THE TEMPTATIONS OF JESUS IN THE DESERT

This is a dramatic video presentation of the First Sunday of Lent's Gospel concerning the temptations of Jesus in the desert. It is a bit too razzle dazzle for me, but it is good nonetheless although it takes license with the Gospel accounts:

The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness: As the apostles testify: (Mark 1:12; Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13)

After a forty days fast the Devil approached him and said:
'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread'.
Jesus answered:
"It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'. "After Jesus was baptized the Spirit led him into the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil.

The Devil then took Jesus to Jerusalem on the Temple and said:
'If you are the Son of God," he said, "Throw Yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning You, and they will lift You up in their hands, so that you will not strike Your foot against a stone."
Jesus answered him:
"It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

The Devil then took Jesus on the highest mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and said:
"All this I will give you," he said, "if You will bow down and worship me."

And Jesus said:
"Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"

Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him

SOMETIMES I FEEL MY PARISH NEEDS A SIGN LIKE THIS ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER!

INDULGE YOURSELF!

When the Church offers us a gift, such as an indulgence, why refuse it or ignore it? Gifts are good, especially gifts of indulgences, not only for the person who can receive it, but for the faithful departed who need them!



In the 1962 Roman Missal and I presume this would be true today on Friday Masses of Lent, a plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who, after Communion, recite the "prayer Before a Crucifix."

I've never given in depth catechesis on indulgences, nor was it promoted in any way during the 1970's through the 90's, except for the Holy Year of 2000. It is a shame that we don't really promote it any longer and so few Catholics understand it. So I copy below from Catholic Answers, a very good "primer" on indulgences. Indulge yourself!

Primer on Indulgences


Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.

This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

Indulgences are part of the Church’s infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent’s anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching.

The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are. The principles behind indulgences are as clear in Scripture as those behind more familiar doctrines, such as the Trinity.

Before looking at those principles more closely, we should define indulgences. In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).

This technical definition can be phrased more simply as, "An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." To understand this definition, we need to look at the biblical principles behind indulgences.



Principle 1: Sin Results in Guilt and Punishment


When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment. Scripture speaks of the former when it pictures guilt as clinging to our souls, making them discolored and unclean before God: "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool" (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (cf. Ps. 51:4, 9).

We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin: "I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless" (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Eccl. 12:14).



Principle 2: Punishments are Both Temporal and Eternal


The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: "To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).



Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).



Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others


In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).



Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church


God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.



Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians


From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

ALL VERY GOOD REASONS TO BE CATHOLIC AND GLORY IN OUR CATHOLICISM

From "The Hermeneutic of Continuity Blog" This video is by by Katerina Marie Cabello whose blog is Evangelical Catholicism. The video slideshow gives six reasons for being Catholic: 1) the Eucharist, 2) the Church, 3) the Sacraments, 4) Mary, 5) Marriage (actual and spiritual), and 6) Communion of Saints. The song for the video is "Jesus Christ You are my Life," the theme song from the 2005 World Youth Day.

IT'S THE FIRST LENTEN FRIDAY, CAN I TEMPT YOU?

Yum, yum, yum!
But be forewarned, you will be condemned to the everlasting fires of hell to burn for eternity if you eat meat, chicken, pork and fowl products today. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) Mark 9:48:
"In hell worms that eat the body never die, and the fire is never put out." So as pleasant as this appetizing picture is, looks can be deceiving!


All day Ash Wednesday, I had cravings to eat between meals, have larger than normal small snacks and images of Ruth's Chris in my head. Well, today is our first Lenten Friday. Our Church recovers the communal abstinence that was once common for every Friday of the year. Meatless Fridays, which includes no poultry,pork, other fowl and food products, such as soups made with these meat, poultry and fowl products. No Gumbo, if it has sausage in it, along with oysters, crab and shrimp!

The question I had on Ash Wednesday and will again on Good Friday is the age in which I don't have to observe this canon law on fasting, which is 18 to 59. Does that mean when I turn 59, I don't have to observe it or do I have to wait until I'm 60 which is only 3 to 4 years away? Either way I can't wait! But wait, I'll be 59 or 60 and that much closer to you know what!

And the old question, will a hot dog eaten on Friday during Lent send you to hell?
You better believe it buster! Of course, it has to be eaten with the explicit knowledge that you are eating it to defy our Holy Religion.

Finally, just one blast from the past. When I was a child, my father was in the army and army personnel and their dependents, of which I was one, were dispensed from the Friday law of abstinence. This was in the the 1950's and early 60's. So my mom, being a faithful Catholic, embraced this wonderful gift of a dispensation from the Church and sent me to St. Mary on the Hill School in Augusta, at which I was a second grader, 1960-61, with a hamburger sandwich in my lunch bag. As soon as I took it out of the bag and began eating it, one of my classmates turned me in to Sister Angela who in turn informed the principal, Sister Mary Gerald, both of whom were wonderful, but sadly misguided, Sisters of St. Joseph of Corondelet out of St. Louis. They told me to stop eating that sandwich, as though I would go to hell for it.

I told them I had a dispensation. They didn't like a second grader telling them what he could lawfully do. (I still have this happening to me from higher ups like bishops!) At any rate, after my parents were called, my father set them straight, my biological father, not my Father in heaven, although I'm sure our Heavenly Father noted this injustice toward me to these sisters at their personal judgment. There is justice in the afterlife after all! Fortunately, my second grade teacher was Mrs. Chavous. She was not a Catholic, I believe a Methodist, so she re-cused herself from this whole sordid controversy.

But there was to be more fallout. The newly ordained priest who was assigned to St. Mary on the Hill was consulted by Sister Mary Gerald and she indicated to my father that this assistant pastor, who as I recall had red hair and spoke with a funny accent, even funnier than my mother's Italian accent. I can't remember his name; I think I've repressed it. He was from some weird place I had never heard of, that my classmates called Ireland. Well, this priest told Sister Mary Gerald that even though I could lawfully eat hamburgers on Fridays, that this would be divisive in the school. So my father, being an honorable and obedient man, told my mother to send me to school on Fridays with Spaghetti a la Marinara. Of course she enclosed for me Parmigiano Reggiano, freshly grated, for me to sprinkle on my Friday penance, not to mention a lovely thermos of fine, lush Chianti as is our Italian custom. (Just kidding on the Chianti, my mom wouldn't push the envelope of division.)

But there is more to the story. After this whole scenario of me being turned in by a classmate for eating a hamburger on a Friday from which, as I pointed out to the authorities, I was properly dispensed, Msgr. Daniel Burke, the pastor, came into my second grade class and told all of us children who actually lived in St. Joseph Parish on the south side, (the other side of the tracks) that we could no longer attend the parish school of St. Mary on the Hill Church in the next academic year, because we were not parishioners of the same parish and they were overcrowded with their own people. However,I am convinced to this very day that this was in retaliation for me not only eating a hamburger, properly dispensed on a Friday, but because I was so divisive and had the nerve to tell Church authorities that I was lawful and I was dispensed. I embraced this martyrdom with dignity, but had to spend the rest of my elementary and high school years in a public school, where I found my vocation. God acts in mysterious ways.


But in case you don't think a steak or a hot dog will send you to hell if you die unrepentant while choking to death on these on Fridays of Lent, take note of these medieval images of hell, not a pretty sight! And music in hell is even worse!
Medieval Images of Hell

JUST WHO DOES THIS LAY PERSON THINK HE IS? SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO BE A CATECHIST?

Part I:
This is what you get when you let lay people use the internet. What a catechesis! This is in line with the bishop's video below this post.Such youth, such brashness, such, well, common sense, Yikes, we need his type!



Part II:

Most Rev. Athanasius Schneider on Communion in the Hand

Don't we need this type of witness to the faith today? Shouldn't every Catholic in the world hear this testimony? Your comments.

ASHES IMPOSED, HOLY COMMUNION RECEIVED

Well, yesterday at St. Joseph Church in Macon, it was like Christmas and Easter. We had about 150 at the 6:30 AM Mass, 400 at 8:00 AM, the two school Masses were packed with students and others, the 5:00 PM Mass was packed to standing room capacity, about 600 and just a little less than that at 7:00 PM.

There were many young people of college age present. Along with those there were many others that I seldom see. I thought perhaps a convention was in the city that brought in an influx of Catholics for some reason. No, for the most part, the strangers were "ACE" Catholics (I just thought of this up now, has anyone heard this acronym?) ACE Catholics stands for "ashes, Christmas, Easter" Catholics! Am I really the first to use this?

But as I look at Vice President Joe Biden's mark of repentance on his forehead, and good for him that he wore it, it could be both politically advantageous as well as disadvantageous, I thought to myself that ashes are actually "imposed" upon the person who presents himself for these. Holy Communion, however, is never imposed, Christ must be "received." I hope the ashes on the Vice President indicates a true repentance of his pro-choice political stance. I hope he went to confession. I hope that he also received Holy Communion thus in a state of grace.

At all the Masses yesterday where we had so many ACE Catholics, all of whom had ashes imposed on their forehead, I also noticed that all of them also came forward to receive our Lord in Holy Communion and for the most part piously so. But I could not but wonder if the sacrament of Penance had been a part of this marvelous show of ACE Catholics yesterday and their seemingly pious reception of Holy Communion. Or was there a disconnect between the sign of the ashes imposed on their forehead, meaning they are repentant sinners, and their actual reception of our Lord in Holy Communion, meaning they were truly in a state of grace as a result of the Sacrament of Penance? Only God is the judge on this one, we can only wonder.

In a sense, though, while ashes are imposed and Holy Communion is never imposed, the person presenting themselves for ashes must receive them. The efficacy of the act of receiving either the ashes or the Most Holy Eucharist lies within the person who receives. For ashes, if there is no true repentance and a desire to return to the Sacrament of Penance as the normal means to express sorrow, repentance, receive penance and absolution, then the act of being marked with ashes is less than meritorious on the part of the person receiving. The same can be said about the unworthy reception of our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Depending on the state of the sinner receiving, it can either be meritorious or an added mortal sin.

Finally, I must comment on the plurality of ways Catholics receive Holy Communion in the hand. It still shocks me that even those who should know better, continue to snatch, cup or one hand this option that I have thoroughly catechized about in terms of the correct way. I guess people just don't listen or missed Mass on the Sunday I catechized about it. What to do?!

The correct way, by the way, to receive our Lord on the palm of the hand is clearly enunciated in the American Bishops' Adaptation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal dated June 14, 2001:

“41 Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." (51)

Shall I tattoo it on the palm of every hand, (or maybe "brand it") that is stuck out for our Lord? Now that would be an "IMPOSITION!"

OUR AMERICAN CUSTOM OF IMPOSING ASHES

Well, not quite our American Custom, I seldom see the ashes so nicely imposed on the forehead. Usually my impositions look more like smudges, and sometimes sprinkles of ashes fall on the nose, cheeks and chin, an imperfect world.



The Holy Father and most of Europe receive a "sprinkling" of ashes on the crown of the head, not a mark of ashes on the forehead. Does anyone know the reason for the difference? Which method do you prefer?

ON ASH WEDNESDAY, A MODEST DREAM FOR THE ROMAN MISSAL OF 2002

The Holy Father's divisive preferences:


A young child receives our Lord in Holy Communion and in the hand, how precious.



A wedding, how lovely! Holy Communion in the hand is allowed!



YIKES, Did his bishop give permission for inter-communion?


As you can imagine, ever since Pope Benedict XVI relaxed restrictions on the celebration of the 1962 Roman Missal, there has been an out cry from the progressive camp of the Church over this "turning of the clock back." Of course, these same progressives advocate for all kinds of other diversity in the celebration of the Mass, all the way to clowns, secular music and trendy multiculturalism.

When they see Pope Benedict distributing Holy Communion by way of intinction to communicants kneeling and receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue, they declare foul and lurch in horror at this "divisive" act on the part of the Holy Father.

But are pluralism and diversity in the Church and her liturgy that horrible and divisive? I think I am progressive enough to say "no" "authentic pluralism" is not. At the same time, I realize that following the Lord Jesus, even in the Church, as our Church teaches and enunciates in canon law and liturgical law, which gives a great deal of flexibility to priests, could cause division. Jesus said following him would. "Do you think I have come to bring peace, no, I have come to bring division!" (My paraphrase, you look up the actual words and larger context).

But now for my modest proposal concerning the Reform of the Reform:

1. The 1962 Roman Missal, keep it as the Holy Father as legislated, recognizing that it is the Holy Father's outreach to schismatic traditionalists to show them that there was no real rupture in the Church if one truly accepts the Documents of the Second Vatican Council

2. Keep the 2002 Edition of the Roman Missal and get us an English translation of it as soon as possible (looks like Advent 2011 but who knows?)

3. In the 2002 Edition of the Roman Missal, allow for an "optional" order of Mass using the 1962 Order and rubrics continuing to call it "extraordinary". Again this would be optional and along side the Revised Order of Mass continuing to be called "ordinary" going back to the 1970 revised Roman Missal.

4. Now, I get really liberal and radical, allow the 1962 Roman Missal Order of Mass and rubrics in the "new" 2002 Roman Missal to be translated into English as an option, just as it is an option for the 1970 Order of Mass. As well, make sure that when using the 2002 Roman Missal with the "1962 Order of Mass and rubrics" that the Liturgy of the Word be the Revised Lectionary always and that when using the 1962 Order of Mass, only the Roman Canon be prayed with its 1962 rubrics.

5. Why allow the "Order of the 1962 Roman Missal Mass and Rubrics" as an option in the 2002 Roman Missal?

A. You can still use the Revised Roman Calendar for any day of the liturgical year.

B. You can still use all the revised Opening Collects, Prayers over the Gifts, and Prayers after Holy Communion, in addition to all the added prefaces but with the 1962 Order of Mass and rubrics. In other words, each Sunday if a Mass is celebrated with the Revised Order at 9:30 AM and with the 1962 Order at 12:10 PM, the Mass texts, including the lectionary would be the same for both, either in Latin or English.

C. Of course, the choice of Ad Orientem or Ad Populum should be allowed explicitly. Kneeling for Holy Communion would not be viewed as heretical, divisive or out of order, the same for standing. The same would hold true for "intinction" but by the Minister, not self-intinction.

Your thoughts? Of course I realize that I'm just dreaming?

REMEMBER YOU ARE DUST AND UNTO DUST YOU SHALL RETURN!

Below my two paragraphs is an editorial by Sandra Magistro appearing on his blog, "Chiesa" today. I find it fascinating. It is long but worth reading. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI will go down in history as one of the most "captivating personalities" to ever pontificate from the See of Peter. What the Holy Father has done in his nearly five years as the Successor of St. Peter is to shift the attention away from the "personality of the pope" and "his celebrity" to the teachings of the Catholic Church, her liturgy and her spirituality, not to mention her morality and good works. In doing so, Pope Benedict reveals in the most beautiful way the face of Jesus Christ who alone contains all personality and celebrity for believers. He is the Savior not only of the Church but of the world. No one or nothing else can match Him! It is wise for all bishops, priests, deacons and religious and the faithful, to realize that their work is to point to Christ not themselves and to allow themselves to diminish so that Christ may flourish.

As we begin our Lent pilgrimage to Easter and the resurrection, let the ashes on our forehead this day remind us of the brevity of life during our sojourn in this "desert" and let us realize the possibility of eternal life through the passion, death and resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ. May our ascetic practices of fasting, prayer and alms giving lead to the strengthening of our personal faith and good works and thus the purifying of the Church collective.


Lent 2010. Pope Benedict's Ash Wednesday

His torment is the disappearance of faith. His program is to lead men to God. His preferred instrument is teaching. But the Vatican curia doesn't help him much. And sometimes it harms him

by Sandro Magister From his blog, "Chiesa"


ROME, February 17, 2010 – Today, Ash Wednesday, is the beginning of Lent according to the Roman rite. And the bishop of Rome is entering it, as he does every year, with ashes on his head, with a penitential procession, and with a Mass celebrated in the ancient basilica of Saint Sabina.

Today Lent has mostly faded from the general mindset of the West, where the Muslim Ramadan makes more of an impact. But Benedict XVI is visibly driven to restore meaning and vigor to this season of preparation for Easter.

This year, in addition to the message to the faithful reproduced further below with the homily for Ash Wednesday, pope Joseph Ratzinger is also opening Lent with a double "lectio divina." He held the first of them a few days ago with seminarians of Rome, and will hold the second tomorrow with the priests of the diocese.

"Lectio divina" is a reflection on the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures, done by selecting a biblical passage and commenting on it. Pope Benedict usually improvises them, in the style of the ancient Church Fathers and of the great theological masters of the Middle Ages, but always with an attentive eye on today's culture.

Last Friday, February 12, commenting on a passage from chapter 15 of the Gospel of John for the seminarians of Rome, the pope referred to a letter written to him by a professor at the University of Regensburg, contesting the Christian view of God.

Benedict XVI said that he had recognized in the professor's objections "the eternal temptation of dualism, meaning that there is not only a good principle, but also a bad principle, a principle of evil, and that the good God is only a part of reality."

And he added:

"Even in theology, including Catholic theology, this idea is currently being spread: that God is not omnipotent. This is an attempt to find a justification for God, who in this way would not be responsible for the evil that we find so widely throughout the world. But what a poor justification! A God who is not omnipotent! Evil does not lie in his hands! And how could we trust ourselves to this God? How could we be sure of his love if this love ends where the power of evil begins?"

There is a striking similarity between these words of the pope and statements by Robert Spaemann, a German philosopher he greatly admires, at the international conference on God organized in Rome last December by the Italian bishops' conference:

"Those who believe in God believe that absolute power and absolute goodness have the same reference point: the sanctity of God. The Gnostics of the first Christian centuries denied this equivalence. They attributed the two predicates to two divinities, an evil power, the 'deus universi', god and creator of this world, and a god who is light, who appears from far away in the obscurity of this world. [...] It is important to emphasize this today, when even the priests, instead of invoking the blessing of almighty God upon us, speak only of the 'good God'. Talking about the goodness of God, about God who is love, obscures his disquieting side, if it goes unmentioned who it is of whom it is said that He is love, that is, if it goes unmentioned that He is the power that guides our existence and the world. [...] If goodness did not belong to being, being would not be everything, it would not be the totality. [...] But the opposite also holds true: if goodness were powerlessness, then it would not be goodness tout court. Because the powerlessness of the good is not good. Faith in the power of goodness is what allows us to abandon ourselves actively to reality, without needing to fear that in an absurd world, all good intentions would also be judged as an absurdity."

From the intense attention focused on this question, it is increasingly evident that Benedict XVI truly has taken on as a "priority" of his pontificate "to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God" (from his letter to the bishops dated March 10, 2009). A priority he recently reiterated in the proposal to "open a court of the gentiles" for all seekers of God.

What this means is that Ratzinger is increasingly manifesting the desire to concentrate his mission as pope on preaching. A preaching of great doctrinal vigor, aimed at strengthening the foundations of doctrine and of "confirming" in the faith a Church strongly tempted by spiritualized and reductive visions of God, Jesus, and the Christian dogmas.

*

In this daring enterprise, however, it is astonishing that pope Ratzinger has not been given adequate support by his curia.

The statement from the secretariat of state last February 9 is the latest sign of this imbalance between the magisterium of the pope and the operation of the Vatican machine.

Using the pope as a shield to deny the sending of documents from the Vatican to a newspaper, using a pontifical gendarme as a courrier, and the curial origin of an article with a fake signature, against the background of an affair that still remains intact in its substantial outlines of conflict between the secretariat of state and the Italian bishops' conference – a conflict which the pope has always remained above, implicated by no one – seemed to many an outrageous act. Not only disconnected from, but in strident contrast with the quality and content of the magisterium of Pope Benedict, in spite of his formal approval of the publication of the statement and his renewal of trust in his colleagues.

This affair was reported by www.chiesa a few days ago in this article:

> Italy, United States, Brazil. From the Vatican to the Conquest of the World

But to return to the "things that are above," the following is the message with which pope Ratzinger wanted to introduce Lent this year.

__________


“The justice of God has been manifested through faith in Jesus Christ”

by Benedict XVI


Dear brothers and sisters, each year, on the occasion of Lent, the Church invites us to a sincere review of our life in light of the teachings of the Gospel. This year, I would like to offer you some reflections on the great theme of justice, beginning from the Pauline affirmation: “The justice of God has been manifested through faith in Jesus Christ” (cf. Rm 3, 21-22).


Justice: “dare cuique suum”

First of all, I want to consider the meaning of the term “justice,” which in common usage implies “to render to every man his due,” according to the famous expression of Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the third century. In reality, however, this classical definition does not specify what “due” is to be rendered to each person. What man needs most cannot be guaranteed to him by law. In order to live life to the full, something more intimate is necessary that can be granted only as a gift: we could say that man lives by that love which only God can communicate since He created the human person in His image and likeness. Material goods are certainly useful and required – indeed Jesus Himself was concerned to heal the sick, feed the crowds that followed Him and surely condemns the indifference that even today forces hundreds of millions into death through lack of food, water and medicine – yet “distributive” justice does not render to the human being the totality of his “due.” Just as man needs bread, so does man have even more need of God. Saint Augustine notes: if “justice is that virtue which gives every one his due ... where, then, is the justice of man, when he deserts the true God?” (De civitate Dei, XIX, 21).


What is the cause of injustice?

The Evangelist Mark reports the following words of Jesus, which are inserted within the debate at that time regarding what is pure and impure: “There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him… What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts” (Mk 7, 14-15, 20-21). Beyond the immediate question concerning food, we can detect in the reaction of the Pharisees a permanent temptation within man: to situate the origin of evil in an exterior cause. Many modern ideologies deep down have this presupposition: since injustice comes “from outside,” in order for justice to reign, it is sufficient to remove the exterior causes that prevent it being achieved. This way of thinking – Jesus warns – is ingenuous and shortsighted. Injustice, the fruit of evil, does not have exclusively external roots; its origin lies in the human heart, where the seeds are found of a mysterious cooperation with evil. With bitterness the Psalmist recognises this: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51,7). Indeed, man is weakened by an intense influence, which wounds his capacity to enter into communion with the other. By nature, he is open to sharing freely, but he finds in his being a strange force of gravity that makes him turn in and affirm himself above and against others: this is egoism, the result of original sin. Adam and Eve, seduced by Satan’s lie, snatching the mysterious fruit against the divine command, replaced the logic of trusting in Love with that of suspicion and competition; the logic of receiving and trustfully expecting from the Other with anxiously seizing and doing on one’s own (cf. Gn 3, 1-6), experiencing, as a consequence, a sense of disquiet and uncertainty. How can man free himself from this selfish influence and open himself to love?


Justice and "sedaqah"

At the heart of the wisdom of Israel, we find a profound link between faith in God who “lifts the needy from the ash heap” (Ps 113,7) and justice towards one’s neighbor. The Hebrew word itself that indicates the virtue of justice, "sedaqah," expresses this well. "Sedaqah," in fact, signifies on the one hand full acceptance of the will of the God of Israel; on the other hand, equity in relation to one’s neighbour (cf. Ex 20, 12-17), especially the poor, the stranger, the orphan and the widow (cf. Dt 10, 18-19). But the two meanings are linked because giving to the poor for the Israelite is none other than restoring what is owed to God, who had pity on the misery of His people. It was not by chance that the gift to Moses of the tablets of the Law on Mount Sinai took place after the crossing of the Red Sea. Listening to the Law presupposes faith in God who first “heard the cry” of His people and “came down to deliver them out of hand of the Egyptians” (cf. Ex 3,8). God is attentive to the cry of the poor and in return asks to be listened to: He asks for justice towards the poor (cf. Sir 4,4-5, 8-9), the stranger (cf. Ex 22,20), the slave (cf. Dt 15, 12-18). In order to enter into justice, it is thus necessary to leave that illusion of self-sufficiency, the profound state of closure, which is the very origin of injustice. In other words, what is needed is an even deeper “exodus” than that accomplished by God with Moses, a liberation of the heart, which the Law on its own is powerless to realize. Does man have any hope of justice then?


Christ, the justice of God

The Christian Good News responds positively to man’s thirst for justice, as Saint Paul affirms in the Letter to the Romans: “But now the justice of God has been manifested apart from law … the justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3, 21-25).

What then is the justice of Christ? Above all, it is the justice that comes from grace, where it is not man who makes amends, heals himself and others. The fact that “expiation” flows from the “blood” of Christ signifies that it is not man’s sacrifices that free him from the weight of his faults, but the loving act of God who opens Himself in the extreme, even to the point of bearing in Himself the “curse” due to man so as to give in return the “blessing” due to God (cf. Gal 3, 13-14). But this raises an immediate objection: what kind of justice is this where the just man dies for the guilty and the guilty receives in return the blessing due to the just one? Would this not mean that each one receives the contrary of his “due”? In reality, here we discover divine justice, which is so profoundly different from its human counterpart. God has paid for us the price of the exchange in His Son, a price that is truly exorbitant. Before the justice of the Cross, man may rebel for this reveals how man is not a self-sufficient being, but in need of Another in order to realize himself fully. Conversion to Christ, believing in the Gospel, ultimately means this: to exit the illusion of self-sufficiency in order to discover and accept one’s own need – the need of others and God, the need of His forgiveness and His friendship.

So we understand how faith is altogether different from a natural, good-feeling, obvious fact: humility is required to accept that I need Another to free me from “what is mine,” to give me gratuitously “what is His.” This happens especially in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Thanks to Christ’s action, we may enter into the “greatest” justice, which is that of love (cf. Rm 13, 8-10), the justice that recognises itself in every case more a debtor than a creditor, because it has received more than could ever have been expected.

Strengthened by this very experience, the Christian is moved to contribute to creating just societies, where all receive what is necessary to live according to the dignity proper to the human person and where justice is enlivened by love.

Dear brothers and sisters, Lent culminates in the Paschal Triduum, in which this year, too, we shall celebrate divine justice – the fullness of charity, gift, salvation. May this penitential season be for every Christian a time of authentic conversion and intense knowledge of the mystery of Christ, who came to fulfill every justice. With these sentiments, I cordially impart to all of you my Apostolic Blessing.

__________


The complete transcription of the "lectio divina" given by Benedict XVI to the seminarians of Rome, on February 12, 2010:

> "Cari amici..."

The pope's homily at Mass on Ash Wednesday, February 17, 2010:

. . .

And the "lectio divina" for the clergy of Rome, on February 18, 2010:

. . .

_________________


The March 10, 2009 letter from Benedict XVI to the bishops, with the denunciation of conflicts within the Church and the identification of the question of God as a "priority" of his pontificate:

> "If you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another"

The international conference organized by the Italian bishops' conference on "God today. With him or without him, that changes everything":

> All the Evidence for God. An Inquiry

Benedict XVI's speech to the Vatican curia on December 21, 2009, with the proposal for a "court of the gentiles" for all seekers of God:

> "I think that the Church should also open today a court of the gentiles"

__________


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

THIS DEACON WAS TRAINED BY ME! MACON IS STUNNED BY TYBEE ISLAND'S NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON THIS ONCE BECOMING DEACON

My title above is tongue in cheek on this Mardi Gras. But Deacon Dave Hayden, ordained originally for St.Joseph Church in Macon, moved to Tybee Island (Savannah Beach) in August. Now, do you think Tybee, with its laid back way to approaching life and church has corrupted him? And don't you just love his deacon attire? What a witness! What fun too! I truly envy him and his wife Cathy who work at St. Micheal's Church and School on Tybee Island. I would have donned the same costume for Mardi Gras if I were there, thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, the corrupting influence of this quaint Savannah resort!

MAYBE "BLACK CHILDREN ARE ENDANGERED" WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER SLOGAN

There is a national controversy concerning the slogan on this "right to life" bill board appearing in Georgia. The article below is from the "secular" press and continues to use the fallacious term "anti-abortion" when describing those who are Pro-life. It is, though, appropriate to call those who are "pro-choice" pro-abortion since what they promote is the choice for abortion, not the life of the human being within his/her mother's womb. Fr.AJM




Anti-abortion billboards in Georgia claim 'black children' are 'endangered species'

By Michael Sheridan
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, February 15th 2010, 9:42 AM
This series of billboards have been displayed throughout Georgia as part of an anti-abortion campaign.

A series of anti-abortion billboards targeting the African-Amerian community in Georgia have pro-choice advocates crying foul.

The series of ads, which went up last week, state that "Black children are an endangered species," and promote the website, www.toomanyaborted.com.

Abortion rights advocates labeled the campaign as "disgusting."

"To use racist arguments to try to bait black people to get them to be anti-abortion is just disgusting," said Professor Beverly Guy-Sheftall, who teaches women's history and feminist thought at Spelman College.

"These one-issue approaches that are not about saving the black family or black children, it's just a big distraction," she said.

The billboards, sponsored by Georgia Right to Life, are part of a push to have legislation established in Georgia that would make it a crime to "solicit a woman to have an abortion based on the race or sex of the unborn child."

Black women accounted for the majority of abortions in that state in 2006, even though blacks make up just a third of its population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"I think [the billboard campaign] is necessary," said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue. "Abortion in the black community is at epidemic proportions. They're not really aware of what's actually going on. If it shocks people ... it should be shocking."

With News Wire Services

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/02/15/2010-02-15_antiabortion_billboards_in_georgia_claim_black_children_are_endangered_species.html#ixzz0fht7qkor

DO YOU THINK WE'D HAVE SISTERS GALORE IF WE HAD CONVENTS GALORE LIKE THIS ONE AND SISTERS LIKE THESE?

I am like a child at Christmas I am so excited, I am bringing this blog to the top of the heap because I know now how to post videos and these videos are great! I thank Miss Ellen E. who left the very simple directions that I could actually follow on the comment site of a previous blog! I am most grateful and besides myself that I can do this. This is my second attempt at posting videos, but my first attempt at multiple choices! Below this blog, after the Pope's long arm, is my first attempt at posting a video! Unlike the four on this blog which are very heart warming and edifying, the one below is shocking, depressing and sad and unfortunately shows something that is all to common in our Masses today, so scroll down for that after you watch these at the end of my revised post on the subject.

The recent appearance of the Dominican Sisters on Oprah Winfrey is posted below! The appearance and interview are excellent. Kudos to Oprah, and to the Sisters! Do you think these sisters are on the right track of "renewal" that Vatican II actually encouraged? And to the dying breed, who chose a path of pseudo-renewal, actually a path of destruction that compromised their legacy, well, it is sad indeed. We need sisters and sisters have been and still are or can be the back bone of the Roman Catholic Church! The love and respect that generations of Catholics till this very day have for the hard work, dedication, faithfulness and obedience of sisters is marvelous to behold! We love our sisters! And evidently Oprah loves them, her assistant who produced the show loves them, Protestants love them, Jews love them, Pagans love them! We want them back like there were and can be today, the proof is in the pudding! These are sisters who love their life in the convent, have no apparent ax to grind against our Church and her leaders, i.e. pope, bishops and men in general. They are aware of the culture in which we live that conspires against chastity, poverty and obedience. They wear their "wedding garment" perpetually to show a skeptical world the "in breaking of the Kingdom which is to be completed at the Second Coming!" The garb and more importantly their lives as sisters which is a public witness on so many levels is quite frankly the "eschatological" dimension of the Woman and Men Religious when they take seriously their call the serve the Church, both clergy and laity, in humble obedience to Christ. Yes, we want our Sisters and we love them!

Part One


Part II


Part III


Part IV

WHAT LONG ARMS YOU HAVE, HOLY FATHER!

Yes, I would say, quite a reach, both actually and figuratively. Of course, just an illusion, the actual long arms, not the figurative one!

UNFORTUNATELY, ACTS OF THIS KIND ARE NOT UNCOMMON TODAY!

If this works, that is, you can see the you-tube video from my blog and planted there by little old me, well, I thank Miss Ellen E. who left the very simple directions that I could actually follow on the comment site of a previous blog! I am most grateful and besides myself that I can do this. But sadly, my first pasted video shows the total disrespect for the Holy Eucharist that is described in this post!


Do you think that someone is likely to take the host and give it to someone else in the pew or elsewhere by this method of receiving our Lord, a method that most Catholics of the Latin Rite used for over 1500 years? Duh!


This act of disrespect toward the Holy Eucharist, i.e. the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Savior of the World,(in the article below these comments of mine) happened in Costa Rica, but it also happens in almost every city in the world where Communion in the Hand is permitted. In all the parishes that I have been a priest, the laity have reported to me, or I have been able to see by mine own eyes, people taking the host (not receiving) breaking part of it off, giving it to a small child or bringing it back to someone else in the pew. As recently as last week, a parishioner told me that a person placed the host in their pocket not knowing what to do with it and fortunately this lay person demanded that the Host be given to her and the person complied and my parishioner consumed it. Thank you! In Augusta where there is a known "Satanic Cult" and have sacrificed cats on the Church property there, an unusual looking young man was the first to make his way to receive Holy Communion, snatched the Host and ran out of the Church pursued by ushers but the ushers were unable to get to him. So there is a problem my friends in Christ. I know that as I distribute Holy Communion, that those who receive in the hand do not always place the host in their mouth in front of me, but walk off and place the host in their mouth. It is difficult for me to notice those who simply walk off with it. I do believe this is a cause for concern, not that the Lord can't take care of Himself, certainly He will, but that we are permitting a practice that can easily lead to an abuse of the Most Holy Eucharist, an abuse that is so disturbing to our faith, as it should be.

I should also say, that I have catechized often on the proper way to receive Holy Communion in the hand, that one must place the Host in their mouth prior to departing the one who offered them the Host. But in our parish, we have many visitors including non-Catholics, Protestants and others of no faith at all. They simply don't know what to do when they come forward, thinking they should do something. Sometimes we can tell who is befuddled about what to do and we don't allow them to receive. At other times, they get by.

In addition to this, many Catholics now only come to Church a few times a year and no matter what their state of holiness or lack thereof, they proudly present themselves for Holy Communion but still seem to be at a loss as to what to do with it once they receive in the hand. They grab the host, they cup their hands, they do weird devotional practices. I had one person actually take the host from me with his thumb and index finger, stood to the side of me, elevated the host for him to adore, broke it in half and then consumed it, at least to the side of me where I could watch the spectacle. I did not know who he was. I intended to speak to him after Mass about it, but I was told by someone else that as soon as he received our Lord, he was out the door! I guess he wanted to avoid the parking lot rush!



Catholics in Costa Rica outraged by disrespect toward Eucharist

San Jose, Calif., Feb 12, 2010 / 07:08 pm (CNA).- Catholics in Costa Rica continue to express disgust following the actions of Deborah Formal, the girlfriend of presidential candidate Otto Guevara. Last Sunday, Formal broke off a piece of the Eucharist and placed it in her boyfriend's pocket.

The Costa Rican media has continued to air footage of the Mass which shows Formal receiving Communion, bringing a piece of it back to her seat, and giving it to Guevara.

Being divorced, Guevara did not present himself for Communion.

The video shows that as she approached the archbishop to receive Communion, the two briefly exchanged words. Formal said later she had requested permission from the archbishop to “share the blessing” of Communion with Guevara. She said she misunderstood the archbishop and thought that he had given her permission.

“It was never my intention to disrespect the Catholic Church,” she said.

Formal is seen receiving Communion in the hand, consuming a portion and carrying what was left back to her pew, where she leaned over and put it into Guevara’s shirt pocket.

“I tried to do something that would allow Otto to carry a part of God in his heart,” Formal explained.

After priests were notified of Formal's actions, they asked the presidential candidate to return the consecrated host. He returned it and it was immediately consumed by one of the concelebrating priests.

Numerous Catholics interviewed by the media expressed outrage over the actions of Formal, saying she displayed not only ignorance in describing the consecrated host as a “blessing” instead of as the Real Presence of Christ, but also complete disrespect for Communion and for the Eucharistic Host.

Archbishop Hugo Barrantes of San Jose called her actions “inappropriate and disrespectful,” although not sacrilegious.

THE GLORY OF THE E.F. MASS FROM ON HIGH!

These shots from the cupola of our magnificent church leave out one very important element, the laity, yet, their piety, reverence and participation permeates this Mass, but the dare devil who took these did the best he could!

"Blessed are you, Lord, God...", Oh!I mean: "Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host... (Suscipe, sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus, hanc immaculatam hostiam...)

An incensed priest!

Really from on high!

Orate Fratres:

The Beginning of the Roman Canon:

the Epiclesis:

The Elevation of the Host:

The Elevation of the Chalice
-

OTHER THINGS MINE EYES HAVE SEEN RECENTLY

In November, our bishop banned the common chalice to the congregation as well as the actual sign of peace out of fear of an H1N1 epidemic and the very real possibility that one could spread this flu from the common chalice and from a hand shake. This is the first time in my entire life, not to mention my nearly 30 years of priesthood, that a connection was actually made between the sharing of viruses and drinking from the common chalice. And yes, it was the first time since 1980 that I had experienced no chalice to the laity at any Mass I had ever celebrated not to mention the absence of the Sign of Peace.

The first Sunday without the common chalice (we normally have four Host stations and six chalice stations), I realized how much easier it was to set up for Mass and how much smoother the actual process of preparing for Holy Communion at the time of the Agnus Dei went. Instead of eight extra ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, we only need two.

The other thing I noticed was how easy it was to purify the chalice, the one chalice and that I could actually do it during Mass if I wanted, without prolonging the Mass and I didn't have to drink the ablutions (water placed in the chalice that needs to be purified) that upwards to 20 or 25 people had had their lips on. I was relieved and delighted about that health concern that I've had ever since I've had to purify chalices that upwards to 30 people have shared!

One of the constant issues we have had at St. Joseph Church, in fact, I've had in all the parishes I've been, is extra ordinary ministers of Holy Communion who are not faithful to their schedule and fail to find a replacement when they miss Mass (I hope for a good reason!) This causes other extra-ordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the congregation during what should be an intense time of prayer and preparation to receive our Lord in Holy Communion to become preoccupied by the need to see if enough EM's have presented themselves to the altar area (side chapels of our sanctuary). So they crane their neck and realizing they are needed come forward, but others are coming forward too, so some have to go back, but too many go back so some have to come forward again! It is just like watching the Keystone Cops in some ways, but not really funny! Then sometimes there simply aren't any extra EM's at the Mass (all of them must have a good reason for missing Sunday Mass?) and one or two completely full chalices languish on the altar during Holy Communion and then must be consumed by someone,the question is who?--a great amount I might add.

But without the common chalice, what a blessing! Two EM's come forward at the appropriate time, are given Holy Communion and then their ciborium and go to their station and there is no confusion, no distractions and yes, there is very little possibility of the "profanation" if not down right "desecration" of the Sacred Species of the chalice! Mine eyes were open and the bishop's ban on the common chalice was in reality a step forward and not a step backward in the need to restore reverence and prayerfulness at the time of preparing for Holy Communion.

Now, I am partial to the laity receiving the consecrated Wine of the chalice just as I am partial to receiving the Precious Blood when I celebrate Mass. For me it is not optional, I must, even though, of course, our Lord is completely present in the Consecrated Host. So one of the reasons I have seen it as important for the laity to have this privilege of the option of the chalice for the entire time I have been ordained, is because I see it important for me, which is required for the priest-celebrant. But mine own eyes have now seen how much better it is not to have multiple chalice stations and multiple EM's coming forward at Mass. Therefore, I would like to implement "intinction" to at least give the laity who desire the option of receiving the Consecrated Wine in addition to the Host, the possibility of this wonderful gift and privilege. The GIRM allows this and by way of intinction.

Finally, omitting the "Handshake of Peace;" Mine own eyes have seen now, for the first time since the "Handshake of Peace" was pushed on us around 1967 or so, that it does break the prayerful preparation for our Lord who at that time is completely present on our altar, waiting for us to receive Him in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Not exchanging the "Handshake of Peace" sent me back in time to 1967 in my home parish of St. Joseph in Augusta and the wide ranging complaints that we laity had about the "Handshake of Peace" when it was forced down our throats(or onto our hands). We said, it distracts us from our preparation to receive our Lord! Why are we greeting one another so late in the Mass and at this particular time (no priest actually gave a good catechesis on this and even when a good catechesis is given, people still think it is a time to glad hand others, slap them on the back, go around the church and just socialize!) The "handshake of peace" was not a good idea at the particular time that we are asked to share it. Perhaps a better solution would have been to move this prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, perhaps after the Penitential Rite, or to keep it in the traditional location, but simply have people turn side to side and bow one's head in respect to one's neighbor as a sign of the need to be at peace with one another before we approach the altar--that would be a great solution, but I can't change that on my own authority. But make no mistake, the "Handshake of Peace" is not mandatory in the Catholic Mass--it is optional, always was since 1967 or so. Did you know that?

So, in my mind, not having multiple Communion stations for the common chalice and not having the "handshake of peace" are blessings in disguise to help keep the Mass reverent and prayerful. Your thoughts....

HOLY THURSDAY AT ST. JOSEPH, 2009, SHOWN IN SEPTUAGESIMA, 2010

A BLAST FROM THE RECENT PAST: Now that I know how to post pictures, but little else, these are random, and out of order photos from 2009's beginning of the Easter Triduum, Holy Thursday's Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper, Ordinary Form. Includes receiving the Sacred Chrism consecrated at the Cathedral on Holy Tuesday as well as the "Transfer of the Most Holy Eucharist" and stripped altar--again out of order, you make them logical. The first one isn't logical, I'm in green, so must be from an Ordinary Time, Ordinary Mass, unlike Extraordinary Time Easter Triduum. Posted this one by accident, but nice anyway, so why delete it? And after all it's not Holy Thursday, but it is snowing outside in Macon, Georgia! Yip Pee!