WHY IN THE HELL SHOULD WE SAY NO TO GENDER IDEOLOGY

Most blogs seem to miss the significance of Vatican Radio's prominent  placement on its site of Pope Francis' remarks to Puerto Rican bishops. Amongst other things, the Holy Father told them to say "no" to gender ideology as it concerns the illicit redefining of marriage. This, of course, is the first comment on marriage the Holy Father himself has made since the Irish referendum redefining marriage in Ireland.

This is what His Holiness said as copied from the Vatican Radio story:


No to gender ideology, protecting the complementarity between men and women

The complementarity between a man and a woman is being questioned by the so-called gender ideology in the name of a freer and more just society, the Pope observes. In fact, he warns, the differences between men and women are not a question of “opposition or subordination but rather of communion and generation… always in the image and likeness of God." Without mutual giving- he adds - neither can have an in-depth understanding of the other.

My Comment: It is unfortunate that the Holy Father has to tell bishops of the Catholic Church to say no to gender ideology. Every Catholic should be saying yes to the Church's teachings not only about morality but also about the nature of marriage. And it isn't just about having an "in-depth understanding about the other" as though Catholicism is now reduced to simply a psychological or sociological reality.  Our psychology and sociology will be just fine with or without gender ideology. But our salvation might suffer when we commit sin!

Actually, I don't think this is what the Holy Father said, as normally the Church states things in a more positive way when it comes to the truths of religion. We are a religion of  "yes" not "no" meaning that we say yes to God, to God's truths found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and yes to the salvation God offers us through our live in Him and His Church. When we way yes to God, we say yes to heaven. When we say no to God we say yes to hell.

Why should Catholics embrace the truths of God, not just that about marriage as important as it is, but even smaller things like not stealing paper clips from the office? Because in saying yes to God we say yes to life with God forever and in saying no to God we say no to God for ever. In other words, we tell God we prefer sin and hell to grace and heaven.

I'm not sure that same sex marriage will be the end of civilization. It will create a new social order to be sure. But I know of many homosexuals who are quite peaceful, very productive and contribute to the well-being of society. Sinners do that, no matter their sin preference.

To couch everything about sin in the context of what happens in the here and now misses the point I think.

Religious leaders like the pope need to couch all of our moral teachings within the context of the afterlife.

I will not shun people who are homosexual or have  a civil marriage life together. I won't be in their face with placards telling them how wrong their gender ideology is.

I will teach my parishioners about the truth of marriage and ask them to say yes to God's design of marriage discovered by everyone in the world through natural law and made more explicit in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

But the new normal as it concerns the way marriage is being corrupted will not bring an end to the world and it might not even make our lives more miserable. Gender ideology is simply gender ideology. Hell is hell and is more effective as a deterrent to sin than anything else I know.

MORE FROM LITURGICALLY CONFLICTED IN MACON

Alright, I admit it. I am liturgically conflicted. I love both forms of the one Latin Rite! Everyone knows this. This conflicted experience for me makes me muse on my own liturgical spirituality and its diversity and how confusing it can be.

But let me say this. I think most priests are liturgically conflicted especially those priests who celebrate a myriad of styles of celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass which is not the case for me!

In my parish, all our Sunday Ordinary Form Masses are sung and use the same music. There is no difference between Masses except our 9:30 AM Mass has a full choir that adds to the sound and where they might do one or two anthems independently of the congregation. All the other Masses have a cantor from the choir loft to facilitate the congregational singing. The sameness of all our Masses brings a liturgical unity to our parish as though we were to have only one Mass on Sunday for everyone which in fact would be the ideal.

Our congregation sings too. It is very noticeable for the parts of the Mass in particular but for the hymns too. The Our Father is chanted each Sunday and without accompaniment. It is here that I truly notice the volume of the congregation. And on top of that, at the end of Mass almost everyone remains in the Church for the conclusion of the recessional hymn. In fact on the Memorial Day weekend, our music director decided to sing "America" after the four verses of the recessional hymn. I had already gotten outside after the second verse of the first recessional hymn and no one, and I mean one left the church until all the verses of the second recessional hymn were sung, I think 4, of America the Beautiful. Where else in the world does this happen?

But many parishes have a variety of styles of music for their various Masses. Some priests have an Ordinary Form Mass with no music. Then there will be a Spanish Mass with very upbeat music. Then there will be a choir Mass with more traditional types of vernacular music. Then there will be a contemporary sounding Mass or a lifeteen type Mass with music totally alien to our Latin Rite tradition.

I would say that is a conflicted, unintegrated approach to the Ordinary Form.

What is my conflict though, you might ask?

Yesterday I celebrated our 7:45 AM Mass and 5:00 PM Mass, both Ordinary Form although we have different types of Catholics at both, but the singing and music was almost identical.  The propers were chanted in a simply way by the cantor and the congregational singing was very good. Everything is chanted or sung by congregation for their parts and the priest for his parts. All is accompanied by organ except for the accapella  parts such as the Our Father, although with robust chanting. But it isn't Latin; it is all English which is fine by me. It is Anglo in other words.

But then I had the 2:00 PM High Extraordinary Form Mass. Our men's schola was particularly strong and excellent yesterday. The congregation participated in the parts normally associated with the altar boys (men in our case) and schola. We sang a hymn, I believe, "Alleluia, Sing to Jesus" as the processional, I and the servers began the "Prayers at the Foot of the Altar" quietly as this hymn was concluded by the congregation and smoothly transitioned to the Introit chanted in a beautiful way by the schola, well harmonized and covering the rest of the quiet action of the PATFOTA as well as my ascending the altar and incensing it and allowing me time to say the Introit quietly and to move to the middle of the altar in time for the schola to begin the Kyrie to which all participated at the appropriate time. Then all of us, and I mean all, chanted the Gloria.

The Mass proceeded flawlessly. The only fly in the ointment was that the small schola was not prepared to chant the Sequence which I simply read aloud in Latin and my Latin, I must brag, is getting very good although many say I pronounce it with a strong Tuscany Italian accent!

The spirituality and sound of the Latin Chanted Mass (and I think this would be the case even in an Ordinary Form Mass chanted all in Latin) is different than my other Ordinary Form Masses that day.

There are two spiritualities at work and the ethos of the Latin Mass is simply different. It is as different as an Anglican/Episcopal Eucharist verses a Catholic Extraordinary Form Gregorian chanted Mass.

In the Extraordinary Form, there can be different styles too. There is a different spirituality between a Chanted Mass and a Low Mass. And chanted Masses might use "concert" Masses by the great composers that are very different than Gregorian Chant with a different kind of soaring that tweaks the adrenalin of those who hear it, similar to what some contemporary Catholic music does to one's adrenalin.

But this brings me to the "filled" silences of the EF Mass. I have come to appreciate the silent canon which elevates its solemnity, Mystery and sense of wonder and awe for all. It is "filled" silence, actual liturgical prayer is occurring during the grand silence. Many who think in terms of "new and improved" for the Ordinary Form Mass rather than just "different" are appalled by a silent canon. They think it is a proclamation that must be directed to the congregation with eye contact from the priest and gestures toward the congregation. Any hint of the priest's prescribed liturgical piety are snarkily denigrated (just go over and see the silly post and name calling on Praytell concerning the different ways priest consecrate the Host with staged videos to complete the insults!)

The filled silences of the EF Mass are quite different than the contrived "empty" silences of the OF Mass. There is no real comparison and the contrived "empty silences" leads to zoning out.

  So the "filled" silences of the EF Mass is conflicting to me in Macon compared to the contrived "empty" silences of the Ordinary Form Mass!

Is it okay to be conflicted in Macon? I ask; you answer!

FILE THIS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF "JUST TO COOL!"

(FIRST VIDEO LINK REPAIRED)A friend of mine has his own personal drone and I want one! But at any rate look at the video he took of our church!

THE "JOHNS" WHO PAY PEOPLE TO EXPLOIT THEMSELVES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

 When I lived in my rectory on a lovely boulevard in downtown Augusta with a nice tree line center divide, I woke up one morning to read in the local newspaper that there had been a "sting" on my street and in fact in front of my rectory!

Decoy "prostitutes" lured unsuspecting Johns to approach them and once the Johns offered money for services they were quickly arrested.

Johns and prostitutes support each others needs. And thus we see this at work in the entertainment industry and in particular with the horrible reality shows that afflict our nation and our nation so gladly allows to afflict us.

It is all about money. The Johns are the top brass from the big entertainment network conglomerates. The prostitutes are the families and individuals who allow themselves to be bought for exploitation and in the case of children victimization and ultimately psychological abuse.

We already know about the horror that so many actual child actors went through especially in 1950's television. The actress of the youngest daughter, Kathy (Erin Grey) on"Father Knows Best" was sexually abused during the course of this show and her life cascaded into abject immorality although she later recovered.

Dennis the Menace star, Jay North, was physically abused and threatened by his aunt and uncle and on the set  of the show but behind the scenes.

Rusty Hammer of Make Room for Daddy eventually committed suicide as an adult.

And the list goes on and there have been some recent revelations about later child actors to include the suicide of one of the twins from "Everybody Loves Raymond." 

The networks will gladly exploit the pathologies of their reality stars. Bruce Jenner is hailed as a hero and for his bravery in claiming he is something he isn't but has tried to make himself so through the mutilation of his face and body and through drug therapy.  All the publicity surrounding this is but a prelude to his reality show which will garner him millions of dollars from his John the network producing it. To call it narcissism would be an understatement. It is just plain corrupt capitalism at work in the most hideous way. 

And that brings me to the Duggar family. I suspect a family with 19 children and counting needs money to make ends meet. What better way to make it and to make big bucks by prostituting their family life and their children on a reality show that became wildly popular? I have never watched it by the way. 

The oldest child, now an adult, is revealed to have been a serial molester of several girls to include the incestuous molestation of two of his sisters when he was but a mere and very young teenager. 

There are two culprits in all of this, the Johns of the television network that produced this reality show and paid the prostitutes, the Duggar mother and father, to exploit themselves and their children for mega bucks.

The same can be said about the mother of Honey Boo Boo who lives about 70 miles south of me in Georgia.

What will the children of these prostitutes experience much later in life over their exploitation and who should go to jail for it? I don't think it should be the children who are the victims of serious abuse in their exploitation for money, but rather the johns--the network brass and the prostitutes, the adults who took the money.



 

I FELT THE EERIE SILENCE TOO! MAYBE THE PROGRESSIVES JUST CAN'T SPIN IT SO THEY IGNORE IT; OR WORSE YET ARE IN DENIAL

I just read this from the blog, Views From the Choir Loft, and it is very, very informative:

Eerie Silence After Cardinal Sarah’s Testimony

published 5 June 2015 by Jeff Ostrowski 

 

T WOULD SEEM Cardinal Sarah has become persona non grata among “progressive” liturgists. As Fr. David Friel reported on Monday, a powerful letter by Cardinal Sarah was read during a liturgical conference in New York. During the letter, the head of the Church’s most powerful liturgical committee said:

When the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asked me to accept the ministry of Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, I asked: “Your Holiness, how do you want me to exercise this ministry?” The Holy Father’s reply was clear. “I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council,” he said “and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI.”

It would be difficult to distort these clear words, but I nevertheless expected various “progressive” magazines & blogs to try to spin his testimony. It hasn’t happened.
And the silence is eerie.

    * *  PDF DOWNLOAD • Robert Cardinal Sarah Letter (Full)

THE PROGRESSIVE LITURGY CAMP may be accused of many things, but one thing is certain: they know how to spin. Consider what they did with the clear mandate of Vatican II regarding the use of Latin. Support for Sacrosanctum Concilium—the document which orders Latin to be preserved—was adopted by a nearly unanimous vote. When someone at the Council suggested caution in allowing the vernacular—lest Latin be abandoned—the Council fathers roared with laughter. Yet, certain parties ¹ have “spun” the truth so successfully that 95% of Catholics believe Vatican II wanted to get rid of Latin—and those attempting to reintroduce it face tremendous opposition.

But how will they spin Cardinal Sarah’s testimony? Will they say Francis was coerced into making that statement? Our current pope doesn’t strike me as someone easily browbeaten. By the way, in terms of the appointment of Cardinal Sarah, for months certain parties got involved with irresponsible gossip from “anonymous sources” saying Bugnini’s former secretary was to be appointed CDW prefect. Our contributors refused to give such prattle any credence. ²

But the letter below is not based on “anonymous sources.” It’s legitimate, and perhaps the most powerful postconciliar letter since Sacrificium Laudis.

Here it is in its entirety:

ESSAGE OF HIS EMINENCE, ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH—PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS—TO THE CONFERENCE “SACRA LITURGIA USA 2015”

I. It is my pleasure to greet all of you, gathered in New York City, for the inaugural conference of SACRA LITURGIA in the United States of America. In particular, I greet His Eminence, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and thank him for his interest in and support of this event underlining the essential role of liturgical formation and celebration in the life and mission of the Church.

I was very pleased to be present at the launch of the Italian and English editions of the proceedings of SACRA LITURGIA 2013 in Rome last November, and congratulate Bishop Dominique Rey and all who work with him on making this happy initiative a reality, now also in the United States of America.

I greet His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, who will present the keynote address. And I greet all the bishops, priests, religious, and learned lay men and women who will make presentations as well as those who will celebrate the Sacred Liturgy and preach in the coming days. Your apostolate in promoting the Sacred Liturgy is a most important one in our time: I thank you for all that you do.

2. Because the Sacred Liturgy is truly the font from which all the Church’s power flows, as the Second Vatican Council insists (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §10), we must do everything we can to put the Sacred Liturgy back at the very heart of the relationship between God and man, recognizing the primacy of Almighty God in this privileged and unique forum in which we—individually and ecclesially—encounter God at work in our world. One cannot encounter God, my brothers and sisters, without trembling, without awe, without profound respect and holy fear. This is why we must rank what Cardinal Ratzinger called “the right way of celebrating the Liturgy, inwardly and outwardly” first amongst our concerns (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2000, p. 9).

3. When the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asked me to accept the ministry of Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, I asked: “Your Holiness, how do you want me to exercise this ministry? What do you want me to do as Prefect of this Congregation?” The Holy Father’s reply was clear. “I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council,” he said, “and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI.”

My friends, I want you to help me in this task. I ask you to continue to work towards achieving the liturgical aims of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §1) and to work to continue the liturgical renewal promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, especially through the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2007 and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007. I ask you to be wise, like the householder in St Matthew’s Gospel, who knows when to bring out of his treasure things both new and old (cf. Matthew 13:52), so that the Sacred Liturgy as it is celebrated and lived today may lose nothing of the inestimable riches of the Church’s liturgical tradition, whilst always being open to legitimate development (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, §23).

4. You have many days in which to consider these questions in depth. I would like to suggest two critical areas in which authentic liturgical renewal in the twenty-first century can be furthered. The first is by being utterly clear what Catholic liturgy is: it is the worship of Almighty God, the place where mankind encounters God alive and at work in His Church today. Please–never underestimate the importance of this. The liturgy is not some social occasion or meeting where we come first, where what is important is that we express our identity. No: God comes first. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 2004:

If the Liturgy appears first of all as the workshop for our activity, then what is essential is being forgotten: God. For the Liturgy is not about us, but about God. Forgetting about God is the most imminent danger of our age. As against this, the Liturgy should be setting up a sign of God’s presence. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Collected Works: The Theology of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2014, p. 593).

The Church’s liturgy is given to us in tradition—it is not for us to make up the rites we celebrate or to change them to suit ourselves or our own ideas beyond the legitimate options permitted by the liturgical books. That is why we must celebrate the Sacred Liturgy faithfully, with that reverence and awe of which I spoke earlier.

5. The second area in which I ask you to give of your time and expertise is in the promotion of sound liturgical formation. The Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy went so far as to say that “it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing” the liturgical renewal it desired “unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it” (n. 14). We cannot truly participate in the Sacred Liturgy—we cannot drink deeply from the source of Christian life—if we have not been formed in the spirit and power of the liturgy. As our Holy Father, Pope Francis, said last year:

Much remains to be done for a correct and complete assimilation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on the part of the baptized and by ecclesial communities. I refer in particular to the commitment to a strong and organic initiation and liturgical formation of the lay faithful as well as the clergy and consecrated persons. (Message to the participants of the Roman Symposium on Sacrosanctum Concilium, 18 February 2014)

I hope and I pray that the different initiatives of SACRA LITURGIA can do much to meet this urgent and crucial need.

5. Dear brothers in the episcopate, dear priests, deacons and religious, dear lay men and women, your participation in this conference is a sign that you are already aware of the importance of the Sacred Liturgy in the life of the Church. I thank you for your willingness to give of your time to study and consider this reality further. I pray that these days may increase your wisdom and knowledge, that they will help you to grow in holiness, and that they will make you ever more zealous in promoting authentic liturgical renewal in the Church.

I hope I will be able to join you for the next SACRA LITURGIA Meeting of July 2016 in London.

Please pray for me that I may faithfully exercise the service to which I have been called. May God bless you always!

+ ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH
Prefect
CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS

Cardinal Sarah mentioned the “good work” of Pope Benedict XVI. One of my favorite lines from Cardinal Ratzinger is as follows:

I shall never forget lying on the ground at the time of my own priestly and episcopal ordination. When I was ordained bishop, my intense feeling of inadequacy, incapacity, in the face of the greatness of the task was even stronger than at my priestly ordination. The fact that the Ecclesia Orans was calling upon all the saints—that the prayer of the Church really was enveloping and embracing me—was a wonderful consolation. In my incapacity, which had to be expressed in the bodily posture of prostration, this prayer, this presence of all the saints, of the living and the dead, was a wonderful strength—it was the only thing that could, as it were, lift me up.

NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   One prominent reformer even made the following claim (and notice how he begins by knocking down a straw man argument about Latin being the “original” language—an argument never put forward by any serious person):

“Although it is not the original language of the Roman rite by any means, the Latin language is here acknowledged to have the first or principal place, and as such it is to be retained. It may be that in some areas the retention will simply mean employing the Latin texts as the basis for translating into the vernacular, at least in the case of those parts of the Roman rite which are themselves original, such as the collects.”

2   When Piero Marini was passed over in favor of Cardinal Sarah, these same gossipmongers changed their stories. The new story—again based on “anonymous sources in Rome”—was that Pope Francis wanted to appoint Bugnini’s secretary, but sinister forces prevented him. Such gossip is rather typical. We Americans are often enamored with anything foreign/exotic/Roman. I cannot tell you the number of times I’ve heard someone say, “The Pope is going to do such-and-such because my friend who studied at the Angelicum told me.”

THE CONFUSION IN THE CHURCH OVER THE SACRIFICIAL PRIESTHOOD OF THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS AND THE GENERAL PRIESTHOOD OF HOLY BAPTISM OF THE LAITY MAY BE A KEY IN UNDERSTANDING THE COLLAPSE OF CATHOLICISM IN EUROPE AND OTHER PLACES

A photo to drive some in the Church to crazed distraction:

There is an article on Sacra Liturgia USA 
over at Crux there is an article on a chant conference and the title of the article is:

Out with strums and drums, in with bells and smells:

Amidst what they see as the degradation of US culture, a vocal and especially young segment of the Catholic Church believes a return to traditional worship holds the answer (You can access the entire article by clicking HERE.)

For the purposes of my commentary, though, I want to focus on the following that I quote from the article above:
 
"Liturgical battles in the Catholic Church have been roaring for decades.

Those who prefer the old style believe modern worship focuses too much on the congregation or the priest, what they call “horizontal worship,” and not enough on Christ, or “vertical worship.”

Fans of the Vatican II style, however, say worship should include the full people of God, and see in the Extraordinary Form a return to the clericalism — emphasizing the supremacy of priests and bishops over the laity — that Vatican II sought to eliminate.

Both camps can be equally strident in its insistence that God is on their side."

My Comments:  It is a known fact that many priests formed in the pre-Vatican II seminary and model of priesthood decried by "fans" of the Vatican II style of the Mass, loss their priestly identity and thus their vocation to the priesthood in the aftermath of Vatican II many of them leaving to marry and many of them who left the Church altogether. There are several former priests (not all) in Macon who fall into this category.

Clericalism is when a cleric does his own thing, which is so, so common at the Ordinary Form of the Mass. This clericalist thinks he is the final authority in the liturgy and thus does not follow the ultimate authority of the Magisterium or of the rubrics of the Mass, since he thinks he knows better.  The clericalism of this type of priest stems from the sad mentality that he can and should get away with whatever he wants to do.

When a priest in the EF Mass follows the rubrics of the Mass and scrupulously so, this is not clericalism as he is simply being obedient to what is required of him. He hasn't substituted his own clericalism over even style for the legitimate authority of the Church over the liturgy. 

What the "spirit of Vatican II" corrupt catholics  sought to do with the liturgy was to eliminate the categories of clergy and laity and they worked hard to do it with how the Mass is celebrated in rank and file parishes and radically so in some parts of Europe, Holland being a sad example.

This has led to a loss of identity of both of the clergy and the laity in so many parts of the Catholic Church and thus one big chunk of the reason for the decline and fall of Catholicism in so many parts of Europe, Ireland being the recent most stunningly noteworthy, but also in other sporadic places.

In a sense the "fans" of the "spirit" of Vatican II liturgy want to do to the clergy what Bruce Jenner has done to himself. Bruce Jenner "ain't" a woman no matter how hard he tries to be and the Clergy ain't the laity no matter how hard the "fans" try to make the clergy into what they ain't!

EXTRAORDINARY FORM MASS FOR EXTERNAL SOLEMNITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND CORPUS CHRISTI PROCESSION

Let's start with the Corpus Christi Procession: This year we will have the procession following the Prayer After Holy Communion at the 9:30 AM High Ordinary Form Mass. It will be in the Church using the canopy as on Holy Thursday. The procession will proceed down the middle aisle and turn right and down the aisle toward the Sacred Heart Chapel, turn right and go across the front of the Church, turn right and go up the aisle from the Blessed Mother's Chapel turn right at the entrance of the Church and return to the altar by the main aisle. All will chant Pange Lingua. After returning to the altar, the Most Blessed Sacrament will be incensed followed by Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament when at 12 Noon Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament will take place.

This was a few years ago and was outside (too hot, 100+, too many key liturgical people on vacation, too complicated)

This year, for the first time at St. Joseph Church, the procession will be held in the Church somewhat similar to what happens at Holy Thursday from which this photos are:

Then at 2:00 PM we will celebrate the External Solemnity of Corpus Christi as a High Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Beginning in September the monthly EF High Mass will move to the last Sunday of each month at 12:10 PM:


NTROIT Ps. 80:17
He fed them with the finest wheat, alleluia! and filled them with honey from the rock, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia! Ps. 80:2. Sing joyfully to God, our helper, sing aloud to the God of Jacob. V. Glory be . . .

COLLECT - O God, we possess a lasting memorial of Your Passion in this wondrous Sacrament. Grant that we may so venerate the mysteries of Your Body and Blood that we may always feel within ourselves the effects of Your redemption; who lives and rules with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever.

EPISTLE
I Cor. 11:23-29
Breathren: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: "Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me." In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come." Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.

GRADUAL
The eyes of all look hopefully to You, O Lord, and You give them food in due season. V. You open Your hand and fill every living creature with blessing.

Alleluia, alleluia! V. John 6:56-57 My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him, alleluia!

SEQUENCE

GOSPEL
John 6:56-59

At that time, Jesus said to the crowds of the Jews: "For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever."

OFFERTORY
Lev. 21:6
The priests of the Lord offer incense and loaves to God; therefore they shall be sacred to their God and shall not profane His name, alleluia!

SECRET  O Lord, graciously bestow upon Your Church the gifts of unity and peace, which are symbolized in this Sacrifice we offer You. Through our Lord . . .

COMMUNION
I Cor. 11:26-27
As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, alleluia!

POST COMMUNION -  O Lord, grant that we may enjoy the eternal presence of Your divinity, which is foreshadowed by our earthly reception of Your Precious Body and Blood; who lives and rules with God the Father . . .

THIS IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF AN AUTHORITY FIGURE WHO DOES THIS SORT OF THING--NO MATTER WHICH AUTHORITY

The ABC interview I link below is very revealing and tells us two things:

1) How an adult authority figure (father/figure) finds ways to have his way with an unsuspecting minor

2) What this sort of abuse does to the unsuspecting minor and why he doesn't reveal to anyone else in authority what is happening

Is it just about homosexual sex on the part of the offender who is married and has his own children? Or is it about some other sort of pathology related to power and sexual dominance? 

Watch the ABC news video with the sister of a abuse victim and the insights she gives concerning Danny Hastert by pressing this sentence. 

1970'S CHILDREN'S LITURGICAL ANTICS IN 2015

This is obviously a children's Mass at a school or summer Vacation Bible School. Thus I might cut the priest, who I will not name to protect him from abject cruelty over this, some slack. In the 1980's (and he is slightly ordained before me) I was well-known to give "great" children's homilies at our school Masses using show and tell props. I was down right crazy, but in a good sense!

But that was then and this is now. As I watch this silly homily (and keep in mind in the EF Mass the homily is not a part of the Mass, in fact technically even the chasuble should be removed, the priest exits the sanctuary for a pulpit in the nave)I can't help but wonder what kind of impression this will make on these children when they recall it as adults. Will it promote awe and wonder, a deep piety and sense of God's mystery. Will it make them want to fall down on their knees in adoration or will it ultimately be one more reason why we have so many "NONES?"

When I was in the first grade at St. Anthony Church and School in the West End of Atlanta, I think we went to Mass every morning before school even began. Since it was the 1959-60 school year it was the traditional Mass of the Church, the only Mass of the Church of the Latin Rite at that time.

We sat with our sibblings, not as a class and we were quiet and reverent. Not a peep out of any of us. We had no homily at the daily Mass and the daily Mass was not geared toward children in any fashion whatsoever.

I was bored, but I knew something powerful was going on and I knew that people took the Mass seriously by their profound silence and reverence. There was no giggling unless someone got the hip-cups!

What do children take from this Mass?

TELL ME NOW, JUST WHAT IS WRONG WITH AD ORIENTEM?

POPE FRANCIS CELEBRATES BENEDICTION OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT WITH HIS BACK TURNED ON THE CONGREGATION! HOMILY FOR CORPUS CHRISTI MASS BELOW:

In the Last Supper, Jesus gives His Body and his Blood by means of the bread and the wine, to leave us the memorial of His sacrifice of infinite love. With this viaticum full to overflowing with grace, the disciples have everything they need for their long journey through history, to extend the kingdom of God to everyone. Light and strength will be for them the gift that Jesus made of Himself, sacrificing Himself voluntarily on the Cross. This Bread of Life has come down to us! The Church is in unending awe before this reality – an awe that endlessly nourishes contemplation, adoration, memory. This is seen in a beautiful text of today’s Liturgy, the Responsory of the second reading of the Office of Readings, which says: “See in this bread the body of Christ which hung upon the cross, and in this cup the blood which flowed from His side. Take His body, then, and eat it; take His blood and drink it, and you will become His members. The body of Christ is the bond which unites you to him: eat it, or you will have no part in him. The blood is the price he paid for your redemption: drink it, lest you despair of your sinfulness.”

We ask ourselves what it means today, to be torn from Him, to despair – as cowards – of our sinfulness [what is this cowardliness – svilirci – of which Christ speaks to us through the Church at prayer]?

We are torn from Him when we are not obedient to the Word of the Lord, when we do not live brotherhood between us, when we race to occupy the first places, when we find the courage to witness to charity, when we are unable to offer hope. The Eucharist allows us to be not torn from Him, for it is the bond of communion, is the fulfillment of the Covenant, a living sign of the love of Christ who humbled and annihilated Himself for us, that we might remain united. By participating in the Eucharist and by feeding on it, we are inserted into a way that does not admit divisions. The Christ present in our midst, in the signs of bread and wine, requires that the power of love exceed every laceration, and at the same time that it become communion with the poor, support for the weak, fraternal attention to those who are struggling to carry the weight of everyday life.

And what it means for us today “svilirci” – to be cowardly, to despair of our sinfulness, that is, to let our Christian dignity be watered down, [or to adulterate it ourselves]? It means to let ourselves be affected by the idolatries of our time: appearance, consumption, the self at the center of everything; but also being competitive, arrogance as the winning attitude, the idea that one never need admit to a mistake or to find oneself in need. All this demeans us, makes us mediocre, lukewarm, insipid Christians.

Jesus shed his blood as a ransom and as a lavacrum – a cleansing agent, that we might be purified of all sins:  in order that we fall not into cowardice, despair of sinfulness, that we not become weak, let us look to him, let us drink deep draughts from His source, that we might be preserved from the risk of corruption. Then shall we experience the grace of a transformation: we will remain always poor sinners, but the Blood of Christ will deliver us from our sins and give us back our dignity. Without merit of our own, with sincere humility, we can bring to our brethren the love of our Lord and Savior. We will be His eyes that go in search of Zacchaeus and of the Magdalene; we will be His hand who helps the sick in body and spirit; we will be His heart that loves those in need of reconciliation and understanding.

Thus does the Eucharist make present the Covenant that sanctifies us, purifies us and unites us in marvelous communion with God.

Today, the feast of Corpus Domini, we have the joy not only of celebrating this mystery, but also of praising Him and singing in the streets of our city. May the procession we will make at the end of the Mass, express our gratitude for all the journey that God has allowed us to make through  the desert of our poverty, to take us out of slavery, by nourishing us with His love through the Sacrament of his Body and the Blood.

In a little while we shall walk along the way, let us perceive ourselves in communion with our many brothers and sisters who do not have the freedom to express their faith in the Lord Jesus. Let us feel ourselves united with them, let us sing with them, praise with them, adore with them. And we venerate in our hearts those brothers and sisters from whom the sacrifice of their lives has been required for fidelity to Christ: let their blood, united to that of the Lord, be a pledge of peace and reconciliation for the whole world.

CARDINAL KASPER RECANTS HIS ARROGANCE!

It sounds like Pope Francis is reigning in his arrogant cabal! It appears to be a course correction!

Cardinal Kasper: Pope never approved my proposal 

Catholic World News - June 04, 2015

Cardinal Walter Kasper has admitted that Pope Francis never endorsed his proposal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. 

The German cardinal, who offered his proposal in February 2014 at a meeting of the College of Cardinals, said that the Pope had invited him to speak, but it was a “misunderstanding” to think that the Holy Father had given his approval to the proposal. 

In an interview with Raymond Arroyo of ETWN, Cardinal Kasper denied having said that the Pope backed his proposal. “Well, this I did not say,” he said. When Arroyo quoted Cardinal Kasper’s claim of papal approval (“Clearly, this is what he wants”), the cardinal answered: “No… he did not approve my proposal.” 

Cardinal Kasper went on to explain that Pope Francis wanted the question raised, and wanted discussion of the idea, but “I wouldn’t say he approved the proposal; no, no, no.” 

Last October, in an interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal Kasper had clearly implied papal approval for his plan, but said that the Pope would not take action without the approval of the Synod of Bishops. “I have the impression the Pope is ready to reaffirm such a thing, but now it depends also on the voices of the bishops in the Synod,” he said. 

In his interview with Arroyo, Cardinal Kasper stressed that he was presenting a question for debate at the Synod of Bishops, not making a plea for change. “It’s not a proposal,” he said.

FAIR AND BALANCED: GOOD ARTICLE ON THE EMENIES OF POPE FRANCIS!

Francis needs to keep his ‘enemies’ close

The following article printed today in the Catholic Herald is quite good and quite revealing. I won't comment further other than to highlight in bold what I've been saying all along!

-----------

As the crucial family synod approaches, his critics could prove his greatest allies

A French journalist working on a documentary about opposition to the Pope recently asked Cardinal Raymond Burke if he was an enemy of Francis. The reply was illuminating. “Well, I certainly hope he’s not my enemy,” retorted the former head of the Vatican’s supreme court, who now occupies a largely ceremonial sinecure as patron of the Knights of Malta.

Does the Pope really have enemies? Catholics used to pray in the liturgy that he would be saved from them, but it was taken for granted then that we were referring to enemies outside the Church. There remain terror groups like ISIS that would like to harm him physically. But what might shock some Catholics is the notion that the Pope might have “enemies” inside the Church. And, as I will argue, they may actually turn out to be his greatest allies at this October’s crucial family synod.

Since the Counter-Reformation, and the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, the authority of the Roman pontiff has seemed absolute. But after the Second Vatican Council what was always a reality has become more visible: all popes encounter questioning and even opposition in implementing their policies for the governance of the Church.

Resistance is often to be found not only in the diverse reality of the wider Church, but even within what has to many appeared as the inner sanctum of absolute papal power: the Roman Curia. Benedict XVI resigned precisely because he believed that only a younger and stronger man could overcome this insidious internal foe.

Cardinal Burke’s response to the French reporter highlights an important fact: if we are to understand who the Pope’s enemies may be, we have to start by asking to whom he may at least appear as an enemy.

Looking at Catholic opinion worldwide, all the indications are that the Pope enjoys enormous and unprecedented popularity among the ordinary faithful. A cursory acquaintance with Catholic bloggers, however, will reveal there is no unanimity about the wisdom of much of Francis’ action and teaching. To the extent that the unease often comes from some of the most committed and informed circles of Catholic opinion, their minority status should prevent us from dismissing them out of hand.

The Pope has been unswerving as a critic of untrammelled capitalism and its effects on the poor. This has won him critics among those who adhere to the more dogmatic versions of free market ideology. In general, the more strident of these voices come from the other side of the Atlantic and have relatively little influence among British Catholics.

In America, in particular, the critical voices come from both outside and inside the Church. Those who are Catholics, who come usually from more theologically conservative quarters, suffer from an embarrassing disadvantage. Criticism of papal teaching has hitherto been associated with theological liberals, and those who are now feeling the heat were often wont to club the “dissenters” over the head with enthusiastic assertions of papal teaching authority.

How do Francis’s critics react now that the boot is seemingly on the other foot? The tendency is to distinguish between authentic magisterial teaching and what some affirm is merely the personal opinion of the Pope. This point is sound if it concerns the manner of the teaching – an off-the-cuff remark in an interview doesn’t have the same weight as an encyclical. But these distinctions are on shaky ground when they concern the subject matter of the teaching; morality is not solely about private behaviour. Papal teaching on economic justice is just as much part of the Church’s Magisterium as teaching on life issues and sexual morality. Indeed, together these form a seamless whole.

In fact, the Pope’s combative statements on social justice contain nothing new. They are essentially in continuity not only with those of his immediate predecessors, but also with papal social teaching back to Leo XIII. The selective moralising and loyalty of some of the culture warriors should be seen for what it is. We can expect more of it when the Pope releases his environmental encyclical on June 16.

Another important group of critics are those who argue that Francis is replacing the clear Magisterium of recent popes with a style of teaching that seems unclear and even contradictory. Their worries were reinforced when loyal servants of Benedict XVI were ejected from positions of influence and when Francis explicitly disavowed the retired pope’s projects, such as the liturgical “reform of the reform”. 

The disarray of some laity is evident from the blogs, where expressions of legitimate concern sometimes stray over the boundary into disrespectful carping and, shamefully, even insult and invective. 

Yet concern goes beyond the ranks of conservative laity. Francis often talks as if he has an animus against the pious, even against the clergy as a whole. It’s true that the latter can exhibit a caste mentality and a sense of entitlement. That these faults seem resurgent among the young is largely a reaction against the dilution of the priestly identity, which occurred from the late 1960s as the teachings of Vatican II were poorly interpreted through a secularising lens. Similarly, some pious people show little compassion towards the less virtuous and little understanding of their struggles. 

Nevertheless, some feel that Francis is overlooking the positive elements of the witness of those clergy and laity who are trying to follow the Church’s teaching, often at the cost of real sacrifice.

Few will admit it, but let’s be honest: Francis also has critics in the episcopate. Some bishops privately express serious misgivings about both the style and substance of his governance. The Italian episcopate, I am told, is seriously divided. Although his position at the head of the bishops’ conference reinforces his natural discretion, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco is said to be prominent among the discontented. There is also reportedly much disaffection in Poland, where bishops are worried that the legacy of St John Paul II is being dismantled. In the United States, the promotion of reputed liberals such as Archbishop Blaise Cupich, who blazed a lonely trail among an increasingly conservative episcopate until Francis catapulted him to the major see of Chicago, has heightened a sense of unease among some bishops.

And what of the Roman Curia, that traditional hotbed of faction and intrigue? It is becoming increasingly apparent that reform is not only destined to be a slow and piecemeal process, but is unlikely ever to assume the revolutionary proportions many were hoping for. The diplomats, whose dominance Benedict had sought to diminish, seem firmly back in charge of the structures, while a kitchen cabinet of curial outsiders is said to be guiding a Pope who seems determined to bypass curial structures and proceedings to achieve his goals.

Since many cardinals voted for Francis precisely in the hope of a root and branch pruning of the Curia, the sense of disappointment is bound to grow. Many of his electors were Ratzingerians frustrated by the barely concealed way in which Benedict’s projects were hindered or ignored by his collaborators, and they were assured that his legacy would be respected. Some of these imply they are feeling not merely disappointed, but cheated.

The promotion of officials who have leapfrogged more experienced colleagues because of their closeness to those who have the Pope’s ear has reinforced a sense of resentment among many who have no theological axe to grind. They argue that, rather than moral reform, the change of atmosphere conceals nothing more than the very classical triumph of a faction.

In no area has the existence of opposition to the Pope become more visible than in the discussions surrounding the family synod. The outpourings of frustration from those who thought that last year’s synod was being manipulated were directed at the prelates whom Francis had put in charge of the proceedings rather than at the Pope himself. But the fact that Francis had seemed to favour the proponents of a relaxation of discipline, with the German theologian Cardinal Walter Kasper at their head, meant that the Pope was often seen as the real target.

Of those who have stood up for the traditional teaching and discipline, it was Cardinal Burke who came closest to direct criticism of the Pontiff, saying openly that it was a mistake to allow discussion on an issue inseparably linked to doctrine.

The Italian Vatican-watcher Sandro Magister has reported that curialists who believe the Pope is on their side are worried by the attacks and have formed a “Cenacle of the Friends of Pope Francis”, meeting monthly under the guidance of Cardinal Kasper and the Italian Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio. They may have reason to be worried, but it may be that the danger is real not for the Pope himself but for their pretensions to be his authentic interpreters. There are signs that the Pope is retreating from their advanced positions. Recently his teaching on the hot-button issues where the Church is most in conflict with modern society has been sounding much more traditional. Expectations are that the next instalment of what is in reality a single synod in two acts will not deliver the outcome the progressives are hoping for.

If that is the case, we will soon discover who the Pope’s true friends are. Already there are signs that the secular media are discovering that Francis is not the flower child they were hoping for, and are beginning to turn on him. The Pope himself has recognised that he has perhaps aroused expectations than cannot be fulfilled, and we must hope that the “friends” of today do not become the enemies of tomorrow, as happened to Paul VI after he issued Humanae Vitae.

In reality, honest and open critics like Cardinal Burke have never been anything like “enemies” of the Pope. Francis has called for honest and open debate, and those who have respectfully taken up his invitation, without careerist acquiescence, are more than “His Holiness’s loyal opposition”; they are his real friends.

The duties of faithful Catholics towards the Pope are respect, obedience in matters of Church law and submission in matters of doctrine, not acclaim for his every word and action. It has been distressing recently to see attacks from quarters that were hardly Ultramontanist, or even particularly courteous under Benedict, against those deemed to show insufficient enthusiasm for Francis.

It was a mistake to demote loyal servants of the Church like Cardinal Burke who, as even his opponents concede, is wholly innocent of careerism. It goes against the political wisdom of keeping your friends close and your “enemies” closer (and, in fact, the cardinal has been freer to defend and promote his views more widely since his demotion).

Disappointed advocates of change may openly turn on Francis after the synod. Others, including some of the better disposed observers, suggest this is a pontificate running out of steam. The Pope’s immense popularity gives him a unique opportunity to heal the internal wounds of the Church and to promote the Catholic faith in all its beauty, as a promise of mercy and a call to conversion. This opportunity must not be wasted.

There are embittered and ideological Catholics who mistake rigidity for orthodoxy and venom for fidelity. The Holy Father is right to seek to challenge and convert these people. But if he is to do so effectively he must convince them first that he understands their concerns.

No true Catholic can be an enemy of the Pope. This year’s synod is the ideal moment for Francis to show some of them that he is not theirs.

Fr Mark Drew holds a doctorate in ecumenical theology from the Institut Catholique in Paris, and has also studied in Germany and Rome. He currently serves at St Wilfrid’s, York
This article first appeared in the latest edition of the Catholic Herald magazine (05/6/15).

CATHOLIC IDOLATERS, TRADITIONAL AND MODERN

There is a silly debate about the two forms of the one Roman Rite. In fact over the centuries in the Latin Rite there have been many forms or rites and after Summorum Pontificum many of these rites were resurrected as a part of what Pope Benedict named the Extraordinary Form. So there is not even uniformity in the Extraordinary Form.

The silly debate is whether or not the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is the Traditional Latin Mass. Former PI is wrong about the Traditional Latin Mass descriptive when he says it also applies to the revised or Ordinary Form of the Mass. The Traditional Latin Mass refers exclusively to the older use Mass, the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite.

However, I do not see calling the Modern Mass, modern, as a negative thing. What is important, unless one becomes an idolater who worships the form of the Mass rather than the true God, is what both Masses accomplish. When properly celebrated according to the books and when those in attendance are properly disposed to the graces that flow from the Mass, what is accomplish identically in both forms, be it traditional or modern, is the salvation of souls through the Real Presence of Christ on the altar offered in an unbloody way for our salvation. We are dismissed from both forms of the Mass to bring Christ to the world by the manner in which we live our lives as followers of Christ in His Holy Catholic Church, thus emphasizing that salvation is an unmerited gift from God that demands that we respond with the gifts of faith, hope and good works (charity, love) and the greatest gift, of course, is love (charity, good works)!

HAPPY CORPUS CHRISTI FROM THE POPES

A peculiar thing happens in Rome today. Italy, like the USA, has transferred the Solemnity of Corpus Christi to this coming Sunday. However, the Vatican City State still celebrates it on the proper day. Thus the Bishop of Rome celebrates the Solemnity of Corpus Christi today even though Roman Churches will do it again on Sunday. How weird is that?

Pope Francis will celebrate Mass outside in front of the Cathedral Church of Rome, the Basilica of Saint John Lateran. After the Prayer after Holy Communion, the Most Blessed Sacrament will be placed in a monstrance and then placed securely on the back of a Chevy flatbed pickup truck and a marvelous procession will form. Southerners truly love this part of the procession! It is inculturation at its best!

Pope Benedict would kneel before the Most Blessed Sacrament on the flatbed of the truck and then truck on down to the Basilica of Saint Mary Major for Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Pope Francis in the past walks behind the Chevy pickup.

At the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, Pope Francis will celebrate Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament ad orientem.

And from a Corpus Christi in the not to distant past:

TRAGIC AND INTERESTING ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

Pope Francis must have approved of this, no?

Holy See puts Fellay in charge of trying one of his own priests

 

Bernard Fellay

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Lefebvre, to be the first-instance trial judge in the case against a Lefebvrian priest who is accused of a serious crime

ANDREA TORNIELLI vatican city He announced it himself during the course of a sermon at Our Lady of the Angels church in Arcadia, California, on May 10, 2015: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay, as first-instance judge in a case involving a Lefebvrian priest. The former Holy Office is in charge of dealing with a number of “delicta graviora”. The one that pops up most frequently, is the one involving the sexual abuse of minors. Fellay presented this as an example of the “contradictions” in the Holy See’s approach to the Fraternity.

“We are labeled now as being irregular, at best. “Irregular” means you cannot do anything, and so for example they have prohibited us from saying Mass in the churches in Rome, for the Dominican sisters who had their pilgrimage in Rome in February. They say, “No, you cannot, because you are irregular”. And these people [who] say that, were people of [Pontifical Commission] Ecclesia Dei.” 

“Now, sometimes, unfortunately,” Bishop Fellay said, “also priests do silly things, and they need to be punished. And when it is very, very serious, we have to make recourse to Rome. So we do. And what does the Congregation of the Faith do? Well, they did appoint me as the judge for this case.  So I was appointed by Rome, by the Congregation of the Faith, to make judgements, canonical Church judgements on some of our priests who belong to a non-existent Society for them (for Rome, Ed.). And so, once again, a beautiful contradiction indeed.”

This is not the first time the SSPX has made recourse to Rome when it comes to “delicta graviora” and dispensations from priestly obligations. What is new in this case is that the former Holy Office headed by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has decided to entrust the case to Mgr. Fellay himself, making him first-instance trial judge. An expression of attention. A sign that the path toward full communion with the Lefebvrians continues, as Archbishop Guido Pozzo confirmed in a statement to Vatican Insider. He archbishop, who is also Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said: “The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not imply that existing problems have been resolved, but it is a sign of benevolence and magnanimity. I see no contradiction here, but rather, a step toward reconciliation.”

Readers will recall that another important sign came last April, when the Archbishop of Buenos Aires gave the green light for Lefebvrians to be registered by the Argentinian government as a “diocesan association”. Also, a large group of SSPX pilgrims was allowed to celebrate the Eucharist in Lourdes Basilica.

So why does Fellay speak of a contradiction? His comment was in reference to last February’s pilgrimage to Rome, which saw the participation of 1500 faithful. The pilgrimage was organised by Dominican sisters with links to the SSPX. A request was submitted to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei for mass to be celebrated at the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica. On this occasion, however, the heads of the Commission, decided that the celebration of a mass by a Lefebvrian priest before existing problems were resolved in view of canonical regularisation and full communion would have sent out the wrong signal. Nevertheless, Pope Francis gave his approval to a proposal for the requested mass to be celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica but by an Ecclesia Dei priest and according to the old rite. Leaders of the Fraternity declined the offer.

Still, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s appointment of Fellay as first-instance trial judge, shows that progress is being made in terms of the dialogue between the Church and the SSPX.

IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG FOR EVERYTHING TO CHANGE

Evans, Georgia is a suburb of Augusta, Georgia. In January a five star retirement community opened for those 55 and older. It took years of planning and building.

Here is the construction phase and it is huge (notice anyting that could be worrying about the construction?):

Here are some shots of portions of the completed project just opened in January:

And here is what it looked like yesterday (Tuesday) morning!

The apartments are one, two or three bedrooms. 85 residents had moved in. All but two where evacuated before the fire was completely out of control destroying the entire building!

One 91 year old resident died in the fire.

Another was found 8 hours after the fire began hunkering down in her bathroom and apart from some smoke inhalation was doing fine. Her daughter presumed she had died in the fire and had begun to make funeral arrangements!

You just never know how life will change in an instant.

LITURGIPHILES MAY NOT APPRECIATE IT; BUT WHAT ABOUT RANK AND FILE CATHOLICS WHO AREN'T

How did the Church go from loving this:

To loving this? And are the two views of the one Latin Rite even the same thing, theologically, spiritually and doctrinally?

Many who comment here have a disdain for the Ordinary Form of the Mass, which, by the way, I don't. I love it especially when it is celebrated properly although I recognize it needs a bit of reform to bring it into continuity with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

But of the 11% to 22% of Catholics who still attend Mass regularly, and lets say of that, 1% are the Extraordinary Form lovers, what is their impression of the Mass? Do they love it? Do they like contemporary music? Do they like a priest whose personality and ad libs overrun the Mass?

I fear they love all the aspects of the Mass they experience that are wrong. That is a problem.

They love a priest who banters with them, who uses banal greetings after the religious ones and makes them feel welcome and warm and like they are at a cocktail bar enjoying friends.

They love music that entertains them and gets their adrenalin going with musicians in front acting like a amateur act.

They love a quick Mass, short homily and casual atmosphere.

They love a Mass that is like watching the Price is Right in their living room as they eat their lunch from a tray table.

To be honest with you, I don't know how to fix this. It is overwhelming. 

BOMBSHELL: WHEN IT COMES TO THE LITURGY EVEN I'M BEGINNING TO BELIEVE I AM CLAIRVOYANT!

In my bulletin letter for my parish for Trinity Sunday and again for the upcoming Corpus Christi bulletin letter, I am emphasizing the need for Catholics to rediscover the Biblical attitude and disposition before Almighty God. This entails a sense of awe and reverence, a deep piety of the gift of the Holy Spirit called "Fear of the Lord" not only in the sense of the "fear of the pains of hell" but most of all because we should love God above all things.

I give in the Corpus Christi letter pointers to help recover a truly Catholic spirituality and piety, the proper disposition before God.

But as you know, I have been writing all along that the Sacraments, especially the manner in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated, needs to recover the pre-Vatican II sense of piety, reverence and wonder and awe before the great Mystery that we celebrate and in which we are redeemed when properly disposed to the graces that are available.

There are three simple things that the Ordinary Form of the Mass could recover and is recovering in some places, that could be implemented without changing that missal at all. They are:

1. Ad Orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist
2. Kneeling for Holy Communion (and intinction as the norm for receiving under both Forms)
3. Rediscovery of sober, timeless chants for the Mass and mandating the Propers be chanted or spoken in a low Mass

As you know, while I love the 1962 Roman Missal, I know too that it will not become the Ordinary Form of the Mass ever again. However, its celebration which is growing around the world, will influence priests and laity to recover the piety, reverence and sense of wonder and awe as well as holy fear of the Lord of the 1962 Roman Missal for the Ordinary Form's Missal. It will influence the Ordinary Form of the Mass and how it is celebrated.

Then in an organic way the Ordinary Form of the Mass's Roman Missal will be revised slightly, not dramatically to reflect a better continuity between it and the 1962 Roman Missal. In other words a third Roman Missal will evolve in a couple of decades if not well before.

This is what Cardinal Robert Sarah recently said to the liturgical conference "Sacra Liturgia as reported by Rorate Caeil and I have to admit, it sounds like Cardinal Sarah has been reading my blog! Cue the Twilight Zone music:

His Eminence, Robert Cardinal Sarah's Message to the Conference (link), in which argues strongly for the importance of liturgy sanity to any renewal in the Church:

2. Because the Sacred Liturgy is truly the font from which all the Church's power flows, as the Second Vatican Council insists (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10), we must do everything we can to put the Sacred Liturgy back at the very heart of the relationship between God and man, recognising the primacy of Almighty God in this privileged and unique forum in which we, individually and ecclesially, encounter God at work in our world. One cannot encounter God, my brothers and sisters, without trembling, without awe, without profound respect and holy fear. This is why we must rank what Cardinal Ratzinger called "the right way of celebrating the Liturgy, inwardly and outwardly" first amongst our concerns (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, San Francisco 2000, p. 9).

Cardinal Sarah continues with an important revelation: 

3. When the Holy Father, Pope Francis, asked me to accept the ministry of Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, I asked: "Your Holiness, how do you want me to exercise this ministry? What do you want me to do as Prefect of this Congregation?" The Holy Father's reply was clear. "I want you to continue to implement the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council," he said, "and I want you to continue the good work in the liturgy begun by Pope Benedict XVI."

My friends, I want you to help me in this task. I ask you to continue to work towards achieving the liturgical aims of the Second Vatican Council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, I) and to work to continue the liturgical renewal promoted by Pope Benedict XVI, especially through the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis of 22 February 2007 and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum of 7 July 2007. I ask you to be wise, like the householder in St Matthew's Gospel, who knows when to bring out of his treasure things both new and old (cf. Mtt: 13: 52), so that the Sacred Liturgy as it is celebrated and lived today may lose nothing of the estimable riches of the Church's liturgical tradition, whilst always being open to legitimate development (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23).  

At the end of his message, Cardinal Sarah expresses the hope that he will be able to join the next Sacra Liturgia meeting, to be held on July 2016 in London. He also asks for prayers that he may faithfully exercise the service to which he has been called. 

IF YOU DON'T THINK THE WORLD IS TRYING TO CHANGE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THINK AGAIN--THE WORLDLY MAGISTERIUM, MORE DOGMATIC AND AUTHORITARIAN THAN THE CHURCH'S TRUE MAGISTERIUM AT ANY POINT IN HISTORY, REDICULES THE CHURCH'S DOGMAS AND MORALS

This snarky interview and commentary shows what the true Church is up against and how the worldly "magisterium" wants to divide and conquer Catholics. They are using the pope to do it as though the Pope is on their side. Never mind that Pope Francis over and over again is warning the Church about being worldly and being tempted by the devil to abandon the Faith and Morals of the Church. Pope Francis would call this commentary the way the worldly "magisterium" is colonizing the Church and the world with ideolgies of the devil! They will fail of course!

A WELCOMED NEW TREND IN FUNERALS!

CENSORSHIP IN THE MOVIES THAT LASTED UP UNTIL THE 1960'S! A GOOD THING? I REPORT YOUR DECIDE!

Late Sunday afternoon I watched again the last part of "The Bad Seed" a 1956 movie about, how should I say it, a bad  precocious, little girl. Indeed she is bad! No, pathological and she is played brilliantly by the actress who takes the role.

But even in the mid 1950's Hollywood had strict standards for movies and censorship. Why, because many in the film industry as well as in society in general had moral standards and a deep concern for the common good. It wasn't just about money, although that is why films are made, there was a sense of responsibility for building a moral society or at least not contributing to the delinquency of society. It was a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage!

Thus for a movie like "The Bad Seed" the following was in place:

"Although the novel and play had the mother dying of suicide and the evil child surviving, the Hays Code did not allow for "crime to pay." The ending of the film thus has it the other way around, with Christine's life being saved by the local hospital and Rhoda being struck down by lightning while trying to retrieve the penmanship medal from the lake which belonged to a little boy she had murdered.

In another move to appease the censors, Warner Bros. added an "adults only" tag to the film's advertising."

 But in the 1950's for a movie to have a pathological little, precocious murdering child was pushing the envelope too, although I am sure the audience at the movie would have applauded and cheered the little girl's gruesome death!

 So after the little girl is reduced to ashes before the audience's eyes in the last scene at the lake when a bolt of lightening (poetic justice) strikes her, this is what the audience sees as a kind of a Broadway Curtain Call. It reduced the shock of what had just occurred and let everyone know it was just a movie!