Saturday, September 14, 2019

IF ONLY POPE FRANCIS WOULD REQUIRE THIS OF MR. MCCARRICK


The Wheeling diocesan home of former Catholic bishop Michael J. Bransfield has been sold for $1.2 million! But.........

...the mansion originally belonged to William Weiss, a founder of the Sterling Drug Co. The late Bishop Joseph Hodges purchased the home in 1963 from The Linsly Institute for $63,000.
Fire damaged the mansion in 2005 while it was being renovated for Bransfield before he was installed as bishop. A report prepared by the diocese revealed Bransfield spent $4.6 million on renovations to the house.
The new Bishop of Wheeling/Charleston, w. Virginia has inherited an apocalyptic spirit of Vatican II mess caused by the former bishop, one corrupt dude.

I won’t go into his active homosexuality, exorbitant spending that would make a Saudi prince blush or the fact he is a part of the lavender mafia that Fr. Andrew Greeley excoriated decades ago in Chicago and this gay mafia who have caused such narcissistic havoc on the Church and in the highest places from the likes of Mr. McCarrick.

But I like what Bishop Mark Brennan recently wrote about his predecessor and only wish Pope Francis would write the same about Mr. McCarrick. After all, isn’t the greatest social work of the Church the salvation of damned souls?

“It is my intention in the coming days to define the terms of Bishop Bransfield’s required restitution for the harm he caused and the Church resources he squandered,” Brennan said in the letter. “It is my hope that the former bishop will see this as an opportunity to acknowledge his offenses and to truly make amends to the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and the good people across the state who have been so deeply affected by this scandal.”


TO PATINA OR NOT TO PATINA, THAT IS THE QUESTION

So, what do you say?



Friday, September 13, 2019

FATHER JOHN HUNWICKE SAYS POPE FRANCIS IS RIGHT ABOUT SCHISM! I AGREE!



He's right!

PF has recently made some interesting remarks.

He acknowledges that those who criticise him openly are preferable to those, even in the Curia, who complain about him covertly. It is an advance in understanding on his part that he knows how widespread are the criticisms of those who murmur them while keeping their heads beneath the parapet.

His remarks about the "Old Catholics" are historically a bit off the mark; that particular sect existed before Vatican I. But his observation that their schismatic mentality led to heterodoxy and heteropraxy ... "Now they even ordain women!" ...  is well made.

Leaving the Unity of the One Church so as to be uncontaminated outside it is no solution to anything. The only "Resistance" worth anything is the Resistance of those who are faithful to the Truth we have been given, while remaining in full communion with the Church of S Peter.

Incidentally, I find it encouraging that PF's tone-of-voice implies that he regards the 'ordination' of women to sacerdotal ministries to be beyond the pale.

But I would add that the first major departure from the disciplines of the Latin Church made by the "Old Catholics" after Vatican I was their abolition of mandatory celibacy.

That ... I think you will agree ... is worth thinking about.

I FIND THIS RATHER PECULIAR--IS IT A SMOKE SCREEN OR A COUP D'éTAT? I REPORT; YOU DECIDE


Cardinal Marx is one of Pope Francis' closest advisors. Why would His Eminence ignore the Holy Father and why would the Vatican make such a public statement against the German Church?

Why am I so cynical?

Vatican: German Synod Plans ‘Not Ecclesiologically Valid’

An assessment, signed by the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, says that the plans violate canonical norms and set out to alter universal norms and doctrines of the Church.

EXCERPTS:

In a Sept. 4 letter addressed to Cardinal Marx, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, said that plans for a Synodal Assembly must conform to guidelines issued by Pope Francis in June, especially that a synod in Germany could not act to change universal Church teaching or discipline.

Cardinal Ouellet also sent Cardinal Marx a four-page legal assessment of the German bishops’ draft statues.

Both the letter from Cardinal Ouellet and the attached legal assessment were obtained by CNA.

The assessment, signed by the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, says that the German bishops’ plans violate canonical norms and do, in fact, set out to alter universal norms and doctrines of the Church.

In his legal review of the draft statutes, Archbishop Filippo Iannone, head of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, noted that the Germans propose to treat four key themes: “authority, participation and separation of powers,” “sexual morality,” “the form of priestly life” and “women in Church ministries and offices.”

“It is easy to see that these themes do not only affect the Church in Germany but the universal Church and — with few exceptions — cannot be the object of the deliberations or decisions of a particular Church without contravening what is expressed by the Holy Father in his letter,” Archbishop Iannone wrote.

In his letter to the Church in Germany issued in June, Pope Francis warned the German bishops to respect the universal communion of the Church.

 “There is no question that they know what the Pope wants of them,” a senior official at the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts told CNA. “The question is if the German bishops remain interested in what the Holy Father says.”

THIS PRIEST IS SLIGHTLY OLDER THAN ME AND SO STEREOTYPICAL OF OUR GENERATION! FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH OUR GENERATION NEEDS TO FADE AWAY AND DIE, WHICH SADLY INCLUDES ME! BUT ALAS NATURE MUST TAKE ITS COURSE!


This is a sort of letter to the editor from the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) on a Bishop ‘s decision to have Mass celebrated ad orientem at his cathedral. What do you think of it?

Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico, announced in a July 22 letter that he would begin celebrating Mass in his cathedral ad orientem, that is, "toward the east," with his back to the people. "I know this can be a contentious topic. To make changes to the way we pray can be difficult, especially when it comes to liturgical prayer," he wrote. NCR published reader responses a couple of weeks ago, but received many more responses. Letters have been edited for length and clarity.

At a first reading of the article reporting Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico, and his decision to offer Mass in his cathedral, ad orientem, I was upset and angry. But after a long walk, a reread and some serious reflection, I can understand his decision (though I do not support it).
As a bishop in the United States, he has finally mustered the courage to model liturgically, what in fact many, if not most bishops have been doing to the people for several decades — that is turning their backs on them.
When it comes to the abuse of children, enforcement of their own charter, the exclusion of women in church leadership, LGBTQ Catholics, the treatment of divorced Catholics and the Eucharist, the annulment process, their tolerance for two unjust visitations from the Vatican on women religious, the abysmal translation of the New Roman Missal and its required rubrics, they have constantly "turned their backs" on members of the flock.
When our political leaders persecute migrants, compromise the future of the planet by removing environmental protections, and relentlessly attack programs to protect the poor and vulnerable, the bishops say nothing. Even when Pope Francis speaks with apostolic authority about these issues sometimes in encyclical letters, the bishops of the United States have, for the most part turned their backs on him, too.
I have been priest for over 42 years and have served in many pastoral positions in high schools, parishes and the chancery. The state of church episcopal leadership in the United States is shameful. Our people are hungering to be fed and are willing to work with leadership that respects them. But the numbers of bishops today who face their people and welcome them to share ministry is minimal.
Yes, keep turning your backs to the people. One day, when you decide to turn around and say, "The Lord be with you," there will be no response because the people will have accepted your message, and no one will be in the pews. 
(Fr.) KENNETH E. MILLER
Niles, Ohio

BOTH ALTARS ARE NICE, BUT WHICH ONE LOOKS MORE IMPORTANT?

The cross is placed to the side, so we can see what is happening on the entire altar. What is there to see, though? At this same point in the Mass, what would the focus be if this action was at the high altar ad orientem?

Just what was the reason behind dropping new altars below magnificent older altars so that the priest faced the congregation? Remind me why this was forced upon these churches.


Thursday, September 12, 2019

THE PRE-VATICAN II CONFESSIONALS ARE SUPERIOR TO THE POST VATICAN II ROOMS OF RECONCILIATION WITH THE OPTION OF GOING BEHIND THE SCREEN! WHY YOU ASK? I WILL TELL YOU!


There are attempts worldwide to force priests to inform law enforcement if a crime is confessed to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. This is particularly true for sins of child sexual abuse which are crimes, depending on the state you live. For example in South Carolina and New Hampshire 13 year old boys and girls can get married civilly with parental permission which means that there is dating going on prior to the wedding. With same sex marriage in these states where is the line drawn in terms of sexual abuse?????????????

I watched Ode to Billy Jo on TCM the day after Hurricane Dorian. This 1970's movie depicts an older man in a very sympathetic way who has sex with Billy Jo a teenage boy.  No where in the movie is this man's relationship with a teenage boy depicted as illegal or perverted although the teenager eventually commits suicide because he thinks he's gay not so much because of being abused by an older man. It reflects the mores of the the 1960's and 70's which explains a lot in terms of why there is so much sexual abuse centered on priests of this period as well as the general population.

But back to the confessional. Traditional confessionals with separate compartments for the priest and penitent and no option for face to face, meaning the grill is opaque or covered with a cloth of some kind, would give priests another layer of security in terms of unjust laws the state might pass to force us to report penitents to the police for various crimes. If the confession is anonymous, as it should be, how can I report a crime committed by the penitent to law enforcement?

IF WHAT THIS CARDINAL AND BISHOP SAY IS TRUE, HAS THE CHURCH TRULY ENTERED THE TWILIGHT ZONE? ARE WE IN THE MOST SERIOUS CRISIS OF HERETICAL PORPORTIONS KNOWN IN THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? I ASK; YOU ANSWER!



Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has written an article which you can read by pressing NCR. Here is the most important part of his article:


Cardinal Raymond Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider have issued an eight-page declaration warning against six “serious theological errors and heresies” they say are contained in the Amazonian Synod working document, and calling for prayer and fasting to prevent them being approved. 

The first they list is “implicit pantheism” — the identification of God with the universe and nature where God and the world are one — which they say is rejected by the Magisterium.

Secondly, they criticize the notion put forward in the working document that pagan superstitions are “sources of Divine Revelation and alternative pathways for salvation.” This implies Amazon tribes have pagan superstitions that are an “expression of divine Revelation,” deserving of “dialogue and acceptance” by the Church, they argue.

Citing Church documents, the two prelates state the Magisterium rejects such “relativization” of God’s revelation, and instead “affirms that there is one unique Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Church is His unique Mystical Body and Bride.”

Thirdly, they cite as erroneous the theory contained in the document that “aboriginal people have already received divine revelation, and that the Catholic Church in the Amazon should undergo a ‘missionary and pastoral conversion.’” The Magisterium rejects such a notion of missionary activity as “merely intercultural enrichment,” they argue, and that inculturation is primarily about “evangelization” that makes the Church a “more effective instrument of mission.”

Fourthly, they criticize the working document for its support of “tailoring Catholic ordained ministries to the ancestral customs of the aboriginal people, granting official ministries to women and ordaining married leaders of the community as second-class priests, deprived of part of their ministerial powers but able to perform shamanic rituals.”

“The Magisterium of the Church rejects such practices, and their implicit opinions,” the prelates state, and draw on a number of Church documents including Pope St. Paul VI encyclical Sacerdotalis Coelibatus and Pope St. John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordiniatio Sacerdotalis, to underline their point.

Fifthly, they state that consistent with the document’s “implicit pantheistic views,” the instrumentum laboris “relativizes Christian anthropology” by considering man “a mere link in nature’s ecological chain” and “socioeconomic development as an aggression to ‘Mother Earth.’” The Magisterium rejects such beliefs that man does not possess “a unique dignity” above “material creation” and the “technological progress is bound up with sin,” they state.

[Sixthly], they warn against what the working document calls an integral “ecological conversion” which includes “the adoption of the collective social model” of aboriginal tribes, where “individual personality and freedom are undermined.” The Magisterium, the two signatories say, again “rejects such opinions” and they go on to quote from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

I REMEMBER 9/11 AS THOUGH IT WAS YESTERDAY


Just as it was a beautiful crisp day in New York 18 years ago today, so it was in Augusta, Georgia. I was pastor of The Church of the Most Holy Trinity in downtown Augusta, since June of 1991, so by 9/11/2001 just a little over 10 years.

When we first heard of the first plane hitting the first twin tower, we turned on the television to listen to the news being reported as it happened, something rather new at that time. And as bad as it was, rumor was also being reported as fact which eventually had to be debunked, such as multiple planes downed in Washington, DC and on the Mall there.

By mid morning, realizing how horrible this event was and not knowing who was attacking us (the Soviet Union had collapsed, although I initially thought it was Russia), I opened wide the doors to our church as they are opened in the photo above.

The church was always opened during office hours, but the doors were shut so you had to push the huge door to get in.

By opening them wide, it let people know the church was available for prayer and a steady stream of people living and working downtown entered to do just that. 

Most Holy Trinity's daily Mass is at 12:15 PM to accommodate downtown workers on their lunch hour. I was overwhelmed that the 12:15 PM Mass had about 700 people in a church that seats about 900 and a very significant number of the people were Protestants.

It was a rather emotional Mass as no one really understood what was happening and when the other shoe might drop.

The recessional hymn was America the Beautiful. This verse had everyone in tears:

Oh, beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea.


POPE FRANCIS CONTINUES TO THROW OUT THE BOMB OF “RIGIDITY” TAKEN FROM A MUSEUM. IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION?



Pope Francis said this to African Bishops this past week:

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize an attitude that I do not like, because it does not come from God: rigidity. Today it is fashionable, I do not know about here, but in other parts of the world it is fashionable, to find rigid people. Young, rigid priests, who want to save with rigidity, perhaps, I don’t know, but they take this attitude of rigidity and sometimes – excuse me – from the museum. They are afraid of everything, they are rigid. Be careful, and know that under any rigidity there are serious problems.

Don’t get me wrong, I think, but I don’t really know, I understand what the Pope is saying about rigid priests, especially young ones. I think it means that they are not pastoral, they are more concerned about the finery of liturgy and sacerdotal outfits and could care less about the pastoral needs of their parishioners.

But I am not sure. I have known many priests who are very refined in all they do and in particular with the Liturgy. But they are very pastoral and concerned about their flock. They are not removed from their parishioners and share in their joys and sorrows. This includes priests who exclusively celebrate the EF Mass, I suspect, but don’t really know, what Pope Francis thinks is a museum piece.

The Holy Father has done this before, made himself out to be a psychologist, diagnosing the mental issues of others. I find this rather distasteful especially when the diagnosis is meant to shame the person he is critiquing. In addition, he is not clear as to what he means and thus I call this throwing out bombs in a reckless way. A pope is not to be elevated to a psychologist. That is very worldly and for a pope to elevate himself this way is worldly.

But with that said, I have known rigid people, be they clergy or laity, who hang on to their rigidity for their own sanity. As a vocation director, I would discourage a rigid person from considering priesthood or religious life if they can’t be pastoral or deal with people who are very flexible.

But that is another pathology, no? The flexible person can have no scruples whatsoever and anything goes in the name of pastoral care and accompanying a person. These kinds of popes, bishops and priests, not to mention deacons, are enablers of bad and/or sinful behavior not pastoral counselors by any stretch of the imagination.

The best candidates for the priesthood I see today, and this means even newly ordained priests, are those who are law and order men, but know how to be pastoral, to show the mercy of God but also challenge in a pastoral and kind way the one who needs to have his butt kicked. These are manly men who have also known the mercy of God themselves and have had it shown to them by good and holy priests, even those who say the black and do the red and wear brocade vestments, cassocks and other priestly finery.

The banner I have at the tops is from a psychologist. Obviously a would-be seminarian or an actual candidate for the priesthood or one who is ordained that exhibits these behaviors needs help and more than likely should not be ordained.

But we cannot take this diagnosis and stereotype any and every priest who likes tradition and rules and regulations and say they are crazy. That's just damn wrong. 

DID POPE FRANCIS ACTUALLY APPROVE OF DEACONS “SAYING” MASS— I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT!


This is what the pope said about deacons while in Africa. Those accusing the pope of allowing deacons to celebrate Mass must be promoting a calumny:

From the Deacon’s Bench:

Please, make sure you do not clericalize the laity. Lay faithful are lay faithful. I heard, in my previous Diocese, proposals like this: “My Lord Bishop, I have a wonderful lay person in the parish: he works hard, he organizes everything … should we ordain him a deacon?” Leave him there, don’t ruin his life, let him remain a lay person. And speaking of deacons, deacons often have the temptation of clericalism; they see themselves as presbyters or pseudo-bishops … No! The deacon is the custodian of service in the Church. Please do not keep deacons at the altar: let them do their work outside, in service. If they have to go on a mission to baptize, let them baptize: it’s ok. But in service, let them not be pseudo-priests.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

KYRIE ELEISON! ANOTHER PAPAL INTERVIEW BOMBSHELL


This is from CRUX:

On American critics, Pope says he doesn’t want a schism but he’s not afraid of it


Inés San Martín
Sep 10, 2019

ROME BUREAU CHIEF

On American critics, Pope says he doesn’t want a schism but he’s not afraid of it

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE - In response to a question about his recent declaration that he’s honored when “Americans are attacking me,” Pope Francis said Tuesday that while he prays to avoid a schism in the Catholic Church, he’s not afraid of it either, because such rifts have occurred throughout history.

Francis also acknowledged that the U.S. is hardly the only place from which he occasionally draws fire, noting that he also has some critics within the Roman Curia, meaning the administrative bureaucracy of the Vatican itself.

Further, Francis also said that criticism isn’t always destructive, especially when it’s delivered in the open rather than behind one’s back.

“On the question of schism … In the Church, there have been many,” Francis said, giving the example of ruptures that followed the First and Second Vatican Councils, including one led by the traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Society of St. Pius X.

“There always is the schismatic option in the Church,” Francis said. “It’s a choice that the Lord leaves to human freedom. I am not afraid of schism … I pray for them not to happen, as the spiritual health of many people is at stake.”

The pope also said that he prays for dialogue, because the “path of schism is not Christian.”

Francis then said that it’s the people of God who ultimately save the Church from schism, because all such movements have one thing in common: “They’re a split from the people, from the faith of the people, from the people of God.”

A schism, Francis said, is an ideology that can sometimes have a point, but which “enters into doctrine and splits it apart.”

Francis’s remarks came as he answered questions from the nearly 70 journalists who traveled with him during his Sept. 4-10 visit to Mozambique, Madagascar and Mauritius.

The question about schism was posed by English-speaking journalists about his comments on the Sept. 4 flight to Maputo, Mozambique, when he told a French journalist that he’s “honored” by the criticism he receives from some quarters within the American Church. The journalist, Nicolas Seneze, handed the pope a copy of his new book How America Wanted to Change the Pope, which hasn’t been released in English.

The pope began his response by saying that “criticism is always helpful,” and that when one receives a criticism, it’s important to ask if it’s true or not. Criticism, he said, can sometimes cause anger, but there’s always something to learn from it.

The pope swiftly observed that Americans aren’t his only critics.

“Criticism comes not only from the Americans, they’re coming from all over, including the Curia,” he said.

Francis also praised those who criticize him to his face, “having the honesty of saying” their objections out loud. “I don’t like it when criticism is done under the table… when they smile and then stick the knife from behind. This is not loyal.”

Criticism, he insisted, can be a constructive tool. When a person issue a criticism that isn’t fair, the pope said, he or she should be ready for a response and to dialogue about it.

On the other hand, Francis said, a critic who cloaks his or her objections behind a façade is “an arsenic pill, a bit like throwing a stone and hiding your hand. This doesn’t help, and it comes from closed [minded] people who don’t want to hear the answer.”

When it comes to criticizing the pope, he said, “saying what you don’t like, writing an article and asking for a response, this is loyal. This is loving the Church. Instead, voicing a criticism without dialogue [and] without wanting an answer, is not loving the Church … [it’s to want to] change the pope, make a schism.”

Answering the same question, Francis said that those who criticize him for following the Second Vatican Council and for speaking about social issues, “saying [the same] things John Paul II said,” and who label him as “a bit communist,” are injecting ideology into doctrine, “and that’s when schism occurs.”

“Today we have pockets of rigidity, which aren’t a schism, but they’re semi-schismatic ways of life that will end badly,” the pope said. He added that bishops, priests and lay people who are “rigid” lack the “health” of the Gospel.

As he’s done before, he warned against proselytism, saying that that’s something for political parties or sports teams but not for religion.
“Someone can say, pope, what does it mean for you to evangelize?” the pontiff said. “There’s a phrase by St. Francis that I like: Preach the Gospel, and, if needed, use words.”

Evangelization, he said, is to be done by example, and only when one is asked where their attitude comes from should one talk about faith. The protagonist of evangelization, Francis said, is not the individual Christian but the Holy Spirit.

“When you see religious proposals on the path of proselytism, that is not Christian,” he said, noting that in Mauritius, there’s an understanding among the followers of different religions that they’re all brothers.

I WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT A PALINDROME IS AND WHY THIS WEEK IS PALINDROME WEEK?


This week is palindrome week! A palindrome is a word, phrase, or sequence that reads the same backward as forward, e.g., madam or nurses run. Why is this week Palindrome week? Because the dates of this week are palindromes!

 I kid you not:

 9/10/19; 9/11/19; 9/12/19; 9/13/19; 9/14/19; 9/15/19; 9/16/19; 9/17/19; 9/18/19; 9/19/19 !!!! How cool is that!

Are there any Catholic Palindromes out there?

DO PEOPLE TODAY EVEN KNOW WHAT THE AVE MARIA AND THE LORD'S PRAYER EVEN ARE??????

The Deacon's Bench wonders how many people realize they are hearing a sung Catholic prayer. How shocking is that? But it is a legitimate question today considering how many nones there are.

For example, in the south well into the 1960's everyone no matter how religious or with no real religion knew how to recite The Lord's Prayer. Why? Not necessarily because they went to Church on Sunday, but because it was recited every morning at the beginning of the school day IN SOUTHERN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

That's not the case today and many southerners no longer know the Lord's Prayer by heart or even know that it is a Christian Prayer given to us by Our Lord. In fact, they don't even know who the Lord is!

In my public junior high public school in Augusta, 8th and 9th grades, we had "Protestant" chapel once a month with a Protestant minister preaching a sermon! And it was called "chapel"!

But, should a secular commercial exploit a Latin Catholic Prayer to sell Amazon Prime because it sound pretty?

From the Deacon's Bench:

Behold, the new commercial for Amazon Prime. I don’t know if most Americans seeing this realize they are hearing a sung Catholic prayer.
But here it is.

Monday, September 9, 2019

THE LAW OF PRAYER IS THE LAW OF BELIEF AND THE DECLINE IN BELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WAY THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS IS ALL TOO FREQUENTLY PRAYED AND HOLY COMMUNION RECEIVED.



In the bad old pre-Vatican II days, post- Vatican II progressives often made disparaging remarks about the religious education of the unwashed laity of that time. Most Catholics did not go to Catholic schools or CCD programs. Their only exposure to the truths about God, the Mass and other sacraments was by attending Mass. Prior to Vatican II most Catholics would never question publicly or answer publicly that they did not believe in the Real Presence.

Why? Because the Law of Prayer is the Law of belief. The manner in which the Mass was celebrated, for the most part, vast, vast most part, was reverently. And most Catholics with minimal religious education knew and believed in the Real Presence of Christ.

Today's enlightened lay Catholics not so much.

Is it too much to ask for a return to kneeling for Holy Communion? I contend that this is even more important than ad orientem. And I know from first hand experience what John Nolan says about kneeling for Holy Communion in the Ordinary Form. That people who receive in the hand while kneeling would place the Host in their mouth in a more reverent way while kneeling than they would while standing and moving. They would not get up until the Host was in their mouth.

And yes, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should be used sparingly and when truly needed. We need fewer, who should be properly trained and educated for this ministry and required to wear an alb (as a sign of their baptismal garment/dignity). Holy Communion by Intinction could be quickly accomplished and without rushing at the altar railing with one priest and one extraordinary minister of Holy Commuion. Thus the EMHC could act as the adult server of the Mass as well.             

IN ALL CHARITY, THIS BABY'S REQUEST FOR HIS CELEBRITY MOTHER, AN AIR HEADED SECULAR MORAL THEOLOGIAN, IS WHAT IS REQUIIRED!

From Church POP:

“Pray for Her”: How Alyssa Milano’s 2 Aborted Babies Feel, According to This Heartbreaking Cartoon


DOES THE POPE NEED TO BUILD AN ELECTRIFIED FENCE OR WALL TO KEEP VANDALS AWAY FROM THE PAPAL ALTAR?

Acts of vandalism at the papal altar this past week! In photos man is escorted away after destroying the crucifix on the altar. Earlier in the week another man threw one of the candelabra to the floor damaging it.



Sunday, September 8, 2019

THE FOUNDATION FOR MY REVERENCE AND BELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT IS PRE-VATICAN II NOT POST VATICAN II AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CATHECESIS, GOOD OR BAD!



Bishop Barren isn't wrong but he misses the mark in his commentary why so many Catholics, up to 80%, no longer believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Bishop Barron says, “It represents a massive failure on the part of Catholic educators and catechists, evangelists and teachers.” 

It goes deeper then that Bishop Barren! Let me explain.

 I have always been an observer of people's behavior since before I entered elementary school. This is especially true of what I observed in my Catholic parish, the Chapel at Fort McPherson, Georgia between 1957 and 1960.

I knew something important was taking place by the demeanor of the people. There was silence in the Church and a great deal of kneeling at Mass. When it came to Communion time, the choir came down from the loft first and processed toward the altar as the priest was receiving Holy Communion. When the priest turned as said "Ecce Agnus Dei" the choir immediately knelt on the hard floor  of the aisle. Then everyone went to receive Holy Communion at the altar railing. I take that back, not everyone, but a small percentage of the congregation went to receive.

The demeanor of the communicants exuded reverence, belief and fear and wonder. When they returned to their pews they knelt down, some laying their head on the forearms which were on the pew in front of them. Other had their hands over their faces as though they were crying or were sad.

Even before I knew anything theological about the Mass or Holy Communion, I knew that there was something important that everyone believed at Mass.

Fast forward to the mid 1970's. What does a child who is not actually catechized observe at Mass?

Not a lot of quiet or sacred silence.

At Communion time, everyone ques up, and that means everyone, to receive Holy Communion from an array of Communion ministers dressed in a variety of tasteful and distasteful ways with secular clothing. No one kneels to receive. Children pop the Host into their mouths and keep moving. There is a lot of grabbing and a multiplicity of ways people actually receive.

In some places, the laity are instructed to remain standing at the pew when they return from receiving Holy Communion until everyone has received!

What does this say to a Catholic child just beginning his awareness of what Holy Communion is or to the atheist who might be visiting that day?

The pre-Vatican II emphasis on reverence sacred silence and the manner in which the Host is treated at Communion time and who can touch it with their hands is the solution to the malaise that is infecting the Catholic Church for the past 50 years.

Are bishops who should be united on this topic willing to go beyond Vatican II political correctness as it regards the wrong headedness of so many reforms. Will there be no Cardinal Ratzingers or Pope Benedict's to tell us the truth and the way back to Catholic sanity as it regards the Mass and how Holy communion is received?

Saturday, September 7, 2019

MORE ON HARRY POTTER AND DENIGRATING CHILDREN

Hell hath no fury than parents who want their children to be formed by Harry Potter in Catholic schools.

And now for more of the story:

Parents complained of priest who banned Harry Potter books

Parents complained of priest who banned Harry Potter books
A collection of Harry Potter books, by J.K. Rowling. (Credit: Bizuayehu Tesfaye/AP.)
NASHVILLE, Tennessee - A Tennessee priest who banned Harry Potter books from a Catholic school’s library was accused by parents of causing their children psychological and spiritual harm.
The Tennessean obtained a 2017 letter from 14 St. Edward Catholic School parents, urging the Nashville diocese to remove Father Dan Reehil.

The letter, with 50 bullet points, said Reehil is a toxic narcissist who hates Pope Francis and views himself as “a soldier of God.” It said “Our school, however, consists of children, not soldiers.”

Diocesan spokesman Rick Musacchio said Reehil’s views, like that of the retired, more liberal pastor he replaced, both have a home in the Church.
Reehil didn’t respond to the newspaper’s interview requests. In an email, he said he removed J.K. Rowling’s books because they contain “actual spells and curses.”

THE REMNANT WILL HAVE TO CARRY THE CHURCH IN DECLINE

`


As I have written before, there are two primary reasons why we are where we are today with the decline of Catholics who actually attend Mass or claim to be Catholic.

It has to do with orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

After Vatican II, orthodox Catholics were denigrated as Neanderthal if they did not show obedience to the changes that bishops, priests and nuns said Vatican II taught. Normally these Church officials were speaking of the “spirit” of Vatican II that could not be backed up with the actual documents of Vatican II.

Of course this alienated orthodox Catholics who loved the Catholicism prior to Vatican II. They became ambivalent with the more progressive Church and often disengaged or departed altogether saying the Church left them which was partially true.

After Vatican II, a new kind of Catholic emerged as well, the publicly heterodox Catholic often supported by a variety of Church leaders, bishops, priests and nuns. They believed that if what was thought could not change and Vatican II did change, like the Liturgy, everything could change and we would have a new and improved Church. Rigid orthodoxy, dogma and doctrine were not important but care for the poor became the new sacrament and deposit of faith. Personal conscience trumped rigid morality as it concerned sex, marriage, birth control and the like.

When Pope Paul VI began to back track on the “spirit” of Vatican II and issued Humanae Vitae, the heterodox had the helium punched out of their balloon and they soon became “nones” departing the Church for other spiritual realities.

For the rest of Catholics, keeping one’s head above water with horrible liturgies, the emphasis on the priest and his personality, the sex abuse scandals and the rest of it with a return to the 1960’s in the highest places of the Church, has weakened Catholicism dramatically since 2002.

Perhaps the emphasis on the horizontal, the priest, the congregation and the navel gazing replacing the Divine the vertical and where we are actually called, what our true home really is, has contributed to the way Catholics have handled the crisis and scandals of the last 50 years.

If the Body of Christ without her Head Christ, is the emphasis and the Body of Christ is comprised of compromised sinners, why stay in a Church or parish which glorifies what the people do for good or bad and doesn’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and usually because of how Mass is celebrated and Holy Communion is distributed and received?

Thursday, September 5, 2019

RELIGIOUS QUOTE OF THE DAY



“No man is ordained a Baptist minister who isn’t prepared to think the worst of his congregation.”—Ode to Billy Joe

DOES IT HELP OR HURT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHEN HER LEADERS INDULGE IN CULTURE WARS?




It’s a lazy post Hurricane Dorian afternoon and now back in my rectory in Richmond Hill, I am watching my favorite television network, Turner Classic Movies (TCM). 
Image result for baby doll movie
The movie is a 1956 classic named Baby Doll. It was so controversial in 1956, that the Catholic Church condemned it and tried to thwart its success and did so quite successfully!

Was the Church’s involvement in condemning movies and other cultural aberrations the beginning of the advancement of the nones we know so well today? Do rank and file lay Catholics find it annoying that the Church is constantly condemning everything a modern culture produces?

Was it wrongheaded, in retrospect, for the Church not to find good in movies that depicted sin and evil as well as human sexuality? Note below, in the Wikipedia description of this movie and its controversy and how the Episcopal Bishop of New York treated Baby Doll, compared to the New York Cardinal.

This movie reminds me a great deal of the writing of the Catholic author Flannery O’Connor. Should Church leaders see these kinds of movies as a parable and heed the advice of Episcopal Bishop Pike of New York back in 1956?

What say you?

This is from Wikipedia :

  Baby Doll was released in the United States on December 18, 1956, although the film had begun garnering controversy within the weeks before its release due to a promotional billboard on display in New York City, which depicted the now-iconic image of Baker lying in a crib, sucking her thumb.[6] Baker received a phone call from a journalist on a Sunday morning, saying "Your film Baby Doll has been condemned by the Legion of Decency and Cardinal Spellman has just stepped up to the pulpit and denounced it from St. Patrick's Cathedral. What have you got to say?"[13]
The film received a seal from the Motion Picture Code, but the Catholic Legion of Decency gave it a "C" ("Condemned") rating and called it "grievously offensive to Christian and traditional standards of morality and decency." They succeeded in having the film withdrawn from release in most U.S. theaters because of their objections over its sexual themes.[11] Variety noted that it was the first time in years that the Legion had condemned a major American film which had received the approval of the Code.[11]
Other religious figures became involved in the controversy surrounding the film, including Francis J. Spellman, the Catholic Archbishop of New York, who called it "sinful" and forbade Catholics in the archdiocese to see the film and James A. Pike of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, who countered Spellman by pointing out that there was more "sensuality" in the film The Ten Commandments than there was in Baby Doll, and argued that "the church's duty is not to prevent adults from having the experience of this picture, but to give them a wholesome basis for interpretation and serious answers to questions that were asked with seriousness."[11] Others agreed with Pike, including the Catholic Archbishop of Paris and the head of the Catholic film Institute in the U.K., while the Catholic Bishop of Albany, New York also forbade Catholics to see the film, which the American Civil Liberties Union objected to as a violation of the First Amendment.[11]
According to Baker, she and everyone else who had worked on the film had "no idea" that the material would be perceived as controversial.[14] It was believed that the main reasons behind the backlash regarded the seduction scene between Baker and Wallach, in which his character successfully attempts to seduce and arouse her outside the farmhouse.[14] There was also speculation that, during their scene together on a swinging chair, that Wallach's character was touching Baby Doll underneath her dress due to the fact that his hands are not visible in the close up shot. According to both Baker and Wallach, the scene was intentionally filmed that way because Kazan had put heaters all around them because of the cold weather.[14]
The movie was banned in many countries, such as Sweden, due to what was called "exaggerated sexual content". The film was also condemned by Time magazine, which called it "just possibly the dirtiest American-made motion picture that has ever been legally exhibited".[15] Due in part to the attempts to have it banned or suppressed, the film was not a commercial success, although it performed decently at the box office in spite of the controversy. According to Kazan, however, the film did not make a profit.[10]
In retrospect, star Eli Wallach called the film "one of the most exciting, daring movies ever made", adding "People see it today and say, 'What the hell was all the fuss about?'"[6]