Can you pick me out in this photo in 1979? I am some where out there holding a wooden salad bowl filled with hosts covered with cellophane awaiting St. John Paul II to consecrate them:
Here is the ciborium I was given to distribute Holy Communion at St. John Paul II’s Mass on the Mall in Washington, DC back in 1979 when I was a seminarian and installed acolyte. Is it a first class relic of our Lord?
We held the ciborium at some distance from the altar for the Pope to consecrate the hosts. I was quite a distance from the altar.
But the worse thing I saw that day, which made me see red, was what we had to do with the left-over Hosts and there were many as the crowd was not as big as it was thought to be. We had to dump them into large black plastic trash bags behind the altar platform where the pope, now a canonized saint, was. UGH! We were told these would be distributed to all the Washington, DC parishes, hospitals and other institutions.
In Lisbon, I believe Hosts were already consecrated somewhere else and transported to the outdoor Mass for distribution at Communion time.
The logistics for that many consecrated Hosts is staggering. Maybe this was the best they could do?
61 comments:
We should remember that the Mass is not just a communion service but a sacrifice. Universal and frequent communion to all those present is a fairly recent practice. Perhaps, as an exception, it would be best not to distribute Communion at these large Masses and call on those present to make a spiritual communion instead.
There is no reason to distribute the Eucharist at such Masses. The sacrifice is completed when the priest receives. The laity are not required to receive (except once per year...). If the risk of profanation is a near certainty, simply refrain from distribution to the faitful.
The idea of being careful in small things as well as large things goes to heart my concern with how dismissive some people are with details of the VO Mass. It is perhaps my military background, but people with attention to details and the discipline to adhere to instructions and respect tradition enough to follow it until you either understand it or realize you can’t understand it contribute much more to the group sooner and over time.
The first section at that Mas had very well ordered and spaced out seating. That section should have had Holy Communion distributed and all other praying while making a spiritual Communion.
And the scofflaw who gets multiple tickets for speeding, is he going to go on to be a murderer? Methinks the slope is not nearly as slippery as you imagine.
Yes all murders also sped and broke many other laws too. Unscrupulous to say the least. Maybe not a slippery slope but a banana peel.
I will agree with monkmcg on this point.
In the Roman Church, liturgy centers to an excess on the celebration of mass where the crowd always expects to get something.
In the East, we have liturgies outside of Divine Liturgy (mass) that could easily be appropriate for such a large gathering while ensuring profanation does not occur.
Mass akin to stadium concert has been criticized for decades because of things like this. Ugly "stages", uglier altars, really ugly vessels and vestments, "todos, todos, todos" without having the slightest idea who one would be communing in the hand and what they were going to do with the consecrated host if no one was watching it go into their pocket. Just a bad story resulting in Bag-O-Jesus, or Bucket-O-Jesus given what appears to be adoration at the Tupperware.
While I'm not particularly focused on beeswax concentrations, I do agree with Fr. AJM that if things are half-assed in the parish, they are bound to be half-assed in the stadium, field, beach, wherever the spectacle with its usual ugly appointments is taking place.
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - is this a confession?
You’ll have to ask my confessor and former warden.
The mechanic who does jackleg sloppy stuff in small matters on your car or passenger jet, is just the guy you want in charge of larger matters.
As for mega hype events in general, I am against them, especially in "worship" matters, as crowd dynamics/hysteria is not a spiritual thing, and all manner of things are sacrificed in order to put on a good show. This is all so protestant mega-gathering with its shallow feelings seen as a spiritual experience. All generally quite transient, fleeting.
Will also say this applies to larger churches in general, and the current move to consolidate into ever larger churches is an incredibly harmful thing to the Faith and vocations, as they are not going to get those vocatioms from lay members lost in an anonymous crowd served by distant officiants. Very few cattle aspire to be priests. But they WILL get those who aspire to boss big shows.
The poisoned fruits of Vatican II on full display. It is the Holy Eucharist not a “goodie” for attending. Poor catechesis of priests and laity are the root cause. It is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass not a Rock Concert.
I agree with others here: the manifest solution is not to distribute the Holy Eucharist. For that matter, I would strongly suggest not attempting concelebration, or else limit it to bishops.
This would be an excellent tool for teaching that the Mass itself is of infinite worth; and yes, the desire to share in the Eucharist is a good thing; and that desire can be satisfied at any other Mass. Yet another catechetical point that this can support: the oneness of the Mass through time and space.
"Is it a first class relic of our Lord?"
Do you mean "Lord", or Saint?
If the former, no.
If the latter, no. Intention and touching to a first class relic, second class relic or being touched by the saint himself, to my understanding, are distinct actions.
As it was used for mass, it would have to be disposed of properly and not be mistaken for something into which caesar salad should be placed.
I probably would have hidden it under the mattress at the foot of a deserving parishioner's casket years ago and moved on.
The Novous Ordo never had a chance from the get go. First problem: the reform was entrusted to a team of "liturgy experts". The group turned out to be a bureaucratic cabal composed of individuals such as AB Bugnini who lacked sufficient spiritual depth to the task. Second problem: the theological chaos following the Council failed to closely mentor the implementation of the changes introduced. No proper corrective action was taken when things spired out of contro. Nobody cared how the whole thing turned out. The situation today is jut as dire as it was at the beginning. In the mean time, the secular culture captured the Vatican. The reform of the liturgy awaits an authentic reform movement similar to the architects who are slowly correcting the wrecovations in the physical structures which also came about ostensibly to support the Spirit of V 2.
I will leave to Holy Mother Church the question at hand — whether (or how best) to distribute Holy Communion during a mega Church-related event, such as WYD.
For now, I am uplifted spiritually when I view hundreds of thousands (1,500,000) of my brothers and sisters in the Faith participate, for example, at a WYD Mass.
The pilgrims exhibit a tremendous desire to worship God...to receive Holy Communion, travelling vast distances, even braving at times harsh weather conditions, to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Such a mega Church-related event as WYD also uplifts me spiritually in that I was blessed via the tremendous amount of love and respect for the pilgrims that had flowed from Pope Francis.
In turn, I was blessed via the tremendous amount of love and respect for Pope Francis that had flowed from the massive amount of WYD pilgrims.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
From: CNA:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255031/miracle-at-fatima-world-youth-day-pilgrim-receives-her-sight-after-communion-at-mass
-- Miracle at Fátima? World Youth Day pilgrim receives her sight after Communion at Mass
By Almudena Martínez-Bordiú
ACI Prensa Staff, Aug 7, 2023 / 16:00 pm
“I opened my eyes and I could see perfectly,” said Jimena, a 16-year-old Spanish World Youth Day pilgrim who said she miraculously recovered her sight after receiving the Eucharist at Fátima, Portugal, during a Mass there.
"This possible miracle has moved hearts and filled with hope all those who have been following the events at WYD, which brought together more than a million young people in the Portuguese capital last week.
"Jimena traveled to Lisbon from Madrid with a group from Opus Dei. During the days prior, relatives and acquaintances of the young woman organized a novena to pray to Our Lady of the Snows, whose feast day is commemorated Aug. 5, the same day she recovered her sight.
"For two and a half years, Jimena has suffered a loss of sight due to a myopia problem that left her with a 95% vision loss. On the morning of Aug. 5, when the Holy Father was also praying the rosary at the Fátima shrine, Jimena received what she herself describes as a “great gift” from the Virgin Mary.
"Not long after having recovered her sight, Jimena told the Spanish radio station COPE that she woke up that morning “as I have been getting up for two and a half years, seeing super blurry, very badly.”
"She explained that she had gone to Mass with her friends “because we are at WYD and after receiving Communion I began to cry a lot, because it was the last day of the novena and I wanted to be cured and I had very much asked God please [cure me].”
“When I opened my eyes, I could see perfectly,” the young woman continued, “it was overwhelming; very many thanks must be given for the miracle, because I saw the altar, the tabernacle, my girlfriends were there, and I could see them perfectly.”
"In addition, she said that she was able to read the novena prayer that she was praying and that she still reads “quite well” — she hadn’t forgotten at all how to read.
"The young woman said she is “super happy” and thanked all those who were part of the prayer group. “This has been a test of faith; the Virgin has given me a great gift that I will not forget,” she said.
"In an Aug. 6 statement to ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner, Cardinal Juan José Omella, the archbishop of Barcelona and president of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, referred to the possible miracle as “a grace from God” during the press conference at the end of WYD held at Eduardo VII park in Lisbon."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark,
While I am uplifted at the sight of so many of the faithful youth receiving the Eucharist, I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of consecrated but unconsumed Eucharistic wafers being dumped in plastic bags, even if for later distribution. You?
Ah, the prolix dialogue with self has begun.
Jerome Merwick,
Bingo! It’s his daily therapy session
Mike Lutz said..."Mark, While I am uplifted at the sight of so many of the faithful youth receiving the Eucharist, I am deeply disturbed by the prospect of consecrated but unconsumed Eucharistic wafers being dumped in plastic bags, even if for later distribution. You?"
Mister Lutz, I appreciate your reply.
It is nice that you and I were uplifted "at the sight of so many of the faithful youth receiving the Eucharist..."
In regard to your question:
Has Holy Mother Church identified as "disturbing" the situation that you described in regard to the Sacred Hosts?
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
More false spirituality where feelings mistaken for a spiritual experience. Being impressed or even encouraged by a large crowd is not a spiritual experience.
As for leaving things to Holy Mother Church, last I checked, lay members are part of Holy Mother Church and have a duty to speak up when Jesus is treated so shabbily and dumped in plastic garbage bags and large plastic storage containers for generally unused and useless items. Such happenings illustrate the show is all which matters and not the substance.
I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that.
Examples:
-- When he convoked Assisi III, there were lay members who declared that Pope Benedict XVI was a blasphemer...guilty of grave sin and scandal. The SSPX, with Bishop Fellay's approval, denounced Pope Benedict XVI as a blasphemer.
The above folks, laity, as well as the SSPX, believed that their charge of blasphemy against Pope Benedict XVI was irrefutable.
===============================================
There are laymen, such as the folks at Rorate Caeli, who, in regard to Popes Saint John XXIII, Saint Paul VI, and Saint John Paul II, declared that "their express-rite canonizations are shown, with each passing week, to have been horrible mistakes."
Cardinal Burke has declared that the SSPX is schismatic. He has insisted that laymen are not permitted to associate with the SSPX.
There are plenty of laymen who have insisted that the SSPX is schismatic...even heretical.
Michael Voris has insisted that irrefutable evidence has marked the SSPX as "schismatic."
Bishop Schneider has insisted that the Church, via Her Ecumenical Councils, has taught errors.
All of the above examples have demonstrated as to why I prefer to wait for Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members, even a lone Cardinal or bishop, to pronounce officially in regard to this or that.
Therefore, I await, and will stand with Holy Mother Church's pronouncement (should She even offer one) in regard to supposed sacreligious activity related to the handling of Sacred Hosts at WYD 2023 A.D.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas will slit his wrists if a future pope undoes the evil done by the current pope on matters liturgical. Traditionis Custodes is ultra vires, uncharitable and evil, founded on lies. Fortunately, it is largely being ignored.
Mark just completely disregarded his own responsibility to speak out in the face of abuse of Jesus to instead make a shopping list of unrelated quotes.
Meanwhile he finds looking at a crowd on tv "spritually uplifting" and even that phrase uplifted straight from fundamentalist mega church "praise and worship" services which phrase also uplifted also my Catholics looking to protestant feel good marketing for their feelings centered faux spirituality.
Sorry for typos, typing with pinky while having a spiritually uplifting snack of hot Cheez-Its and smoked cheddar with bacon...if it feels good, it must be the Holy Spirit, just ask those pre-staging Synod results.
mark said... I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that..." except when I don't.
Examples:
Lay member Mark Thomas pronouncing irrefutably, at least in his mind, that Archbishop Vigano is a mutineer against against (sic) God, that he is Satanic, that he has been delivered to Satan, and that he stands with Satan.
Mark Thomas:
"Unfortunately, Archbishop Vigano has opted to continue to mutiny against His Holiness Pope Francis, and, ultimately, God, and His Holy Catholic Church. It is preposterous for Archbishop Vigano, a mutineer against against God, to pretend that he stands with, and defends, the Blessed Virgin Mary. I pray for Archbishop Viganò's deliverance from Satan."
Also Mark Thomas:
"Via his recent Satanic sick verbal assault against Pope Francis — against God, ultimately — Archbishop Vigano has confirmed that his 'testimonies' were initiated to defame and denounce His Holiness Pope Francis. There isn't anything noble in Archbishop Vigano's hateful, Satanic 'testimonies.' As he is at war with Pope Francis, Archbishop Vigano is at war with God (as well as Holy Mother Church). Archbishop Vigano stands with Satan."
Questions:
Has Holy Mother Church officially pronounced that Archbishop Vigano "stands with Satan" or that he is "at war with God"?
Has Holy Mother Church officially pronounced that Archbishop Vigano is a mutineer against against (sic) God or that he needs "deliverance from Satan" or that he is in mutiny against His Holiness Pope Francis or that he "stands with Satan"?
If so, please provide proof.
If not, your statement, "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that," is false, isn't it?
When the occasion suits you, you're more than willing to "pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that" without Holy Mother Church having made any official pronouncement on the matter in question. Isn't that true?
You have pronounced irrefutably that "Archbishop Vigano stands with Satan." Has Holy Mother Church officially pronounced that?
Bob,
MT is an unhinged leftist who for some reason slobbers over a sub par pope who is hardly inspiring
DJR said..."Has Holy Mother Church officially pronounced that Archbishop Vigano is a mutineer against against (sic) God or that he needs "deliverance from Satan" or that he is in mutiny against His Holiness Pope Francis or that he "stands with Satan"? If so, please provide proof."
DJR, hello.
You require proof? Not a problem. I will do so with ease. DJR, I am amazed that you are unfamiliar with the following (I guess that you are unfamiliar):
From National Catholic Register:
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal-ouellet-writes-open-letter-to-archbishop-vigano
On October 7, 2018 A.D., Marc Cardinal Ouellet, with Pope Francis' permission, had charged Archbishop Viganò with the following sins:
-- Having broken communion with Pope Francis.
-- Blasphemy.
-- With having conducted himself in a way "That cannot come from the Spirit of God."
-- With having embraced "an open and scandalous rebellion that inflicts a very painful wound to the Bride of Christ..."
-- Charged Archbishop Viganò with the sins of "calumny and defamation."
-- Archbishop Viganò has engaged in "monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation" against Pope Francis.
-- That Archbishop Viganò has engaged in an "unjust and unjustified attack...that profoundly harms the communion of the Church...May God allow a prompt reparation of this flagrant injustice..."
======================================
DJR, again, I am amazed that you are unaware that Rome has made it clear that Archbishop Viganò is a mutineer against God. Rome also has made it clear that Archbishop Viganò has mutinied against His Holiness Pope Francis.
Rome has made it clear that Satan is involved as Archbishop Viganò's evil conduct "cannot come from the Spirit of God."
DJR, thank you for having created this opportunity to demonstrate that my older comments in regard to Archbishop Viganò were/are in line with Rome's official view of Archbishop Viganò.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Bob,
Whatever you say, brother.
Bob, peace and good health to you and your family.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark:
You have produced an open letter from Cardinal Oullett and then used the phrase "Rome's official view of Archbishop Vigano."
I repeat my question:
You have pronounced irrefutably that "Archbishop Vigano stands with Satan." Has Holy Mother Church officially pronounced that?
Where does Holy Mother Church officially pronounce that Archbishop Vigano stands with Satan?
Has Pope Francis officially excommunicated Archbishop Vigano? If so, when did that happen?
If the pope has not done so, then he is a priest in good standing and in communion with Pope Francis.
Thank you.
You: "The right-wing Catholic blogs are utterly pathetic. They are cesspools. They are satanic."
Please show us where "Rome" or "Holy Mother Church has officially pronounced" that, quoting you, the right-wing Catholic blogs "are Satanic"?
Thank you again.
I prefer to follow Holy Mother Church and since we all have the unquestioned assurance that the Holy Spirit led the sacred college to elect Cardinal Borgia, I will continue to follow Pope Alexander. The complaints about his son's appointment as ARchbishop of Valencia are satanic! If he wants to distribute parcels of the papal states to his other son, we must respect these holy edicts!
His dealings with the French king are not for us to question. And let's be clear: That disgusting Florentine monk, Savonarola, NEEDED to be put in place and his accusations of abuse by Good Pope Alexander were both diabolical and dishonest. ONLY the holy pope is able to discern a true marriage, so his annulment of his daughter Lucrezia's marriage is not for us to question, just as his approval of King Louis XII's divorce from Joan. And I am outraged, OUTRAGED that anyone would dare accuse this pope of keeping mistresses. EVERYONE KNOWS those children were all adopted because of his deep abiding generosity.
Yes, I follow Holy Mother Church and Her Pope UNQUESTIONINGLY. We are GUARANTEED that all he says and does is Holy.
-Marco Tomaso 1501
DJR,
For years, you have followed the same pattern in regard to your countless attempts to have proved me wrong. Whenever I have proved you wrong, you have introduced — to deflect attention from your having been proved wrong — new issues to the discussion at hand.
Example:
With ease, I proved today that my older comments in regard to Archbishop Viganò are in line with charges against the Archbishop that, with Pope Francis' permission, Marc Cardinal Ouellet had delineated in an Open Letter to Archbishop Viganò.
Now, you have, in bait and switch fashion, introduced the topic..."Has Pope Francis officially excommunicated Archbishop Vigano? If so, when did that happen?" You also have throw into the equation comments in regard to right-wing blogs.
None of the above has anything to do with the fact that my years-old comments in regard to Archbishop Viganò are in line with the charges in question, leveled with Pope Francis' permission, against the Archbishop.
I had based my comments in question upon the Open Letter. That is why I had delivered with supreme confidence my comments in regard to the Archbishop. My comments reflected the Open Letter charges against Archbishop Viganò that had been delineated with Pope Francis' permission.
DJR, I am sorry that you are unable to acknowledged that in regard to the topic at hand, you have been proved wrong.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Marco Tomaso 891 AD (sic): Pope Formosus is a valid pope. Anyone who disagrees is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 896 AD (sic): Pope Stephen VI (VII) has declared Formosus an anti-pope and all his ordinations invalid. Anyone who disagrees with Pope Stephen is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 897 AD (sic): Pope Theodore II is a valid pope, and he has declared that Pope Formosus was a valid pope and that Pope Stephen was wrong. Anyone who disagrees with Pope Theodore is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 898 AD (sic): Pope John IX is a valid pope, and he has stated that Pope Theodore was correct and Pope Stephen was wrong. Anyone who disagrees with Pope John is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 900 AD (sic): Pope Benedict IV is a valid pope, and he has stated that Popes Theodore and John were correct and Pope Stephen was wrong. Anyone who disagrees with Pope Benedict is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 903 AD (sic): Pope Leo V is a valid pope. Anyone who disagrees is Satanic.
Marco Tomaso 904 AD (sic): Pope Sergius III is a valid pope, and he has declared that Formosus, Theodore, John, Christopher, Benedict, and Leo were all anti-popes. Anyone who disagrees with Pope Sergius is Satanic.
Our friend Marco Tomaso has thus reversed himself no less than 6 times in the space of 13 years AD (sic). Because Holy Mother Church, you see.
DJR, the bizarre thing is that your attempt to deny that Archbishop Viganò is at war with Pope Francis has, in turn, placed you at war with Archbishop Viganò.
That is, Archbishop Viganò has acknowledged without hesitation his "war" against Pope Francis, as well as the Church — that is, the Catholic Church — governed, taught, and sanctified by Pope Francis.
Archbishop Viganò has described as follows the Church over which Pope Francis has, since 2013 A.D., taught, governed, and sanctified:
"This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was first theorized by Masonry."
"Let's not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally."
-- Archbishop Viganò has informed us that the Church served by Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church. Rather, that Church is the "Bergoglian church."
-- Archbishop Viganò has informed us that Pope Francis has thrown in with the forces of evil.
-- Archbishop Viganò has informed us that Pope Francis is a false teacher.
-- Archbishop Viganò has informed us that Pope Francis "intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God."
-- Archbishop Viganò has informed us that Pope Francis presides over a "deep state" Church that is marked by "three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption..."
-- Archbishop Viganò declared: "For Bergoglio and his entourage, sodomy is not a sin that cries out for vengeance in the presence of God, as the Catechism teaches. Bergoglio’s words on this topic — and even more the actions and words of those who surround him — unfortunately, confirm that an operation of legalisation of homosexuality is currently underway."
DJR, I could reference many additional comments in line with above.
The bottom line is that Archbishop Viganò has declared openly and loudly that he rejects the "Bergoglian Church" taught, governed, and sanctified by "evil" Pope Francis.
Incredibly, DJR, you have pretended that Archbishop Viganò is in communion with Pope Francis.
If that is correct, then Archbishop Viganò is two-faced as he is in communion with a man whom he has portrayed as an horrific, destructive, unorthodox hater of God...in communion with a false teacher who presides over a false church — the "Bergoglian Church."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR, Archbishop Viganò has declared that Pope Francis has taught errors to the Faithful.
Archbishop Viganò has also declared that Vatican II promotes errors.
Via his Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis referenced a teaching from the Vatican II document Nostra aetate.
In turn, Archbishop Viganò declared:
"The reference to the conciliar document Nostra aetate is the confirmation of the ideological link of the Bergoglian heretical thought with the premises earlier set by Vatican II."
DJR, please cite Church teaching that confirms Archbishop Viganò's above declaration.
Thank You.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"I had based my comments in question upon the Open Letter. That is why I had delivered with supreme confidence my comments in regard to the Archbishop. My comments reflected the Open Letter charges against Archbishop Viganò that had been delineated with Pope Francis' permission. DJR, I am sorry that you are unable to acknowledged that in regard to the topic at hand, you have been proved wrong."
But I haven't been proven wrong. None of what you posted, which I had read when it was published, demonstrates your point.
You didn't answer this question: "Has Pope Francis officially excommunicated Archbishop Vigano? If so, when did that happen?"
Why did you not answer that? Reason: Because you know that the answer disproves your point. Holy Mother Church has never officially pronounced that Archbishop Vigano is "Satanic." The one who has done so is you.
It is your position that, unless a person is officially excommunicated, that person is in communion with the reigning pope, so my statement regarding Archbishop Vigano is merely a reflection of your position.
Archbishop Vigano has not been officially excommunicated (if he has been, please produce the evidence); therefore, according to you, he is a Catholic in good standing and is in communion with the pope.
Mentioning the right-wing bloggers is not a deflection; they fall under the same topic that you yourself initiated: "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that..."
I had the RWBs in mind when I was posting; I merely brought up Archbishop Vigano as an example of one of the more prominent members that fall under your private condemnations.
You, in your mind, have quite often pronounced irrefutably that this or that fellow Catholic is "Satanic."
And since you prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, where are all the official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church regarding the Satanic nature of the "right-wing bloggers"?
The point in all the above is this: You "prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church..." except when you don't. Then those official pronouncements go out the window.
Archbishop Vigano is a case in point; the "right-wing bloggers" is another one. I was merely pointing out your inconsistency, that's all, which I take it you recognized immediately. It obviously struck a nerve, as the numerous posts demonstrate.
Thank you.
Jesus promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. He did NOT, however, promise us that there would never be confusion or error, nor did He promise us that the Church wouldn't find itself on the ropes a few times.
Pope Benedict whether literally or metaphorically, often spoke of the Church mirroring Jesus' passion. If he was correct, we are now at the stage where the Church, just like Christ, is mocked and humiliated and the enemies of the Church are leading Her to the point where they will believe they have completely destroyed Her--a type of crucifixion if you will. The few disciples willing to stand at the foot of that cross, Vigano, Strickland, Schneider, the cancelled priests, the despised traditionalist laity find few friends among the Pharisees (the Ape of the Church currently encouraging this crucifixion) and their Roman allies (the established "respectable" governments of our world/the globalists and their hegemony).
We must not forget what follows crucifixion. And when confused disciples are willing to side with the Pharisees and the Romans and the rest of the rabble, we must be patient with them too.
By the way, if the coming Pachamama liturgy is anyone's idea of the Pope "sanctifying" us, I'll pass. If anyone thinks that criminalizing the TLM, the Mass that formed the overwhelming majority of our saints is "sanctifying" us, again, I'll pass. If anyone thinks that firing pro-life members of the Pontifical Academy for Life is "sanctifying" us, I definitely will pass. If anyone thinks that insulting the peopls who have sacrificed and lived chaste lives after being divorced against their wills by allowing the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion is a "sanctifying" act, I'll pass again. And if anyone thinks replacing repentance and conversion with Masonic ideals of fraternity and accompaniment is the path to sanctification, I'll take my chances with the older method.
"Sanctify"? "Holy"? "Satanic"?
It might serve us well to actually know what these terms mean before we start throwing them around so carelessly.
DJR, you were proven wrong.
-- Marc Cardinal Ouellet's letter charged Archbishop Viganò with the commission of numerous sins, including the breaking of communion with Pope Francis.
-- Cardinal Ouellet declared that his letter had been written "in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops."
-- Cardinal Ouellet declared that his letter had been written with the Pope's "permission."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
More bilge from Little Marky. You can either laugh or cry - he convinces or persuades no one but himself. Naval gazing they call it
DJR said..."You didn't answer this question: "Has Pope Francis officially excommunicated Archbishop Vigano? If so, when did that happen?"
What does that have to do with this discussion? I do not recall my having mentioned anything in regard to the issue of excommunication.
DJR, your..."where is the formal decree of excommunication" is just a diversionary tactic.
Via Pope Francis' authorization, Archbishop Viganò was declared to have broken communion with the Holy Father.
In addition, Archbishop Viganò has insisted that Pope Francis presides over the false "Bergoglian church." Pope Francis does not preside over the Catholic Church, according to Archbishop Viganò.
Archbishop Viganò has made it clear that he is not in communion with the supposed "false" "Bergoglian church" over which Pope Francis presides.
Therefore, Archbishop Viganò has rejected your claim that he is in communion with the Church over which Pope Francis presides.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
DJR,
Father James has broken communion with Pope Francis. In regard to his rebellion against Pope Francis: Father Altman has been every bit as vicious and mutinous as Archbishop Viganò.
Father Altman declared recently: "A real Pope solely is responsible for defending the deposit of faith, not making it up according to his own personal ideology. Therefore, it is 100 percent valid to say Bergoglio actually is an anti-pope."
Despite his having broken communion with Pope Francis, I am not aware that a formal decree of excommunication exists against Father Altman.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, only the pope can declare another bishop to be in schism not another bishop, although we all have our opinions. Satanic is not normally the way to describe these breaches, although everyone can have an opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong Father McDonald, but merely authorizing someone to proclaim another bishop has "broken communion" with the Church is not an excommunication. Further, such a proclamation is even more questionable when the legitimacy of the pontiff's election has a cloud of suspicion unresolved and hanging over him.
Unless a formal excommunication is made by the pope, such a person is not excommunicated. Getting into the comic book lingo of "satanic" is ridiculous.
Blogger mark said..."DJR, you were proven wrong."
No, I wasn't. Cardinal Ouellet has no authority to excommunicate Archbishop Vigano; only the pope does, and the pope has never done so. The letter says absolutely nothing about excommunication. You're wrong.
Blogger mark said..."I had based my comments in question upon the Open Letter."
Archbishop Vigano's scathing letter was issued August 26, 2018. Cardinal Ouellet's letter in response is dated October 7, 2018, at least 5 weeks later.
It's not plausible to believe that you decided that Archbishop Vigano was "Satanic" only after you read the cardinal's letter and therefore based your comments on the cardinal's letter as opposed to Archbishop Vigano's prior letter.
That's not plausible. At all.
How do I know this? Because you have the same "Satanic" opinion about "right-wing bloggers," and they have no such letter from Cardinal Ouellet or from Holy Mother Church.
You would have the same opinion regarding Archbishop Vigano even if Cardinal Ouellet had never written that letter.
That's true, isn't it?
My initial post doesn't have to do with whether you are right about Archbishop Vigano, RWBs, or anybody else; it has to do with your statement: "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that."
Where are the "official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church" in regard to, say, Rorate Caeli or Mundabor?
Holy Mother Church has never "officially pronounced" that Archbishop Vigano is "Satanic," has never "officially pronounced" that Mundabor is "Satanic," and has never "officially pronounced" that the Rorate Caeli blogger is "Satanic."
Therefore, my statement stands: You prefer the "official pronouncements"... until you don't. The proof is found in the many posts you have made on this blog.
I have no doubt that you can see my point.
Thank you.
Regarding whether Archbishop Vigano is in communion with Pope Francis, I was merely reiterating your position.
You believe that a priest who has not been defrocked or excommunicated by Holy Mother Church is a priest in good standing (a la Hans Kung and Father Drinan), is not heretical or schismatic, and he is in communion with the reigning pontiff.
That's your position, which you've enunciated numerous times.
Well, Archbishop Vigano has never been defrocked or excommunicated by Holy Mother Church. Therefore, your position is that he is a priest in good standing, is not heretical or schismatic, and he is in communion with Pope Francis.
Whether that is Archbishop Vigano's position is beside the point. My statement is that it is your position. You've stated such several times.
Have you changed your mind on that?
Father McDonald, thank you for that information.
==================================================
It is a shame that Archbishop Viganò did not respond years ago to the merciful opportunity in regard to correction that he had received from Rome. He has grown far more radical since then. I doubt that a formal decree of excommunication would move him to return to communion with Pope Francis.
===============================================
Father McDonald, should you desire, please comment upon the following from Mike Lewis.
Thank you, Father.
"Formal decrees of excommunication are rare these days...Note, however, that, “In the case of a latae sententiae excommunication, there is no requirement for formal trial or announcement; in fact, the individual brings the punishment upon himself.”
"This means that even without an official sentence from the Church, one who publicly rejects the legitimacy of the pope or refuses his authority has already been excommunicated automatically."
"An official decree only formally recognizes that fact, so that the proper penalties can be applied (and a path to restoring communion can be laid out)."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Yes, there are automatic excommunications for certain crimes, sins, the breaking of canon law. These are sometimes private and known only to the person committing the sin, like having or providing or encouraging an abortion in a specific situation.
Also, if a priest breaks the seal of confession, he is excommunicated also and can only be reconciled/restored by the pope alone.
In the case of high prelates, and Vigano is one of them, like Lefebrev was, it is imperative that the pope himself make clear the status of the prelate who has broken canon law or communion with the pope. If the pope doesn’t do this, there is ambiguity about the status of the person. That was not the case with Lefebrev when Pope JPII confirmed his excommunication for public disobedience in ordaining other bishops without the pope’s approval. It wasn’t his desire for the pre-Vatican II Mass or promoting it, it was the fact he ordained bishop without JPII’s approval.
We have no such case with Vigano. The pope intimates he is crazy, but hasn’t done anything canonically to clarify his status, thus he remains a bishop in good standing as was Lefebrev before he ordained two bishops without approval.
DJR said..."Cardinal Ouellet has no authority to excommunicate Archbishop Vigano; only the pope does, and the pope has never done so. The letter says absolutely nothing about excommunication. You're wrong."
Did I say that the letter mentioned excommunication? Did I say that Pope Francis had excommunicated Archbishop Viganò?
Please provide any comment from me in regard to the above.
=========================================
DJR, I am thankful that at the beginning of this thread, you had provided my years-old comments in regard to Archbishop Viganò. I did not say a word about excommunication. You introduced that topic. Should you wish to focus upon the issue of excommunication, then so be it. That is not my interest.
I stand by my original comments in regard to Archbishop Viganò. Here the undeniable facts that you are unable to handle:
Cardinal Ouellet declared that his letter had been written "in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops."
The letter was authorized by Pope Francis.
The letter declared that the Archbishop Viganò had broken communion with His Holiness, had engaged in blasphemy...
...was of a spirit "that cannot come from the Spirit of God,"...
...had instigated "an open and scandalous rebellion that inflicts a very painful wound to the Bride of Christ...," and had resorted to "calumny and defamation."
DJR, you have refused to accept the above facts. That is that. Have a blessed day.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald, thank you for your comments.
Archbishop Viganò has acknowledged that he does not belong to the same Church taught, governed, and sanctified by Pope Francis. That Church is the "Bergoglian church," not the Catholic Church, according to the Archbishop Viganò.
How is he in good standing with a Church, governed by Pope Francis, in which Archbishop Viganò has rejected membership?
===================================
In regard to: "thus he remains a bishop in good standing as was Lefebrev before he ordained two bishops without approval."
Father McDonald, in 1976 A.D., Archbishop Lefebvre had been suspended a divinis. Despite that, he remained a bishop in good standing until the 1988 A.D. ordinations?
Just asking. :-)
Thank you, Father McDonald.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Are we about through with all of this inane hair-splitting. The box is literally dominated by one person who keeps puking the same pablum and those of us who should know better--myself included, get sucked up into his web so he can bloviate some more, with a few minor corrections by the blog owner followed by a predictably unctuous (and endless) "Thank you Father, I KNOW you're a good guy, etc." If this guy was in your family, he would be the guy sitting in the corner that everyone speaks to and smiles at, then avoids like the plague. Yet we waste all of our energy trying to talk sense to someone caught up in his own circular thinking.
I'm done with this. I was a fool to even get sucked into it.
What is bizarre is that Archbishop Viganò is in "good standing" with Holy Mother Church supposedly. However, according to Archbishop Viganò, Pope Francis is not in good standing with Holy Mother Church.
Pope Francis belongs to a false Church, the "Bergoglian church," according to Archbishop Viganò.
Despite his calumny against Pope Francis, and having acknowledged that he does not belong to the same Church as Pope Francis, Archbishop Viganò is in good standing with Holy Mother Church?
Okay.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
During the course of two days here, I had posted, I believe, a total of four comments. I had focused upon WYD.
It was DJR who introduced Archbishop Viganò to this thread.
I had said to another commenter here that "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that..."
DJR then dredged old comments of mine in regard to Archbishop Viganò to "prove" that I am two-faced in that I did not wait for official Church pronouncements against Archbishop Viganò.
I proved DJR wrong as Cardinal Ouellet declared that his letter had been written "in my capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops." Cardinal Ouellet levelled several grave charges against Archbishop Viganò.
Pope Francis authorized the letter in question.
I had followed Rome's lead in regard to my comments related to Archbishop Viganò. DJR then entered bait and switch mode as tried to switch the focus to the issue of excommunication.
But I am the villain here. I guess that it's my fault that DJR dragged Archbishop Viganò into this thread.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jerome Merwick,
Amen!
Father McDonald, I think the Pope is engaging in projection when intimating Archbishop Vigano is crazy.
I wonder when PF and the USCCB will weigh in on this? I thought we had a Catholic president?
"Dozens of violent pro-abortion activists who attacked crisis pregnancy centers faced no consequences, but pro-lifers charged by the Biden administration could face up to 11 years of jail time. As always, the Biden administration is targeting the wrong “problem.”
There is an old saying, "words without action are meaningless." So where are you PF and the USCCB? yet corrupt priests and bishops will continue to vote for them
Blogger mark said...I had said to another commenter here that "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that..."
Mark is correct. It's my fault; I should have known better.
But... the fact of the matter is that Mark's statement about preferring "official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church" holds true... until it doesn't.
Contrary to the continued assertions, there are no "official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church" that Archbishop Vigano is "Satanic," as Mark has obviously conceded.
Nor are there any "official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church" that this or that "right-wing blogger" is "Satanic," specifically, Rorate Caeli or Mundabor, which have been referenced by him numerous times.
If there were, Mark would produce them. He hasn't done so because he can't. Such things don't exist.
Therefore, to assert anything about their "Satanic" nature without Holy Mother Church having done so means that the statement "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that" is not accurate, at least in those cases.
Those are the facts.
Mark, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in your position, that's all. Sorry for the digression.
DJR, in fairness to you, nobody made me respond to you. You did not force me to have shifted my focus on this thread from WYD to Archbishop Viganò.
Now, in regard to the issue of Archbishop Viganò:
DJR, you are convinced that you proved me wrong. You are unrelenting in that regard. You will not budge one-billionth of an inch from your opinion in question. Conversely, I am convinced that I proved you wrong. I am unrelenting in that regard. I will not budge one-billionth of an inch from my opinion in question.
That said, this is Father McDonald's blog. He posts comments as he pleases. Should he wish to post 1,000 comments from this or that person, then that Father's decision.
Nobody can take over a thread, to use that phrase, unless Father McDonald permits that.
The whiners who complain about that should just move on. Nobody forces any of us to read or respond to this or that comment.
=================================================
Anyway, DJR, I pray that you, and your family, are blessed with peace and good health for many happy years to follow.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark said: "DJR, you are convinced that you proved me wrong.."
I have not set out to "prove" you "wrong."
I was merely commenting on your earlier assertion: "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church, as compared to lay members who, at least in their minds, pronounce irrefutably in regard to this or that."
You have referred to numerous people over the years as "Satanic." Archbishop Vigano is one of many. I just happened to use him as an example.
You have also referred to "right-wing bloggers" as "Satanic." Two of them that fall under that category that you have referred to are the blogger at Rorate Caeli and Mundabor. You have mentioned them several times on this blog and included them in the "S" category.
If you can show us where Holy Mother Church has "officially pronounced" that those two are "Satanic," I will comment no further.
If you cannot, then I dispute the statement you made earlier, at least as applies to them:
"I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church..."
In that regard, my statement still stands. You should have stated: "I prefer official pronouncements from Holy Mother Church... until I don't."
You, a layman, have no qualms calling someone "Satanic" without Holy Mother Church ever making an "official pronouncement" in that regard. That has been your practice over many years.
It's no big deal. As Father McDonald stated, you're free to have an opinion. The statement just struck me as incongruent with what I've read for years, and I was merely commenting on that fact.
By the way, in regard to my having linked Archbishop Viganò's vile verbal attacks/insults against Pope Francis to Satan: I am in line with Pope Francis.
To begin, the letter to Archbishop Viganò noted that his attack against Pope Francis is not from "the Spirit of God." We know that Cardinal Sarah, for example, has stated that attacks against Pope Francis are the work of the Devil. But I prefer to move beyond that.
Pope Francis has declared that attacks and insults against him are the work of the Devil.
Pope Francis made it clear that on the one hand, as he is a sinner, that he can deal with "attacks and insults" against him.
However, he also made it clear that ultimately, said attacks are wicked and that "the church does not deserve them...They are the work of the devil."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said: "Pope Francis has declared that attacks and insults against him are the work of the Devil. Pope Francis made it clear that on the one hand, as he is a sinner, that he can deal with 'attacks and insults' against him."
Mark, that is a misrepresentation of what the pope actually stated, at least as reported by international media. The pope did not say that "he can deal with 'attacks and insults' against him."
What he said is: "I personally deserve attacks and insults because I am a sinner, but the church does not deserve them. They are the work of the devil. I have also said this to some of them."
That's vastly different from what you stated.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-thinly-veiled-criticism-ewtn-comments-gender-ideology
DJR said..."Mark, that is a misrepresentation of what the pope actually stated, at least as reported by international media. The pope did not say that "he can deal with 'attacks and insults' against him."
Where did I quote Pope Francis as having stated word-for-word that "he can deal with 'attacks and insults' against him."? I did not attribute that as a quote from Pope Francis.
I was aware obviously of Pope Francis' exact quote. I am 100 percent correct to have stated that "Pope Francis made it clear that on the one hand, as he is a sinner, that he can deal with "attacks and insults" against him."
However, it is clear that he worries that to air such attacks publicly is not helpful to Holy Mother Church. Hateful comments hurled at the Pope inflict harm upon Holy Mother Church.
The bottom line is that I was in tune with His Holiness when I stated that Archbishop Viganò's vicious attacks against Pope Francis are the work of the Devil.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark said, "I was aware obviously of Pope Francis' exact quote."
Then why didn't you quote it exactly?
Do you believe Pope Francis "personally deserve[s] attacks and insults because [he is] a sinner"?
If you say yes, that would be a complete change in your position.
If you say no, then you are not "in line" with Pope Francis. He admitted that he personally deserves such attacks and insults.
Pope Francis: "I personally deserve attacks and insults because I am a sinner, but the church does not deserve them. They are the work of the devil. I have also said this to some of them."
Post a Comment