of God’s tender love.”

16 comments:

Charles G said...

Indeed, why is it always such a wonderful thing for the Eastern rites to preserve their glorious liturgical heritage, but anything dating from before 1965 in the West’s own liturgical heritage is automatically disparaged as something horrible and unspeakable?

TJM said...

Charles G,

Because liberal catholics are nuts and illogical. I recall from the late 1960s when they would go into ecstacy over the Jewish rituals and when I pointed out they primarily use a non vernacular language, Hebrew, they said it was different than Catholics using Latin, so shut up, how dare you point out our hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Anonymous said...

"from whence" is redundant.

Whence means, "from what place or source" so there is no need to add "from" before it.

Marc said...

This Sunday is a good example of liturgical richness that has been lost over a short period of time. According to the 1945 Missal, the principal feast is that of the Precious Blood, of course. The first commemoration is that of the VI Sunday after the Octave of Pentecost, and the second commemoration is that of the Octave of St. John the Baptist. The Last Gospel is Proper -- that of the Sunday.

John Nolan said...

This year two feasts of the first class (Nativity of St John the Baptist and Precious Blood) fall on consecutive Sundays and so displace the Sunday Masses of the temporal cycle. By my calculation it will be eleven years before this happens again. Before Pius X's reforms of 1911-1913 there were over 200 feasts in the universal calendar alone which took the place of the 'ordinary' Sunday Mass, to say nothing of a dozen moveable feasts fixed to a Sunday by previous popes. The result was the virtual elimination of the temporal cycle - green as a liturgical colour was rarely seen.

By all means restore the Precious Blood to the OF calendar when the latter is thoroughly overhauled, as it surely must be sooner or later; but don't make it a moveable feast.

Gene said...

Let's see...so, that would be, "Grammar Nazi please return WHENCE you came." I get it.

John Nolan said...

Further to the above, when Pius IX instituted the feast of the Most Precious Blood in 1849 (to commemorate the suppression, by French troops, of the revolution which had driven him from Rome, he fixed it on the first Sunday after 30 June. Pius X made it 1 July. By 1913 the only feasts fixed permanently to a Sunday were The Holy Name and Trinity Sunday (Christ the King and Holy Family were added later).

Anonymous said...

Sloppy writing reflects sloppy thinking.

To paraphrase you from elsewhere, "Hey, it is the grammar, stupid..."

And I ain't goin' nowhere!

Anonymous said...

And since you brought it up, direct address requires a comma.

Hence, you should have written, "Grammar Nazi, please return WHENCE you came."

I am ever so glad you get it. And bless your little grammar lovin' heart.

John Nolan said...

Not for the first time, Anonymous-the-grammaticaster* is hoist with his own petard. Chambers gives 'from whence' as an alternative to 'whence', in the sense of 'from where'. 'Whence' can also mean 'wherefore' as in '[Mozart's] G minor Quintet is as great as the G minor Symphony, whence it is greater: the same wealth of feeling must needs be expressed yet more economically in the chamber work.' (Hans Keller)

Still, it's odd that an American should insert a preposition where it's not strictly necessary; usually they miss them out when they are indeed needed. I acknowledge that to use the verb 'appeal' transitively is part of US legalese, but if one objects to something one protests against it - 'protest' used transitively means 'proclaim', as in 'he protested his innocence'. And it's 'a couple of minutes' not 'a couple minutes'.

*grammaticaster: a piddling grammarian. (Chambers)

TJM said...

John Nolan. As our foremost grammarian, what think you of Anon the troll’s latest comment?

Carter said...

Who is the bishop that greets the statue of st Peter with pope Francis? Is he an orthodox?

Gene said...

Anon (Grammar Nazi) @ 2:12 You are correct. I did omit a comma, proving that even English majors screw up sometimes. I am also a stickler for proper usage, however, there are times and contexts in which it is best to overlook minor errors out of respect to the writer's message and the context of the conversation. These are things you clearly have not learned. Perhaps an Amy Vanderbilt course or a Norman Vincent Peale refresher would help. You are spending far too many hours in Strunk&White, and that cannot be healthy for anyone.

Now, today's usage humor: Noah Webster's wife caught him in the pantry with the house maid. She exclaimed, "Noah Webster, I am surprised!" Webster replied, "No, my dear, we are surprised; you are amazed."

John Nolan said...

TJM

Anon is too busy nit-picking to contribute anything of substance.

I am less interested in applying rules of grammar, which often turn out not to be not rules at all, than I am in English usage. Careless and inaccurate use of words spreads like a cancer; eventually the dictionaries accept the incorrect usage (because it has become widespread) and the language is thereby impoverished. Frequently we hear 'barbaric' used when the speaker actually means 'barbarous' - there is a distinction between the two, and it's an important one.

I particularly dislike the current use of 'unacceptable' when it implies that there is an objective standard of acceptability by which a person's views may be judged and indeed condemned. The same applies to 'inappropriate'. In this instance the ramifications are more sinister.

John Nolan said...

Gene

Nice one! An earlier lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, was told by a lady: 'Sir, you smell.' Dr Johnson replied: 'No, Madam, you smell. I stink.'

Anonymous said...

Of course, when your plainly evident errors are highlighted, the "Grammar Nazi" is spending too much time with Strunk & White.

Nonetheless, your errors are your errors, Amy and Normie notwithstanding.