BOMBSHELL! IS THE POPE BRINGING HIS OWN CARRY-ON THE ANTI-FANNON?

POPE FRANCIS CARRIES HIS OWN CARRY-ON FOR HIS FLIGHT TO BRAZIL! IS THE SYMBOLISM OF THIS THE ANTI-FANNON OF PAPAL PROTOCOL?


This is NBC's take on Pope Francis holiday:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SOME IN BRAZIL AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD THINK THE WAY TO WIN BACK CATHOLICS FROM THE EVANGELICAL, PENTECOSTAL PROTESTANTS IS TO MIMIC THEIR APPROACH TO WORSHIP. BUT I WONDER IF THIS DOESN'T REALLY PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF THE PROTESTANT PENTECOSTALS AND INDICATE TO CATHOLICS A FALSE EGALITARIANISM AMONGST CATHOLICS AND OUR SEPARATED BRETHREN? WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO EMPHASIZE OUR OWN TRADITION AND TO DO IT WELL? THIS IS CNN'S TAKE ON THE POPE'S VISIT AND BRAZIL'S ANSWER TO JOEL OSTEEN AND JACK VAN IMPEE: MY FINAL COMMENTS: If you watch the video, this CNN reporter and those who helped her to put the video together show their prejudice, which is really the prejudice of heterodox Catholics who long to go backward to the good old 60's. The formality of the Catholic Mass, with its solemn devotional and spiritual elements is the bad guy causing the Church to lose Catholics to the Pentecostal Evangelicals who have a lively worship based upon the cult of the personality of the minister and the congregation that gets hyped up over worship experienced in an emotional way.

Surely in Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world, there are traditional Catholic Churches that are full of people, young, old and in between. Would you know this by this story's content? No! You would think that traditional Catholicism in Brazil in on life-support and the only hope for the Catholic Church is a Pentecostalized, Evangelical, Protestant, cult of the personality form of faux Catholicism.

I believe that Brazil also has a strong EF Community in union with Rome.

MOVING FORWARD AND GOING BACKWARDS ARE THE SAME AS ORTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY

A-5 makes good points about labels, liberal, conservative, traditionalist and progressive, moving forward and going backwards. A-5, he or she, prefers orthodox and heterodox. I would agree and disagree, for moving backward means moving to the heterodoxy of the 1960's and 70's a longing which a goodly number of aging Catholics would prefer.

Or moving backwards, means applying the 1960's mentality to current day issues.

Let me count the ways.

1. The heterodox of the 1960's wanted to do away with any semblance of the pre-Vatican II Liturgy and create a new liturgy considerably different and impose it upon the unprepared faithful. And even when prepared, a goodly number of the faithful did not see the created product as new and improved but rather heterodox. They were right, not so much in terms of the traditional theology and doctrine of the Mass, but the faux theology that the cabal of post-Vatican II theologians tried to create for the new Mass.

For the most part they failed from the Magisterial point of reference. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes that clear as does papal teaching from Pope Paul VI through Pope Francis.

These aging heterodox priests and theologians and some of them aren't that old, are apoplectic that Pope Benedict allowed with little or no restriction the pre-Vatican II Mass of the 1962 Missal and its other liturgies and devotions. For Pope Francis, the doctrine and dogmas are the same, except liberties taken with the new Mass, in unofficial ways and the dictating of so-called new theologies supposedly promoted by Vatican II or encouraged by it so that post-Vatican II theologians could take the ball and run, was and is called into question by the genius of Pope Benedict for which the Church will be eternally grateful.

2. Going backwards to the immediate Post Vatican II era is ideological and Pope Francis doesn't want to do that. The Holy Father wants to proclaim the Faith to a paganized world, which includes paganized Catholics. But he wants to do it without being shrill.He doesn't want to condemn but invite people to conversion and he wants them to do so by the Grace of God and through faith and reason and with full consent of the will, in complete freedom. Who can call that Heterodox? It is orthodox!

3. He does not want to condemn sinners, but call them to conversion. This includes those who have same sex attractions. Yet he will uphold the doctrines of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and that the sanctity of marriage extends beyond the Catholic Church as it is a divine institution that transcends the Church. But he will work within soceity and social trends to make this message known, just as we do today with Catholics who are divorced and "remarried" outside of the Church in legal ceremonies of the state and sometimes in the churches of our separated brethren.

Thus, moving backwards doesn't mean embracing the Mass of any era previous to the current one, but simply embracing the Mass in any orthodox form is moving forward and the real presence of Christ is there, His sacrifice on the Cross and the manner in which He makes us members of His Church, which is His spotless bride. It matters not which way the Liturgies of the Sacraments are celebrated as long as they are faithful to orthodoxy!

Moving backwards is the heterodoxy of the 1960's and moving forward is the orthodoxy of the Church of the ages.

RETRO IDEOLOGUES OR MOVING FORWARD WITH POPE FRANCIS; THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE SOUND CHOICE!

As I reflect upon the Thomistic Institute's conference this past week in Nashville, I am grateful to be able to attend a conference that looks to the future, that moves priests and the Church forward and based upon fidelity to the Church and what the Church is asking us to do today, not only liturgically but in every other way.

We can contrast this with groups in the Church, usually older, nostalgic for the hippy-dippy 1960's and 1970's and desiring the Church to go backwards to a time of the 1973 missal, ad libbed Masses and overall me, me, me generation.

There are still people debating the new translation and wanting to reverse what we have gained thus far. They want to go back to the "We" of the Creed, the "and also with you" of the greetings and an equivalent translation of the English from the Latin that leads to a dumbed down version of our liturgical piety and spirituality.

Thank God the conference I attended wasn't into these ideologies. Rather, they embraced with enthusiasm the new liturgy chanted properly and with the entire liturgy celebrated, including the Propers.

They support the Church's teachings on every issue there is even the most controversial, the parts of the Church's teachings that the retro crowd would like to eliminate, especially the natural law parts, such as the themes touched on by Humanae Vitae. This retro group, which has a few young people, like the dying orders of men and women religious, really think renewal lies in the direction of the recent past cut off from its more historic and distant past, its tradition.

So in the Church we have that dying breed that has a few younger adherents trying to move us backwards and we have a whole new generation that wants to embrace what the Church is doing today with what Pope Francis is calling us to do, to be faithful to the Pope and the Magisterium. This doesn't fit well with the retro crowd at all and in fact they tend to be in denial about the Holy Father's call to fidelity and tend to focus on his social doctrine and slight liturgical quirks as though he doesn't say the other things too about fidelity to the Magisterium. They seem to think his liturgical quirks are of the 1970's variety when in fact these are quite sober and minor compared to what the retro crowd would really desire.

Moving forward with the "I" of the Creed, and the "with your spirit" of the greetings is but the tip of the iceberg. The Holy Father is preparing us for fidelity to the Church and her Magisterium, which is not just the living Magisterium but all the Magisteriums that have preceded the living one.

SUBSTANCE AND SPIRITUALITY OVER HYPE AND ENTERTAINMENT

Photo by Fr. Pat Foley, taken at the chapel of the mother house of the Nashville Dominican Sisters, who know how to do religious life right!

I just returned from the Thomistic Institute's conference for priests in Nashville. The theme was "Priest as Teacher of the Faith."

I will summarize a few of the points. Fr. Paul Scaliawhose father is: spoke of speaking the truth in and out of season. Many of the participants wanted to know how to teach what the Church teaches about marriage and sexuality given the fact that the Supreme Court has opened wide the door to same sex marriage throughout the land. How do we as Catholics teach the truth of marriage and sexuality without coming across as bigots or being painted as bigots for political purposes.

Father Scalia along with Fr. Michael Sherwin helped us with moral issues on a pastoral way.

We simply teach the truths of sexuality as it applies to people, whoever they are and whatever their sexual orientation. We don't single out any group, but speak of chastity within marriage and outside of marriage. We teach that marriage is linked to fecundity and the begetting of children and we shore that up with Natural Law in addition to Scripture and Tradition. We make clear that for us Catholics, we rely on the three legs of Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law to uphold the truths of God revealed to us by God through these three sources. It really is quite simple.

We are also grateful to God that he has used the HHS mandate to let the government bring up artificial birth control in our culture at large to enable us as Catholic priests to make clear our teachings are in terms of natural law and the use of artificial contraception. We have to begin with heterosexual relationships even in marriage that have become as sterile as homosexual sex by rendering it infertile by mechanical means and thus has opened the door to the acceptance of homosexual sodomy as well as the heterosexual type as well and placed it on an even par with fertile love in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

The Liturgies we celebrated at the conference were in the Ordinary Form and facing the nave. However, the music was classic chant in English and Latin. The official Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons were chanted in English, the other parts in Latin.

This was a mature celebration of the OF Mass, dignified and solemn. It was contemplative and imbued with internal and external participation. It did not rely upon hyped up secular melodies with sacred words that are paraphrases of Scripture or worse yet, ideological hymns that make a political or religious point.

Given the abysmal style of active participation we have today that relies on hymns that produce a narcotic effect upon its participants, we have a long way to go in helping our Catholics to discover the true nature of Catholic spirituality to be found in Chant and the forsaking of hymns in order to sing the proper chants of the Mass.

A hymn was sung at the recession. That's the best place for it. And certainly at parish Masses motets and other good quality hymns could be chosen in addition to the Offertory and Communion chants as filler. But the hymns chosen should be of the same quality and style as the chants in English or Latin that evolve from Gregorian Chant an polyphony.

Finally, it must be noted that when the congregation relies on the glories of the congregation and communal prayer as the substance of the Liturgy and the other Sacraments we go astray with the truly superficial.

Fr. Romanus Cessario, OP reminded us that we must rediscover the medicinal aspects of the Liturgy and other sacraments to heal the sin sick soul. Our passions are disordered and the Sacraments, especially the Mass, are meant to order our disordered lives. If we emphasize the communal in the liturgy and other sacramental celebrations and turn them into purely horizontal, feel good celebrations filled with hype and no substance, we reduce the fecundity of these celebrations and render them secular and sterile.

Ultimately, our liturgical and sacramental celebrations should heal us for eternal life in heaven which the Mass is a foretaste. We must emphasize the vertical and what God gives us in terms of our ability to worship Him and be healed by Him. We must be open to God ordering our disordered passions that lead us into spiritual disease and everlasting damnation. Ordering the disordered passions of our lives leads to healing and wholeness, holiness and eternal life in heaven.

Fr. Jeremy Driscoll, OSB helped us to understand the parts of the Mass and that we should allow God's grace to open our minds and hearts to all God desires for us as we enter into and contemplate the Sacred Mysteries. The new richness of the reformed translation lifts us to a elevated communication with God and we shouldn't ad lib during the Mass with a folksy way of speaking.

It was a very good conference.

GOOD NEWS: POPE FRANCIS WILL DISAPPOINT PROGRESSIVES! BAD NEWS: POPE FRANCIS WILL DISAPPOINT TRADITIONALISTS

The Catholic Harold of the United Kingdom reports the following:

Both ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ Catholics will be disappointed in Pope Francis’ programme of spiritual renewal, doctrinal continuity and emphasis on the poor, a top German cardinal said.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper, Il Foglio, Cardinal Walter Kasper, a theologian and retired president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said: “Many people are enthusiastic about (Pope Francis). He is a true pastor, he has great charm, a direct approach with people.”

But he added that “many will be disappointed in Francis”, claiming that the “conservative” branch of the Church already feels let down “because he doesn’t have the intellectual heft of Benedict and then because he abolished the pontifical court – something I am grateful for; it was an anachronistic extravagance.”

The cardinal predicted the “progressive” wing would not be happy either because even though the Pope has ushered in a change in style, “he will not change the content.”

“There is continuity in the doctrine between him and Benedict,” he said. Pope Francis “will not change anything with priestly celibacy, will not open ordinations to women” or promote other “progressive” issues that are not part of Church teaching.

Pope Francis “is not a conservative or a progressive. He wants a poor church and (a church) of the poor,” and he is keenly aware that a large part of the world lives in extreme poverty, the cardinal said.

Given the level of misery in the world, “I believe he will change the Church’s agenda” so that it “has to take seriously the problems” of the developing world, he added.

In the interview, Cardinal Kasper also said Pope Francis will face resistance within the curia, which, the cardinal believes, needs both organisational revamping and a change of mentality.

Attempts at reform will bring resistance and difficulties “just like with every big institution,” he said. “However, this Pope is very determined. He knows what he wants.”

The 80-year-old cardinal, who was eligible by just five days to be part of the conclave that elected the new Pope, was described by Pope Francis as a “superb theologian.” During his first public Angelus address, the Pope referred to one of the cardinal’s recently published works as a book that “has done me so much good.”

MY FINAL COMMENT: This is good news and what is needed today. A recovery of majesty will come when we deserve it!

PRIEST AS THE TEACHER OF THE FAITH

The Thomistic Institute (the Dominicans) is sponsoring the continuing education conference that I am attending in Nashville. Our Masses are inculturated and at this morning's Mass Dolly Parton is the cantor with Lady Antebellum as the schola.

I came with a friend of mine from Pensacola, Fr. Pat Foley. He attended last year and told me that many of the priests are casually dressed. So since I am on vacation I took no clerics. Turns out we were the only two dressed this way which I am sure the younger cassocked generation of priests are thinking that eventually the biological solution will take care of us as my generation is responsible for the sad state of affairs in the Church these past 50 years.

All kidding aside, the conference thus far is great and quite informative.

We heard a new take on how the horizontal approach to the liturgy and sacraments has had such a deleterious effect on the Church these past 50 years. Definitely the verticle approach must be recovered and the medicinal purposes of healing the sin sick soul of disordered passions recovered.

WHILE TRADITIONALISTS MAY DISLIKE THE DISMANTLING OF SOME OF THE PAPAL TRAPPINGS BY POPE FRANCIS, HIS LEADERSHIP AT THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE IN SALVATION HISTORY IS PROVIDENTIAL!

This article is very insightful and very hopeful. Embrace Pope Francis, he knows what he is doing!

The Mission of Francis in a Church under total siege

By freeing himself from masters,
Bergoglio has found His own Master

by Antonio Socci

The Catholic Church is going through a season of epochal changes. Pope Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy in February was a historical gesture of enormous significance, which highlighted the great dramas of our time.

The arrival of Pope Francis to the Chair of Peter on March 13 is, even in his choice of name, the beginning of an evangelical “revolution” which is already stirring the people. (We will see this also in his upcoming trip to Brazil).

It is certain that he will change the Vatican as we have come to know it over the centuries: from “a Renaissance court” (as Pope Bergoglio said) it will become the home of the humble, crucified King, who embraces – just like the Bernini colonnades – all of the misery in the world.

The other day a friend and former student of the Pope, the Argentine writer and journalist Jorge Milia, related some of his telephone conversations with the Pontiff. And he gave us some enlightening news-flashes. First of all, he underlined “the gratitude and tenderness” that Francesco has for his predecessor: “he makes me feel that I have found an old friend.” “You cannot imagine the humility and wisdom of this man,” Pope Francis told him while speaking of Benedict XVI. “Well then, you must keep him close to you,” the writer replied. And the Pope responded: “I wouldn’t even think for a second about renouncing the counsel of a such a person - it would be foolish of me to do so.”

Then Jorge Milia spoke of the great crowds of people that are flocking to St. Peter’s Square, to hear his words and embrace him. Francis said: “They must be able to do this! It is my duty to listen to them, comfort them, pray with them and shake hands with them so that they sense that they are not alone.” But Pope Francis added that it was not easy to make this need understood in the Vatican, where they are used to an image of the Pope as an inaccessible entity. “It hasn’t been easy Jorge, because here there are many “masters” of the Pope with a much greater length of service.” said the Holy Father. He let it be understood that every change was extremely hard for [people] to digest – starting with the choice of not going to live in the legendary Papal “Apartment”. He made this decision because many popes “up there” ended up becoming “prisoners” of their secretaries and he did not want the same thing to happen to him: “I am the one who decides whom to see, not my secretaries…” Jorge Milia adds: “He told me that Popes have been isolated for centuries and this is not good. The place of the Pastor is to be with his sheep…”

The Pontiff has expressed this thought many times. It might seem just his personal propensity for cordiality, affability, compassion. But it is not only this. It is much more. It is a revolution in the concept of the Papacy. At least that of the last millennium. Certainly, his predecessors already initiated a progressive dismantling of the regal heaviness of the Curia, starting with Paul VI and John Paul II preferred taking to the streets of the world rather than staying in the Vatican. Benedict XVI shot thunderbolts against “careerism, clericalism, worldliness, divisions, ambitions of power.” He also called for evangelical poverty and used the atomic bomb against “the filth in the Church.”

Now we have Pope Francis who has begun to fulfill (it seems in an overpowering way) all that his predecessor had asked for a thousand times over. But what is being announced is not just the newness of a person (typical of every pontificate) and a strong change in structures but it is a radical mutation in the actual way of being Pope.
Francesco is trying to bring back the entire Church to what is essential, to Her apostolic origins, in short to Jesus Christ. As St. Francis did in the XII century.
The young man from Assisi was in the little ramshackle church of St. Damian, when he heard these words directly from the Crucified: “Go Francis, and repair my house, which as you can see, is falling into ruin.” He interpreted them to the letter and materially started to rebuild that little chapel. But his readiness in following the words of Jesus [also] repaired many wounded hearts and finally the Church Herself as a spiritual edifice.

So it is with Pope Francis who has chosen the name of the Saint from Assisi. He is also beginning with the essential - announcing Jesus - the consolation and tenderness of God for men - especially for the poorest and most suffering.

The other two key words of this pontificate are “mercy” (“God forgives always, forgives everything. It is we who become tired in being forgiven”) and “prayer” ( he is always repeating: ”Strong prayer is needed, and this humble prayer allows Jesus to work a miracle… Courageous prayer, which struggles to make that miracle reality. Prayer makes miracles happen, but we must believe this!”).

It is not that Pope Francis avoids the enormity of the attack that the world is conducting on the Church on all fronts. But what is the nature of this attack? The great persecutions of Christians in all of the Islamic world and tyrannical regimes (such as: China, Vietnam, Cuba and diverse African countries) continue. And this after the collapse of Communism in Europe twenty years ago, when the Church non longer served as a barrier against Marxism, added to anti-Christian hostility which spread from the United Stares of Clinton and Obama to the technocracy of Europe. It is not just the Christian Faith that is attacked, but the fundamentals of the natural law itself: the family - the union between man and woman, which has been at the base of all civilizations, from the ancient times before Christ, until today, but has now been radically trampled on and emptied [of meaning]. Since the Clinton years (which saw the entrance of China in the WTO) the new “one and only way of thinking” has been proclaimed by the western world along with a total “deregulation” of both economic-financial exchanges and human relations.

In the first case – with the bursting of the financial bubble in 2008 – we arrived at the brink of world-wide bankruptcy. In the second case we arrived at a devastating turning point in the history of civilization.

There was even the “conservative” parenthesis of George Bush Jr. who after the September 11, 2001, tended to call upon the Christian religion into a sort of “clash of civilizations” and religions with Islam. But the Church of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who also knew about the sufferings of Christians under Islam – had to refuse this call, for the reason that it would have been impious to put the seal of Christ on conflicts that had the aim of guaranteeing energy supplies to the West. Also because it would have been the Christian minorities in Islamic countries that would pay the price – as in fact has happened.

Now that the Church is under a perfect siege – from the anti-Christian USA and Europe on one side – and on the other the persecutory regimes in Asia, Africa and Muslim countries, Pope Francis emerges from this historic siege which threatens the very survival of the Church – by means of the only irresistible weapon with which the Church has always triumphed over the course of the centuries when persecuted: the Gospel (or as the Pope would say, “grace”).

It is false that the Pope has set aside the teachings of his predecessors on “the non-negotiable values” as the conservative Catholics reproach him for and as the progressive Catholics would like him to do. (His first encyclical “Lumen Fidei” demonstrates this).

Pope Francis simply knows that, in the situation at which we have arrived, it no longer makes any sense for the Church to break out into a cultural battle or in political action to exorcize, through human means, the collapse of a civilization and the “barbarian invasions”.

The Church knows that only the grace of Christ is indispensible for Her. That is why today the Pope asks for conversion (beginning with the dismantling of the “Renaissance Curia”): incessant prayer which obtains miracles; the marveling at Jesus “who kisses His wounds” in the poor, the sick and the desperate; the announcement and experience of the mercy of God for men.

It was in this way that the world was conquered peacefully and reconstructed by Christianity. And it will happen anew.

THANKS TO HENRY FOR THESE QUOTES FROM DR. ROWLAND ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TLM

Henry's take on the beauty of the TLM:

Far from criticizing the TLM nor the bulk of those who attend it, Dr. Rowland's Sacra Liturgia lecture was strongly supportive of the TLM in emphasizing its importance for the new evangelization, implying that Church leaders (I read "bishops" here) should recognize this and encourage the TLM accordingly. The remark about antiquated dress was peripherealin some final remarks where she was suggesting ways to encourage wider TLM participation. In contrast with all this "noise" stemming from the CNS video that appeared edited to present an emphasis that belied her arguments warmly in favor of the TLM, some of what she actually said in the main body of her presentation:

“I want to argue that the usus antiquior is an antidote to the ruthless attacks on memory and tradition and high culture, typical of the culture of modernity, and that it satisfies the desire of the post-modern generations to be embedded within a coherent, non-fragmented tradition that is open to the transcendent.”

“The project of the 1960s generation was one of transposing a high sacral language into the vernacular of a low mundane culture, with the result that something sacred became more mundane, and when the sacred becomes mundane, it becomes boring.”

“The 1960s generation dismantled a high Catholic culture by removing its cornerstone and they left subsequent generations of Catholics in a state of cultural poverty, confusion and boredom. A Catholic who is ignorant of [the usus antiquior] is like a student who majors in English literature but is unfamiliar with Shakespeare.”

“It would be a major advance if those responsible for liturgical decisions could at least get the message that modernity has not been fashionable since the 1960s. Elements of Catholic culture which were suppressed by the 1960s generation of pastoral leaders are being rediscovered by younger Catholics who treat them like treasures found in their grandmother’s attic. Catholics of the post-modern generations want to know how the Church looked, how the faith was practiced, when there was a coherent Catholic culture.”

“The whole structure of the usus antiquior engenders a deeper sense that there is a sacrifice, not a mere meal… There is really no greater antidote to secularism and what Pope Francis calls a ‘self-referential Christianity’ than a reflection on martyrdom and the sacrifice of Calvary and the Roman Canon sustains a person’s reflection on this reality.”

“The usus antiquior should be a standard element of the cultural capital of all Latin Rite Catholics since it so effectively resists secularism and satisfies the post-modern hunger for coherent order, beauty and an experience of self-transcendence.”

ARE THOSE WHO ATTEND THE TLM THE REASON WHY PRIESTS DON''T WANT TO CELEBRATE IT?

At the MaryVintrix blog there is an article about TLMERS causing the TLM not to be appreciated because of the kind of people they are. I reprint you decide.

State the Obvious and then Duck

Posted by frangelo

Dr. Tracey Rowland recently spoke at the ”Sacra Liturgia Conference” in Rome to the great approval of those attached the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. But she also made the mistake of suggesting that there are some obstacles to a wider attendance of that form of the liturgy due to problems among those who regularly attend:

To summarize, according to Dr. Rowland there are three reasons why those who otherwise might attend the EF do not: 1) the presence of an “aestheticism” by which the celebration of the liturgy is subjected to a hypercritical spirit by those in attendance; 2) the outdated nostalgic manner of dress in congregations at the EF; 3) the anti-Vatican II critique that so often accompanies attachment to the EF.

I cannot imagine she did not realize the donnybrook she was getting herself into when she said these things. I would have suggested a fourth reason why there are people who might otherwise attend the EF who don not: 4) that the EF movement shows a habitual resistance to the most respectfully delivered critique, even when it comes from a sympathetic source.

It seems to go largely unnoticed that Dr. Rowland is simply pointing out a fact that any fair-minded person with experience in the matter can verify. There are a significant number of people who stay away from the EF, not because they have an aversion to the liturgical form of 1962, but for the reasons which Dr. Rowland mentions.

I have some experience with this, but unlike Dr. Rowland, I have not been nearly as nice about my critique, for which I am sure, I will render an account. I know what she says is true and I would have been shocked had she not been roughly treated for having said it.

The knee jerk reaction to her critique from those on whom it lands is to respond by pointing out all the problems in the OF parishes and communities. This is a non-response to Dr. Rowland. It is evasive and not very thoughtful.

In any case, I do not think Dr. Rowland was looking for an argument, and I hope that she makes no response to those who have criticized her, simply because it will do no good. It is true that long-standing E-formers have been treated like lepers and are reactive to the touch. The obvious still needs to be stated.

DID VATICAN II REALLY CALL CATHOLICS TO DESPISE OUR PREVIOUS TRADITION AND DID IT REQUIRE ENGLISH SPEAKING CATHOLICS TO FORMULATE A NEW MASS DIFFERENT THAN THE POST-VATICAN II MASS IN LATIN?

There are those who despise the resurrection of this Mass, but triumphant it comes forward to the present!

There are some within our midst as Catholics who do not believe that there should be two versions of the Mass of the one Roman Rite, meaning the Extraordinary Form (1962 Missal) and the Ordinary Form, the revised Mass after Vatican II.

This is where I would offer words of caution to those who prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It would be just as offensive to those who prefer the Ordinary Form for those who prefer the Extraordinary Form to want the Ordinary Form suppressed.

I still contend that ultimately there needs to be a third missal that evolves in an organic way with the current experience of the two forms of the Mass being celebrated as it is throughout the world.

I've offered suggestions on what this third Mass would look and feel like and even Pope Benedict understands that his allowance of two forms of the one Latin Rite should one day lead to this third missal.

But we have a greater problem with a minority of English speaking Catholics who wish for an English Mass that is different in theology, spirituality, historical and devotional qualities of the revised Mass's Latin template. They prefer an English Mass that has it own "better" theology, spirituality and historical and devotional ethos. Of course we had that with the very poor English translation of 1973 which mercifully as been supplanted by the 2010 English Missal.

You can read here about this clique of English speakers who want the Mass their way, called Misguided Missal, a name that really should be applied to them, not the revised Mass we have in English.

But the larger point I want to make is that there is no reason for any of us to despise the 1962 missal and the other liturgies and devotions associated with it. It is our heritage. Pope Benedict makes that clear. At the same time, we need not despise what has transpired after Vatican II although we recognize this process of revision has been filled with chaff, that is slowly but surely being burned off to reveal what Vatican II in continuity with our glorious past really should bring forward.

As I write this I'm watching the movie "The Cardinal" on Turner Movie Classics:

The ordination scene should bring pride to us as Catholics as it is once again possible for this to take place:

The full movie in 8 minutes!

REALLY COOL KINGDOM VALUE CARS FOR PRIESTS!

In the spring, Macon was making movie magic once again. Recall that the movie "42" which was a box office success was made in part in Macon and up the street from the Church.

Well after that, another movie, still in post production to be released in early 2014, "Need for Speed" was filmed in part in Macon on Interstate 75 and downtown streets of Macon.

In fact, I sat on the open air balcony of our rectory as there was some filming from the sky and as the camera on the helicopter came by I waved up! I hope I don't end on the floor of the cutting room!

A night scene with St. Joseph Church theatrically lighted should be included in the movie for which we were paid!

But since the Holy Father is concerned about frugality, some might call him "cheap" I think the cars in this new movie are prefect for Kingdom Values seeking priests!

THIS IS WHY I AM A DISCIPLE OF JOSEPH RATZINGER'S

This is a talk Cardinal Ratziger gave to the Bishops of Chile, 25 years ago today, on July 13, 1988. All the themes of his future papacy are here. He takes Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who he calls schismatic, to task.

Following is the translated text of an address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s Bishops.

“In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown
to be mere empty words. Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been strict canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre
denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the post-conciliar Magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

“There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has
conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the Council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.

“It was conceded, in addition, that the Fraternity of St. Pius X would be able to present to the Holy See — which reserves to itself the sole right of decision — their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialogue Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Msgr. Lefebvre has given, for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the ‘Conciliar Church.’. The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the ‘Conciliar Church’ which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II belongs to that.

“Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30th. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See, it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now. The criteria with which we judge the past in the Vatican II decree on ecumenism must be used — as is logical — to judge the present as well.

“One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide,
in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young, and especially by the young, who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

“For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church
to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about.

“While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to
seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the
dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests
who deliberately raised ‘desacralization’ to the level of a program, on the plea
that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple
which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross
is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of
Jesus, outside the City walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the
true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the
nonsacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning,
they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as
they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they have reduced
the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings,
common signs of friendship, and such things.

“There is no doubt that, with these theories and practices, they have entirely
disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testaments: It is
forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God”
(John 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need
of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the
death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming ‘the holy’.
The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him,
to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way a new
space has been opened for the religion to which all of us would now submit;
this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One,
at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him. I do not want
to develop this point any further now; I confine myself to coming straight to
this conclusion: we ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy.
The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having
a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his
brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy
is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush;
t is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again.
The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an
interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we
are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the
essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual
of the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively
ashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into
distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the
priest or the liturgical director.

“Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present
are Lefebvre’s attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on
the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries
between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.

“I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is
unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask
ourselves where there is lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre what is at
stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization
of truth. Obviously we are not in agreement with him that — understood
according to the Pope’s intentions — the text of the Council or the prayer of
Assisi were relativizing.

“It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr.
Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a
mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this
opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from
Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has
no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living
Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.
The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
importance of all the rest.

“This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously
was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down —
suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely
be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken
since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or
even of the great truths of the Faith — for instance, the corporal virginity of
Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. —
nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when
I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council,
ad fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of
speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly
denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today
is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something
else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible
is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the
Church and of her faith.

“In the spiritual movements of the post-concilar era, there is not the slightest
doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of
the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and
for pastoral work today.

“The ‘truth’ is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a ‘triumphalism’ that
cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that
troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. If we do not point to the
truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the
salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion
has been drawn, and it has been drawn today, that in the future we need only seek
that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus,
and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a ‘good’
Christian, or a ‘good’ Moslem?

“The idea that all religions are — if you talk seriously — only symbols of what
ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has
already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point,
faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am
committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also
there is every motive to return to the right path.

“If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the
Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism
of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.”

WHAT IS A KINGDOM VALUE AUTO FOR A DIOCESAN PRIEST WHO HAS MADE NO PROMISE OF POVERTY?

Pope Francis is pained by the nice cars bishops, priests and nuns drive. Rumor has it that Pope has inspected Vatican parking lots to see what Vatican employees, including bishops and cardinals are driving. I suspect he really wants to know what all the Vatican bankers drive!

So, what should we drive?

READING FRANCIS THROUGH BENEDICT, THERE IS CONTINUITY EVEN IN DISCONTINUITY

Sandra Magister of Chiesa has some powerful praise for Pope Francis and shows how discontinuity with Pope Benedict is continuity in implementing Benedict's brick by brick rebuilding of the Church through authentic reform in continuity with the Gospel and not a narcissistic deification of the Second Vatican Council in a massive self-referential way


A Pope Like None Before. Can He Do It?

The symbolic voyage to Lampedusa. His great popularity. The reform of the curia. The calculated silence on ethical issues. But also his first error over an IOR appointment. The challenge of Francis in changing the Church is meeting with obstacles and enemies. Including at the Vatican

by Sandro Magister

ROME, July 11, 2013 – At the marking of his fourth month as pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has produced his first encyclical and completed his first voyage. Two symbolically powerful acts, but almost opposite in character.

"Lumen Fidei" indeed bears the signature of Pope Francis, but was conceived and almost entirely written by Benedict XVI. By making it his own, Bergoglio has wanted to give witness to his full agreement with his predecessor in carrying out the distinctive mission of the successor of Peter: “to strengthen the faith.”

The voyage to Lampedusa, however, marks a clear departure. In order to speak a Christian word on the encounter and clash between civilizations, the theologian Joseph Ratzinger would willingly give an erudite "lectio magistralis" at the Islamic university of Al Azhar. The pastor Bergoglio, instead, has taken his inspiration from Francis. Just as the saint of Assisi began his mission by going to kiss the lepers, who were banned from the city at the time, so also the pope who has taken his name has wished to go first of all to a far-flung little island, the landing or wrecking place of thousands of migrants and refugees. At the Mass he wanted to have read the biblical pages of Cain who kills Abel, and of the massacre of the innocents. A voyage of penance.

It comes as no surprise that after the voyage to Lampedusa, the universal popularity of Francis should have reached its highest peaks. “God does the statistics,” he has said. But there is an evident concurrence between the words and actions of this pope and those which could have been suggested to him by a scientific planner of his success. Almost everything that he does and says is difficult to contest for Catholic and secular public opinion, starting with that “how much I would like a Church that is poor and for the poor” which has become the identity card of the current pontificate.


THE INFALLIBLE PARADIGM


One key element of Francis's popularity is his personal credibility. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived in a modest two-room apartment. He cooked for himself. He got around by bus and metro. He fled from worldly engagements as from the plague. He never wanted to make a career for himself, but on the contrary patiently stepped aside when his own Society of Jesus, of which he had been provincial superior in Argentina for several years, brusquely deposed and isolated him.

For this reason as well, every time he invokes poverty for the Church and rails against the ambitions of power and greed for wealth present in the ecclesiastical camp, no voice is raised to criticize him. Who could ever justify the oppression of the destitute, and come to the defense of unmerited careers? Who could ever charge Francis with failing to practice what he preaches? On the lips of the current pope, the paradigm of a poor Church is an infallible one. It garners a practically universal consensus, both among the friends and among the most ardent enemies of the Church, those who would like to see it so impoverished as to disappear altogether.

But then there is another key factor of Francis's popularity. His invectives, for example, against the “invisible tyranny” of the international financial centers does not strike a specific and recognizable objective. And therefore none of the true or presumed “strong powers” feel effectively touched and provoked to react.

Even when his reprimands take aim at misdeeds within the Church, these almost always stick to generalities. Once when pope Bergoglio, in one of his conversational morning homilies, raised an explicit doubt over the future of the IOR, the Institute for Works of Religion, the controversial Vatican “bank,” the spokesmen bent over backward to defuse the situation. And when he denounced the fact that a “gay lobby” at the Vatican “is there, it's true,” the damage control emerged all down the line. Even secular public opinion, more lavish today than ever in hurling accusations of homophobia, forgave him for this statement, with an indulgence that certainly would not have been granted to his predecessor.

Benedict XVI, in effect, was different. In spite of his meek appearance, he was often very explicit and direct in expressing his judgments and in getting his listeners on the ropes. The earthquake unleashed by his lecture in Regensburg remains the most spectacular effect of this. But there was another important discourse of his that illustrates the case even better.

It was during his third and last voyage in Germany, in September of 2011. In Freiburg, pope Joseph Ratzinger wanted to meet with a representative group of German Catholics “active in the Church and in society.” And to them, as also to the bishops of Germany who were present almost in their entirety, he serenely addressed words of deadly severity, extremely demanding. Entirely focused on the duty of a poor Church, “stripped of worldly wealth," “detached from the world,” “freed from material and political burdens and privileges,” in order to be able “to dedicate itself better and in a truly Christian way to the whole world.”

So then, that discourse of his met with a chilly reception and was rapidly hushed, in the first place by those to whom the pope had addressed himself. Because precisely at them he had taken aim with precision, asking for a change: at that German Church which he knew very well: wealthy, satisfied, bureaucratized, politicized, but poor in the Gospel.


WORDS AND SILENCES


Pope Francis's way of speaking is certainly one of his most original traits. It is simple, understandable, communicative. It has the appearance of improvisation, but in reality is carefully studied, as much in the invention of formulas - the "soap bubble" that he used in Lampedusa to represent the egoism of the modern Herods - as in the fundamentals of the Christian faith that he loves most to repeat and are crystallized in a consoling “all is grace,” the grace of God who incessantly forgives although all continue to be sinners.

But in addition to the things that he says are those about which he is deliberately silent. It cannot be an accident that after 120 days of pontificate Pope Francis has not yet spoken the words abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage.

Pope Bergoglio succeeded in dodging them even on the day that he dedicated to “Evangelium Vitae," the tremendous encyclical published by John Paul II in 1995 at the culmination of his epic battle in defense of life “from conception to natural death.”

Karol Wojtyla and Benedict XVI after him exerted themselves incessantly and in person to combat the epochal challenge represented by the modern ideology of birth and death, as also by the dissolution of the creatural duality between male and female. Not Bergoglio. It seems well-established by now that he has decided to remain silent on these issues that touch upon the political sphere of the entire West, including Latin America, convinced that such statements are not the responsibility of the pope but of the bishops of each nation. He told the Italians in unmistakable words: “The dialogue with political institutions is your affair.”

The risk of this division of labor is high for Francis himself, given the hardly flattering judgment that he has repeatedly demonstrated he has on the average quality of the bishops of the world. But it is a risk that he wants to take. This silence of his is another of the factors that explain the benevolence of secular public opinion in his regard.


THE CURIA


Also in his favor is the visible intention of reforming the Roman curia, and in particular of acting upon that festering boil which is the IOR.

He has entrusted the study of a reform of the curia to an international council of cardinals, all of them appointed by him. Who in turn have called upon trusted experts to advise them. Some have seen this as a first step towards a democratization of the Church, with the passage from a monocratic to an oligarchic authority. But as a perfect Jesuit, Bergoglio wants instead to apply to his exercise of the papacy the model proper to the Society of Jesus, in which the decisions are not made collegially, but only by the superior general, in absolute autonomy, after having listened separately to his assistants and to anyone else he may wish.

It is therefore foreseeable that in early October, when the eight cardinal advisors meet in Rome to place the collected plans in the basket, the views will be very disparate.

A forewarning of disagreement has come from Germany, where a plan to reform the curia was also asked of the former director of the Munich branch of McKinsey, Thomas von Mitschke-Collande. The request was made to him by the powerful secretary of the German episcopal conference, the Jesuit Hans Langerdörfer, but without the knowledge of the archbishop of Munich, Reinhard Marx, one of the eight advisors appointed by the pope, and on the contrary to his great disappointment, since he had come to a rather negative judgment on von Mitschke-Collande, especially after reading his latest book, with the polemical title: “Does the Church want to destroy itself? Facts and analyses presented by a business consultant.”

Meanwhile another figure of the German Church has sent the congregation for the doctrine of the faith some of the McKinsey man's other writings, with the doctrinal errors it is alleged to contain highlighted.


THE IOR


If on the reform of the curia and on a more rigorous selection of candidates for bishop the initiatives of Pope Francis have remained for now only at the level of announcement - these too being hailed with a general consensus - a number of concrete actions have instead been taken already on the front of the IOR. Not so much by the pope but by different agents, some of them even in disagreement with each other, inside and outside of the Church. Moreover with a disastrous mishap that has fallen upon Francis himself.

The external agent that has had a decisive role in determining events has been the Italian magistracy, which in June ordered the arrest of Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, until one month before the head of accounting for the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. The charge is of illicit trafficking of money, including through accounts of the IOR and with the consent of the highest directors of the institute, carried out in 2012 precisely while the Vatican was engaged in front of the world in adopting the strictest international anti-laundering norms.

At the same time, the Italian magistracy has also closed its investigations concerning the director and vice-director of the IOR, Paolo Cipriani and Massimo Tulli, also accused of suspicious movements of money, in fourteen operations carried out between 2010 and 2011, therefore once again precisely while Benedict XVI was pushing forward a general work of reorganization and housecleaning of the Vatican financial offices.

The inexorable result of these actions of the Italian magistracy was the resignation of Cipriani and Tulli. that is, precisely the two who in the spring of 2012 the president of the IOR at the time, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, had demanded should be removed, maintaining that they were the ones truly responsible for the misdeeds of the institute. Obtaining instead his own brutal expulsion on May 24 by the board of the IOR, at the mandate of cardinal secretary of state Tarcisio Bertone.


THE SCANDAL


Against this background of devastation, Pope Francis took two provisions strictly of his own initiative.

On June 15, he appointed as “prelate” of the IOR, with full powers, Monsignor Battista Ricca, whom he had gotten to know and appreciate as director of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where he chose to live instead of in the pontifical apartments.

And the following 24th he instituted a commission of investigation on the IOR, reporting to him, made up of five authoritative outside figures, including the former ambassador of the United States to the Holy See and professor of law at Harvard, Mary Ann Glendon.

Unfortunately, however, when Pope Francis instituted this commission, he had already discovered that he had erred spectacularly in the first appointment, that of the “prelate."

In the days immediately before June 24, in fact, meeting the Vatican nuncios who had come from all over the world to Rome, he had received from some of them incontestable information on the “scandalous conduct” of which Monsignor Ricca had given proof in 2000 and 2001 in Uruguay, when he was serving at that nunciature, from which he was brusquely removed before finally being called back to Rome.

The empty chair at the concert offered in his honor on June 22 was perhaps due in part to the sorrow felt by Francis at the discovery of this error of his, while meeting with the nuncios during those same hours and days. No pope is infallible. Not even the most beloved

POINT, COUNTERPOINT LETTERS TO THE EDITORS ON JIMMY CARTER'S CALL FOR WOMEN CATHOLIC PRIESTS

POINT:

It was with regret that I read President Jimmy Carter’s “know nothing” condemnation of the Catholic church, and by implication, the Eastern Orthodox churches throughout the world for the church’s lack of authority to ordain women as priests. Unlike his own Baptist denomination and most other Protestant churches, the doctrine concerning ordination in the Catholic church and the Orthodox churches is completely different and not subject to change for secular political purposes.

In the Catholic church, especially during Mass, the Catholic priest is a sacramental image of Jesus Christ who is a man and the bridegroom of the church. The church herself, composed of souls, is always feminine (soul in Latin, “anima” is a feminine noun for both men and women) and she is the bride of Christ, who with her bridegroom begets spiritual children through water and the Holy Spirit.

Though our secular political culture is very confused about gender differentiation, as evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision on marriage, the churches of the East and West are not. It is unfortunate that President Carter brings his “know nothing” politics and religion to bash the Catholic church, completely unaware of our dogmas and doctrines that will never change to accommodate the secularist agenda. Not even the pope can change this dogma for his authority is limited by God. And certainly President Carter can’t change it either.

COUNTERPOINT:

“I would not characterize President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks regarding the Catholic Church’s practice of not ordaining women as an attempt to bash our Church or as being related to the virulently anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement of the middle 1800’s. (“No Change,” Letters to the Editor, July 7) Reasonable people, including Mr. Carter, can and do disagree with our Church regarding many of our doctrines and policies, but not every criticism or expression of disagreement should be seen as an attack, or as a tactic for advancing some amorphous “secularist agenda.”

When reading the metaphors used in Sacred Scripture to describe the Church, one can fall victim to the fallacy of “reification” or misplaced concreteness, mistaking the symbolic metaphor for a concrete reality. In Scripture the Church is described as or styled to be the female “bride” and Jesus Christ the male “bridegroom.” The bride/bridegroom metaphor describes the intimate nature of the relationship of Jesus to His church, it speaks to the fidelity of God towards His people, and it challenges us (the “bride”) to be faithful as well. This metaphor does not describe the gender of the Church since, of course, the Church itself has no gender. Taking another example, it would not be correct to say that the metaphor that Jesus used to describe himself, “I am the vine, you are the branches…” (John 15:5), should be understood to mean that Jesus actually is “a climbing or trailing woody-stemmed plant.”

SUPREME PONTIFF AND LEGISLATOR FRANCIS LAYS DOWN THE LAW AS SUPREME JURIS

APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.

It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.

In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.

With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:

1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:

a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;

b) crimes referred to:

- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;

- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;

when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;

c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.

2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.

3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed "public officials":

a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.

b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.

c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;

d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.

4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.

5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.

6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.

This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.

Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
Francis

BOMBSHELL! POPE FRANCIS EXPANDS MANDATE OF POPE BENEDICT'S ANGLICAN ORDINARIATE--THE POWER OF THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

This good news is from Damien Thompson of the UK Telegraph and will lead some who think Pope Francis would undo all tha Benedict initiated to become apoplectic which is good news too!

Pope Francis embraces the Ordinariate – and increases its power to evangelise
By Damian Thompson

Opponents of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, set up by Benedict XVI to allow ex-Anglicans to worship together with their own liturgy, were so excited when it was reported that Pope Francis, when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, wasn't keen on the initiative. But if that were ever the case, then he has changed his mind.
This week it emerged that Francis has widened the remit of the Ordinariates in Britain, America and Australia. Until now, only ex-Anglicans and their family members could join the new body. But, thanks to a new paragraph inserted into the Ordinariate's constitution by Francis, nominal Catholics who were baptised but not confirmed can join the structure. Indeed, the Holy Father wants the Ordinariates to go out and evangelise such people. Put bluntly, this suggests that English bishops who wanted to squash the body – and whose allies were rushing to get to the new Pope in order to brief against it – have been thwarted.
Here's the fine print, from the Ordinariate's website:
Pope Francis has approved a significant amendment to the Complementary Norms which govern the life of the Personal Ordinariates established under the auspices of Anglicanorum Coetibus.
On 31 May 2013, the Holy Father made a modification to Article 5 of the Norms, in order to make clear the contribution of the Personal Ordinariates in the work of the New Evangelisation.
This paragraph has been inserted into the Complementary Norms as Article 5 §2:
A person who has been baptised in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelising mission of the Ordinariate, may be admitted to membership in the Ordinariate and receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of the Eucharist or both.
This confirms the place of the Personal Ordinariates within the mission of the wider Catholic Church, not simply as a jurisdiction for those from the Anglican tradition, but as a contributor to the urgent work of the New Evangelisation.
As noted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, enrolment into a Personal Ordinariate remains linked to an objective criterion of incomplete initiation (i.e. baptism, eucharist, or confirmation are lacking), meaning that Catholics may not become members of a Personal Ordinariate ‘for purely subjective motives or personal preference’
So there you have it: a ringing affirmation of the Ordinariate's mission from a supposedly sceptical pontiff. Now what the new body needs is money and perhaps a little more courage to stick its head above the parapet. The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have so far declined to organise a nationwide second collection at Mass to help their new brethren. They should do so without delay.
Tags: Personal Ordinariate, Pope Francis

IS POPE FRANCIS IGNORING VATICAN STRUCTURES TO MAKE THINGS WORK HIS WAY? IS THIS THE NEW HERMENEUTIC OF JIS PAPACY?

Pope Francis is using the actual supreme authority he has as pope to let others in the Vatican and the Church at large know who is in charge.

As we know now, the Vatican congregations seem to be dysfunctional with many seeking to grab power for their own purposes. This happens on the diocesan and parish levels to with departments and committees, other paid staff and volunteerers.

So should pastors and bishops return to a sort of pre-Vatican II kind of control or a much more humble and streamlined post-Vatican II reliance on the laity for the secular aspects of Church administration that require the laity's expertise in finances and management?

Is Pope Francis teaching bishops and pastors to be pre-Vatican II clergy in a post Vatican II populist sort of way?

OKAY, WHAT IS IT WITH PLANE CRASHES THE DAYS BEFORE I FLY TO CHICAGO?

Dallas, summer of 1985:

San Francisco, summer 2013:

Delta Flight 190 crashed in Dallas, Texas on August 2, 1985. On August 3rd my mother and I flew from Augusta to Chicago to visit my mom's sister, niece and other family members. When we boarded the Delta Flight in Augusta, one of the first class passengers was sure to have the "Augusta Chronicle" newspaper opened wide so all could see the front page news story with the big block headline: "DELTA JET CRASHES!"

Tomorrow, July 8, I fly again, by myself, to visit my mother's niece, my first cousin and her adult children in Chicago. I'm taking a direct flight out of Columbia, South Carolina, on a United Flight.

What's up with these crashes a day or two prior to my flights to Chicago? Please pray for the injured passengers from yesterday's crash and the two who died and their families.

POPE FRANCIS BRINGS ME BACK TO THE 1970'S IN GOOD WAYS BUT ALSO IN NOT SO GOOD WAYS

When I was in the seminary between 1976 to 1980, one of the things that my seminary professors made an impression on me was what they called "kingdom values" which translated meant "Gospel simplicity." They taught us that even though as diocesan or secular priests we would not be making a promise of poverty at our ordination, that we should be living simply.

The fact was that most of us (except for me of course) weren't living simply. We loved going to the finest restaurants in Baltimore and there were many, and we loved going on trips. We didn't have to live in the seminary everyday. On the weekends, beginning on Friday, I would stay at the rectory of my pastoral placement the last two years in the seminary. I was shocked the first two years to experience that the seminary building was almost empty, including faculty beginning at midday on Friday as the last class always finished by noon.

These "kingdom values" also was incorporated into the Mass at that time. Vestments were nice but very austere without ornamentation as we were told the vestments themselves were the symbol and symbols shouldn't have more symbols placed upon them. ceramic cups or chalices were used. These reminded me of small pots for plants, they looked like painted terracotta plants pots.

So Pope Francis' ethos esthetically and ascetically brings me back to the 70's. In terms of kingdom values for those who do not take the vow of poverty, I find this refreshing.

However, applying this to the Liturgy in a 1970's sort of way leaves a very stale taste in my mouth. I wouldn't counsel exorbitance in budgets for the liturgy, but I would say that everything in the Liturgy from buildings to altar accoutrements to vestments are our gifts to God and belong to all of us, rich and poor alike.

Here is what the Holy Father said to seminarians and novices yesterday, Saturday, July 6:

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis on Saturday evening told future nuns and priests and consecrated laypeople to keep “freshness” and “joy” in their lives, as he said: “There is no sadness in holiness”.

Speaking to participants in a four-day international event for Seminarians, Novices and those on a vocational journey, Francis gave an off-the-cuff lecture to seminarians and novices from across the globe, gathered in the Paul VI Hall.

In his remarks, the Pope urged those present not to be tempted by a culture that exalts provisional values, and he told them to avoid trappings like the latest smartphones and expensive cars so they can devote more resources to help the poor.

“It is not you that I reproach” said the Pope, and he specified that it is today’s culture of the provisional of which we are all victims that does not help us: “because in this day and age it is very difficult to make a definitive choice”. He pointed out that when he was young it was easier because the culture of the time favoured definitive choices, be it in conjugal life, in consecrated life or in priestly life. But today – he said “it is not easy to make a definitive choice. We are victims of this culture of the provisional”.

And then Pope Francis took seminarians and novices to task for being “too serious, too sad”. ``Something's not right here,'' Francis told them pointing out that `'There is no sadness in holiness,'' and adding that such clergy lack `'the joy of the Lord.''

“To become a priest or a religious is not primarily our choice; it is our answer to a calling, a calling of love”.

`'If you find a seminarian, priest, nun, with a long, sad face, if it seems as if in their life someone threw a wet blanket over them,'' then one should conclude `'it's a psychiatric problem, they can leave - `buenos dias’”.

And he highlighted the fact that he wasn't talking about superficial joy - `'the thrill of a moment doesn't really make us happy,'' warning against the temptation to seek `'the joy of the world in the latest smartphone, the fastest car.''

“It hurts my heart when I see a priest or a nun with the latest model of car” he said. And Francis continued saying “cars are necessary. But take a more humble one. Think of how many children die of hunger' and dedicate the savings to them”.

Urging all those with vocations to be authentic and true, the Pope also reminded them never to be afraid to recognize their own sins. And speaking of their formation, Francis said there are four fundamental pillars: spiritual formation; intellectual formation; apostolic life – during which one must go forth and announce the Gospel; and community living. “On these four pillars” – Pope Francis said “you must build your vocations”.

During his remarks, Pope Francis also praised the late Mother Teresa, who cared for the most impoverished sick of Calcutta, India, and held her up as a courageous example. “I would like a more missionary church,”' the pope told the young people “'Not so much a tranquil church, but a beautiful church that goes forward.”

The Day for Seminarians and Novices concludes on Sunday, with Mass presided by Pope Francis in St. Peter’s Basilica.

The pope takes his life into his own hands as he enters the auditorium for his audience with seminarians and novices at hour 1, minute 9--the video is in Italian but you get a sense of the enthusiasm of these young people:

This is the Mass with the seminarians and novices this morning, July 7, the 6th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum:

MY FINAL COMMENT ON THIS 6TH ANNIVERSARY OF SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM: Pope Francis doesn't model the Mass the same way as Pope Benedict did. However, he does model the gravitational pull the EF Mass can have on the OF Mass as seen in this Mass and most of the Masses Pope Francis has thus far had at the Vatican:

Let me count the ways:

1. There is a processional congregational hymn. In the case of this morning's Mass it is the Italian Year of Faith anthem that is well, very Italian sounding--it has an Italian ethos that is common in their Italian hymns.

2. However, when the Pope arrives at the Foot of the Altar, the choir alone sings the official Introit for the Mass and in Latin. This is excellent and shows that ordinary parishes could do the same, a congregational hymn for the procession, once the priest gets to the foot of the altar, transition to the official chanted Introit by a schola or choir. The official offertory and Communion Antiphons are also chanted in addition to other "filler" music.

3. The Mass is all in Italian including the Eucharistic Prayer, but the Kyrie is in Greek and the rest is in Latin: Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei--isn't this a great compromise? Can't the Church worldwide be mandated to do at least these parts in Greek/Latin?

4. The Holy Father continues to distribute Holy Communion to the deacons of the Mass by intinction as the deacons KNEEL before him.

5. The marvelous Benedictine Altar Arrangement is maintained by the Holy Father.

THE SECULAR PRESS' CYNICAL BUT PERHAPS TRUE ASSESSMENT OF THE MISSION OF POPE FRANCIS AT THE VATICAN

I don't think anyone should underestimate what Pope Francis and Pope Benedict did yesterday to consecrate the Vatican to St. Michael the Archangel. Pope Francis once again spoke of the devil, too numerous now to count how many times he has done so in his short papacy.

Every corruption in the Church from the Vatican to our local parishes is placed at the foot of the devil by this pope. There are powers and principalities working against the Church and perhaps the final battle has begun in time. But in heaven where there is no time the battle is complete, all who are redeemed are there, even you and me, if we have participated in the saving ministry of Jesus and His Church, the Bridegroom and His Bride. Of course the gifts of Love, Hope and Faith, the Light of Faith are necessary and God gives us these graces.

But this article is from the German newspaper, Der Spiegel
By Hans-Jürgen Schlamp in Rome, SPIEGEL
July 6, 2013

Pope's Reform Path: Francis Shakes Up Church Establishment

It appears Pope Francis truly wants to change the Catholic Church. He's reforming the Vatican Bank first, but he's also circumventing the old guard wherever he can. The establishment is up in arms.

A cardinal in Rome earns about ?3,000 ($3,888) a month, even less than a pastor in Germany. But a cardinal's life in Rome is a lot more expensive -- with visits to restaurants and shopping at boutiques for the upscale clothing men of the church are expected to wear, not to mention their jewelry and the antiques they display in their apartments. So it's good to have friends who can treat you or otherwise provide support now and then.

Friends are also happy to give a cardinal a hand -- and not just out of religious considerations. A cardinal can be helpful in both political and business terms. So it's not surprising that a symbiotic relationship between parts of the Curia and the upper class around the world has formed -- one that brings together the establishment, luxury and power. It's a nice little tradition that new Pope Francis would like to put an end to. For the Catholic establishment, though, it is nothing less than a catastrophe.

Even before his enthronement as pope, when he was still a cardinal, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had spoken clearly about this. During his speech to the cardinal conclave, he warned that, "When the church does not emerge from itself to evangalize, it becomes self-referential and therefore becomes sick." He warned of "self-referentiality" and "theological narcissism." He also criticized a "mundane church that lives within itself, of itself and for itself." And it appears the Argentinian pope meant this criticism seriously. In fact, he demonstrates that every day.

Instead of wearing a gold cross, he has one of steel. And he lives in a sparsely furnished apartment in the Santa Marta guest house rather than in the Apostolic Palace. Instead of taking his seat in the Vatican concert hall to listen to classical music, he recently remained at his desk working on the final version of his decree for the church-state's own Institute for Religious Works (IOR) bank. With his signature, he created a powerful special papal commission to review the bank's activities. He also said the new commission must change everything at the Vatican Bank, as it is also known. He said the Vatican certainly needed a bank, but its areas of business should only reach a "certain point."

A Papal Bank with Mafia Contacts

For decades now, the IOR has been in the headlines for one scandal after the other. At the beginning of the 1980s, it was at the center of one of the darkest crime thrillers in postwar Italian history. The scandal surrounded billions in business with the mafia, and a Vatican banker was hanged from a London bridge by a killer commando.

But the chain of scandals never let up. When, in autumn 2010, fresh suspicions of money laundering to the tune of triple-digit millions emerged, then Pope Benedict XVI promised stricter rules for his financial managers. In fact, though, nothing changed. In the so-called Vatileaks scandal, secret documents that had been smuggled out of the Vatican shed light on bizarre intrigues inside the papal state. Often, the Vatican Bank played a role in those intrigues. Benedict XVI was appalled, but also overwhelmed. He failed to prevail over the powerful cardinals who backed the IOR. His resignation was the logical outcome.

German Baron Takes Helm of Bank

His successor is taking more decisive action. First, he fired Nunzio Scarano, the top accountant in the Vatican office that oversees Vatican property and investments, after he was accused of money laundering and corruption and arrested. Then, practically overnight, he forced out IOR Director Paulo Cipriani and his deputy. Now the bank will be led by Ernst von Freyberg, a German baron and former consultant, member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the president of the IOR supervisory board since mid-February.

Between now and October, Pope Francis wants to ensure clarity and also determine how the financial institute will handle its duties in harmony with the "church's mission" in the future. A that point, a new structure will be created for the bank and a new boss will be appointed.

"Did we actually vote for someone who really believes in what he preaches?" some within the Curia are now whispering. Once again, Francis has taken them fully by surprise. In an almost demonstrative manner, he has been excluding the Vatican apparatus in every way he can. Most recently, this happened with the trip the pope announced he would take on Monday to the island of Lampedusa in southern Italy. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state, first learned of the planned trip through a papal press release. And instead of the kind of months of advance-team work used by heads of the Catholic Church for trips in the past, Francis has dispensed with that. Instead, the eccentric Argentinian pope ordered his staff to prepare a plane so that he could fly there in the morning and be back by midday.

Thousands of refugees have arrived at Lamedusa each year in desperation after making the journey across the Mediterranean from North Africa in small, dangerous boats. Francis wants to pray together with them and also throw a wreath into the sea to commemorate those who have lost their lives trying to make it to Europe. The pope has announced that he doesn't want to meet with the mayor or other authorities. He also also ordered church officials to stay away.