AND THE ANTI-CATHOLIC AGENDA AGAINST THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON CHASTITY, SEXUALITY AND MARRIAGE CONTINUES

Before reading the Macon Telegraph's article, please read our Diocesan statement on the Dollar affair and below the Telegraph's article is the Supreme Court's decision concerning a similar case involving the Lutheran Church:

The Diocese of Savannah supports the decision of the Board of Trustees at Mount de Sales Academy in Macon not to employ Mr. Flint Dollar for the 2014-2015 school term.

Mount de Sales is an independent Catholic school sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy, under the direction of the Diocese of Savannah concerning its Catholic identity.

Read the statement from the Board of Trustees of Mount de Sales Academy.

From this morning's Macon Telegraph:

Fired Mount de Sales Academy band director Flint Dollar has filed a gender discrimination claim with the agency that enforces laws against workplace bias.

In the claim, Dollar alleges that he signed a new contract May 1 to teach at the Catholic school for the 2014-2015 term. He was fired May 21.

Dollar contends the school discriminated against him because he didn’t conform to traditional gender stereotypes, said his attorney, Charles E. Cox.

“Our belief is that one of the traditional gender stereotypes is that men marry women. He violated that gender stereotype and he was fired because of it,” Cox said.

Cox said gender discrimination is a type of sexual discrimination. Sexual orientation is not currently protected under federal law, he said.

The school fired Dollar, an openly gay man, on grounds that his intention to marry his partner constituted a violation of the church doctrine of marriage. Mount de Sales is run by the Catholic Sisters of Mercy.

School President David Held said he hadn’t heard of the filing with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as of Tuesday afternoon.

“When we get that report, I’ll make a comment about it,” he said.

On Tuesday, Dollar said he’s been focusing on planning his wedding and trying to find a new job. Though he received several inquiries from schools across the state and from Texas, Dollar hasn’t found a full-time position yet. Dollar and his partner own a home in Milledgeville and have strong ties to the community.

His wedding will take place in Minnesota, which allows same-sex marriage.

“My timeline is shrinking,” he said. “My benefits and paycheck end July 31. Finding a full-time job for a non-certified music teacher, especially in the middle of the summer, is difficult. My professional life is in an upheaval. Not knowing (about a new job) is very scary.”

Dollar said teachers who aren’t retained by a school are usually informed in February or March to give them time to find a new job. Entering the job market in May put him at a disadvantage, he said.
“At this point, I’d have to find something that was vacated unexpectedly.”

The school has known Dollar was gay since his initial interview for his job four years ago.
Mount de Sales’ employment policy says in part: “Mount de Sales Academy is committed to the principles of equal employment opportunities to all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, gender, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, creed, disability, veteran’s status, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, or any other characteristic or status that is protected by federal, state, or local law.”

In a letter the school released about the firing, however, Held wrote that Dollar wasn’t fired because he is gay, but because same-sex marriage goes against Catholic doctrine.

“Personnel decisions are never easy, and we consider many factors when making such decisions,” the letter read in part. “Teaching ability, knowledge of the subject matter, the ability to communicate with constituents, and the willingness to support the teachings of the Catholic Church are just some of factors considered when making these decisions. Please know that these decisions are never made arbitrarily and are guided always by our mission as a Catholic School.”

Dollar said he informed the school of his decision to marry his partner back in October. At the time, Dollar said, no one from the school raised any objections about his marriage.

The school offered Dollar a one-year contract in early May, which Dollar signed.
Dollar said Held told him that there were no performance-related issues in his dismissal -- that the issue was related only to his marriage.

Dollar said the EEOC investigation could take up to 180 days, but it’s a necessary step in filing a discrimination suit.

He said he believes it’s important to follow through with a discrimination suit against the school.
“Filing with the EEOC, for me, is pretty much saying that it’s not OK to discriminate,” he said. “To terminate without cause is not OK. It shouldn’t be OK in the public or private sector. I need to make that statement, ... and I have to follow through with that statement.”

Soon after the news broke of Dollar’s firing, about 60 parents and students marched around the campus to protest his firing. In addition, three members of the Mount de Sales board of trustees resigned their positions.

My Comment: I think the Supreme Court has already ruled on issues like this especially with the Lutheran Church's  Hosanna-Tabor case. Need I write more?

Unanimous Supreme Court ruling supports Hosanna-Tabor

on January 11, 2012 in News, Reporter

By Paula Schlueter Ross
The United States Supreme Court Jan. 11 issued an historic 9-0 decision in favor of a Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod church and school in Redford, Mich.

The decision marks the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that federal discrimination laws do not apply to employees of religious organizations who perform “ministerial” duties, including teaching religion.

In the case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., a former commissioned-minister (teacher) at the now-closed Hosanna-Tabor school sued the school after she was dismissed in 2005 for “insubordination and disruptive conduct in violation of church teaching,” according to Hosanna-Tabor’s Petition for Certiorari.

The fourth-grade teacher, Cheryl Perich, sued the congregation for disability discrimination, claiming the church rescinded her call as a commissioned minister because of her narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that typically causes excessive daytime sleepiness.

A federal district court dismissed the case based on the “ministerial exception,” a First Amendment doctrine that bars lawsuits that would interfere in the relationship between a religious organization and employees who perform religious functions.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later reversed the district court and ruled in favor of Perich, holding that the teacher had a predominantly “secular” role because she spent more time each day teaching secular subjects than religious ones.

In his opinion for the Supreme Court and its unanimous decision — which reverses the Court of Appeals ruling — Chief Justice John G. Roberts said that, in light of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion, “it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.”

Further, Roberts said, “Since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other employment discrimination laws, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized the existence of a ‘ministerial exception,’ grounded in the First Amendment, that precludes the application of such legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. The Court agrees that there is such a ministerial exception.”

The Supreme Court’s decision effectively bars future lawsuits brought by “ministers of religion” against their churches for violations of nondiscrimination laws.

Perich qualified as a “minister” of Hosanna-Tabor — and is therefore subject to the “ministerial exception” — Roberts wrote, since she served in “a role distinct from that of most of its members” and her “commissioned minister” title “represented a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning.

“Perich also held herself out as a minister by, for example, accepting the formal call to religious service. … As a source of religious instruction, Perich played an important part in transmitting the Lutheran faith.”

Sherri Strand of Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, who served as co-counsel for Hosanna-Tabor along with Professor Douglas Laycock, of the University of Virginia, and The Becket Fund of Washington, D.C., told Reporter that the Supreme Court decision “upholding the right of churches to choose their own ministers and religious leaders without government interference is a landmark victory for religious freedom in America.”

Strand said the Court “not only recognized the ‘ministerial exception,’ a doctrine developed by the U.S. Courts of Appeals and grounded in the First Amendment, as barring certain claims by ministers against their religious employers, the opinion also went on to say that ‘requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister … intrudes more than on a mere employment decision, it interferes with the internal governance of the church.’

“Significantly, the Court held that invading the church’s right to select its own ministers would violate both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment,” she said.

Speaking Jan. 11 on behalf of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison said, “We are delighted with the opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hosanna-Tabor case today. The Court, in upholding the right of churches to select their own ministers without government interference, has confirmed a critical religious liberty in our country.

“The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod places great emphasis on the religious education of its children and the important role of commissioned ministers in promoting our faith,” he said, “so we are thankful that the Court has confirmed our church’s right to decide who will be serving as ministers in our churches and schools.

“We also are thankful that this unanimous opinion will help secure the religious freedom of all religious organizations in America for years to come,” Harrison added. “Please keep the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in your prayers daily.”

Ron Schultz, the Synod’s chief administrative officer, said, “We are very pleased with today’s Supreme Court opinion in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC and its affirmation of the ministerial exception under the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

“The unanimous opinion by the Court,” Schultz said, “presents a clear message that religious institutions are protected when making decisions that affect the faith and mission of the church.”

To download a 39-page PDF of the Supreme Court’s decision, click here.
Posted Jan. 11, 2012
Return to Top

Reporter Online is the Web version of Reporter, the official newspaper of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Content is prepared by LCMS Communications.

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2014/06/24/3165943/fired-mount-de-sales-band-director.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1#storylink=cpy

MANY NORMS OF THE MASS IN THE ORDINARY FORM HAVE EXCEPTIONS ALSO AND THE LAITY HAVE A RIGHT TO THESE EXCEPTIONS AND WITHOUT HARASSMENT FROM ANYONE

Yes Virginia, this is the Ordinary Form of the Mass at St. Joseph Church, Macon!

With the summer upon us and downtown Macon right off of the very heavily traveled Interstate 75, we have had a few visitors at Sunday Mass. I am struck by their comments to me after Mass.

Many say that St. Joseph Church rivals any church building in Europe--of course I say.

Others say they haven't attended a "high" Mass in decades. I say, this is how we do it each and every Sunday (although I have battle scars from 10 years ago when I implemented incense at every 9:30 and 12:10 Mass!).

Another visitor who is a member of her liturgy committee in the mid west stated that she was going to bring back to her parish priest what we do in terms of the "High" Mass, the kneelers available for those who choose to kneel and the decorum/formality of the Mass.

Then on Sunday I received the following email:

We live in Atlanta but we LOVE coming to mass at St Joseph's whenever we are traveling through Macon! We prefer the traditional Mass style offered. What a blessing to have that restored to an Ordinary Form Catholic mass. It was so wonderful to have a paten (the use of the paten at St. Joseph, oddly enough, was never dropped after Vatican II and has been in continual use here!) and kneeler to receive the sacrament! I could just go on and on about how much I love Mass at St Joseph!!!

I wanted to talk with my parish priest here about incorporating more traditional elements/options into our weekly masses (although I know its a long shot in the land of guitar masses). Is there a rubric or special rite followed by St Joseph's that I could reference?

Do you know of any parishes in the Atlanta area that offer masses as reverent as yours?
Thanks for your help!

This was my email response:

Thank you for your email. Were you at the 12:10 PM Mass or another one? We strive to make all our Masses beautiful  and allow for options that other priests and maybe bishops might not encourage. 
 

We celebrate our 12:10 PM Mass ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and at all our Masses we have a kneeler available for those who prefer to kneel for Holy Communion. Our instruction is that the norm in the USA is to stand and kneeling is the exception but the choice the communicants’.

We strive for solemnity and are formal and not casual in our approach to the Mass.

We do things by the book but are flexible with the more traditional elements, especially allowing the exception of kneeling for Holy Communion by providing a kneeler that enables those who desire to do so comfortably and with an ability to rise easier.

The ad orientem position for the 12:10 PM Mass is clearly allowed and presumed in the Roman Missal, but of course is not the norm in the USA or elsewhere, but certainly not forbidden.

At any rate, the local bishop could intervene and prevent these two things. Our bishop knows what we do and has not stopped us but I can’t say he has encouraged it either.  We also have the EF Mass each Tuesday at 5pm and once a month on Sunday at a special time, so there is a significant group that appreciates the ability to kneel easily and the ad orientem Ordinary Form Mass each Sunday.

God bless you.

Fr. Allan McDonald

My final comments: What strikes me the most is that those who comment on our liturgy comment on our traditional elements and the fact we are formal and solemn in our celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass. We priests chant all the parts of the Mass too and I do beginning with the Sign of the Cross through the final blessing at our 9:30 AM and 12:10 PM Masses. 

But apart from the traditional look of the Church, the ad orientem for the 12:10 PM Mass only and the fact that we have kneelers available to be hospitable to those who would like to kneel for Holy Communion, we still have the following which many ultra-traditionalist find anathema:  

  

1. We have male and female lectors who approach the ambo from their seats in the nave.

2. We have male and female Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

3. We have the chalice for the Most Precious Blood of our Lord and Savior (four to six depending on the Mass) for those who choose the option of receiving from the chalice.

4. We have male and female altar servers who are well trained.

5. We use the vernacular mostly and have strong congregational singing of not just hymns but the parts of the Mass and encourage actual participation on all levels. 

6. We make use of deacons for most of our Masses.

7. We have a ministry of adult servers which is male exclusively and their role is different from the children servers as they act as a sort of subdeacon but not in the strict sense. I see this male only ministry as a recruitment for the diaconate and priesthood although many of the adult servers are married.

I think traditionalists who oppose the any of the seven options I have included above shoot themselves in the foot and push away Catholics from a more traditional approach to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Just as I have allowed people to kneel for Holy Communion when this is the exception and not the norm in the USA but a choice that is allowed, I feel I must be consistent too in the other choices that are allowed the laity in the Ordinary Form of the Mass.  

 

THE SOURCE OF ALL LITURGICAL ABUSE SINCE VATICAN II IS CREATIVITY BASED UPON GIMMICKS

While this occurred Pentecost Sunday, 2014, it might as well have been 1980. A disclaimer on my part, I would have loved this in 1980 and would have encouraged this gimmicky liturgical aberration if our liturgy committee could think of it and follow through! Please note the trendy 1970's creative idea to make sure that the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist are seen as equal so the altar is on one side and the ambo on the other. Why the old high altar is still there is beyond me and without a tabernacle! But the flower arrangement brought in procession to the place where the tabernacle once was to be adored for its natural beauty is a nice touch! Isn't all this just so meaningful! UGH! It is this sort of thing that has pushed people away from Vatican II and toward the nostalgia of the older rites of the Church where this simply would have been impossible to conjure up and carry out. Can you imagine a Catholic from 1958 seeing the future in 2014 for the Liturgy what their reaction would be?

SIGH! SERIOUS LITURGICAL ABUSE AS RECENTLY AS CORPUS CHRISTI SUNDAY!

So many think liturgical abuse only happened in the past in the aftermath of Vatican II. No it continues and this is from a frequenter of my blog, names and places are removed so evidence isn't given to excommunicate the guilty!

And I so much looked forward to giving you my report on Mass at St T b t S....O B  A..... oh so much to tell!!

I have never seen a priest walk off the altar during the reading..... go to the back of the church....and I mean a big church.....and bring people forward to be seated.  At one point not sure he was the presider or the usher.

At sign of peace..... deacon with his hand motion blew a kiss...... to his wife, I presume.  Will have to tell you how he "handled" the ciboria.

Priest and deacon.... when seated.... talked with each other CONSTANTLY.

Following singing of "we proclaim...."  Father said....."sure does not sound like you all were singing as one body"......then he continued the Eucharistic prayer.... his words were tied in to his homily. 

Father.... when not ushering..... sat with his legs straight out.....crossed at the ankles.

Did Divine Praises following final blessing.

Enough for now.....

UGH! Yes! ENOUGH FOR NOW!

A REMINDER OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A POPE MESSES WITH THE MAFIA!

Similar to Pope Francis, in 1993 Saint Pope John Paul II tore into the Mafia in a homily delivered on Mafia territory. Many commenting on my post concerning Pope Francis fearless condemnation of the Mafia in Calabria on Saturday seem to think this wasn't news and that we should move on. Obviously these amateur pundants don't know history and what might be in store for the Church in Rome or even for Pope Francis himself! Read an article on the danger Pope Francis faces in light of making clear that Mafia are automatically excommunicated by pressing HERE!

This was what happened shortly after the homily of Saint Pope John Paul II in 1993 as reported by the New York Times:

Bombings Laid to Mafia War on Italy and Church

By JOHN TAGLIABUE,
Published: July 15, 1994

• Italian investigators said today that the Mafia was behind a series of bomb attacks last year against cultural and church targets in Italy partly to destabilize the Italian Government, but also because the Mafia felt that the Roman Catholic Church had abrogated an unwritten hands-off policy toward organized crime.

 During a visit to Sicily in May 1993, Pope John Paul II urged Roman Catholics, who make up the vast majority of Sicily's five million people, to rise up against the Mafia.

Mr. Coiro said the Pope's appeals were evidently viewed by the Mafia as breaching a kind of "non-belligerence accord" between Mafia and church. He said that in an apparent reprisal last September, the Rev. Giuseppe Puglisi, a priest in Palermo who was an outspoken opponent of organized crime, was shot and killed in what investigators believe was a Mafia operation.

From May to August 1993, five car bomb attacks in Rome, Florence and Milan left 10 people dead and dozens wounded. In addition to the Uffizi, the targets were two venerable Roman churches, San Giovanni in Laterano and San Giorgio in Velabro, and a modern-art gallery in Milan. A powerful bomb also exploded near the home of a television talk-show host, Maurizio Costanzo, a vocal Mafia opponent. Mr. Costanzo escaped unharmed.
The investigators accused Mr. Frabetti and Mr. Scarano of placing the bombs that exploded in Rome last July 27, causing widespread damage to San Giorgio and the Lateran basilica and wounding dozens of people.

The magistrates presented a detailed picture of the way large amounts of explosives were moved about the country together with illegal drug shipments, a Mafia specialty, and concealed for months in apartments controlled by Mafia figures. The investigators described how the explosives were delivered by truck at regular intervals to a tenement building on the Via Ostiense in Rome, and hidden under gravel in the building's courtyard.

The main breaks in the case, the investigators said, came from ordinary citizens who volunteered observations of suspect activity, from Mafia turncoats and from telephone taps in apartments and jail cells. But the investigators were reluctant to reveal details, for fear of jeopardizing the ongoing investigations.

The car bomb at the Uffizi, which killed five people, exploded on May 27, 1993, blowing out skylights and windows and damaging paintings. Restoration work is continuing, though large areas have been restored and reopened to the public.

At a news conference, the investigators said today that the order for the car bombs had been issued by the Mafia to strike at the Government, at the Roman Catholic Church and at media figures who opposed the Mafia, like Mr. Costanzo.

NOW THAT POPE FRANCIS HAS REITERATED HIS SUPPORT FOR POPE BENEDICT'S HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY IN INTERPRETING VATICAN II, WHEN WILL WE SEE REAL ACTION ON THIS?

On June 10th Pope Francis explicitly endorsed Pope Benedict's 2005 Christmas address to the Curia where he proposed the correct method of interpreting the Second Vatican Council. You can read the entire address HERE. Very much in line with Pope Benedict's hermeneutic is that of Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and this is what Pope Francis said of him on June 10th: One question concerned the interpretation of the II Vatican Council. Francis once again expressed his appreciation for the work of Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, defining it as “the best hermeneutic” of the Council. You can read what Father Z wrote about him  HERE.

Pope Benedict said this in 2005: "Moreover, the Congregation for Divine Worship, in close connection with the Encyclical, published the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum as a practical guide to the correct implementation of the conciliar Constitution on the liturgy and liturgical reform."

In terms of Pope Benedict and Archbishop Marchetto's hermeneutic for the correct implementation of Vatican II, that is actually going back to the written documents themselves and implementing the Council, where are we going with this now that we know explicitly for sure this is what Pope Francis endorses as it concerns the Liturgy?

There is a good is an article by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone in the New Liturgical Movement, which you can read HERE in full but which I will quote below in part:  

"Some of the directives in these documents [Sacrosanctum Concilium and The General Instruction of the Roman Missal] have been observed in the life of the Church on the local level, but others have been ignored or misunderstood. So I would like to cite some passages to give some examples of where we need to focus our efforts to make our worship more in line with what the Church is asking us to do.

First of all, Sacrosanctum Concilium states at n. 36:

… the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants … 

So we can see that it was not the mind of the Council to abolish the use of Latin in the liturgy by any means; quite the contrary. But a more generous use of the vernacular was allowed in order to engage the people in the liturgy more conscientiously. It later has this to say about music (n. 116):

The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given first place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action.

Again here, the intention of the Council was quite contrary to abolishing the Church repertoire of sacred music from her worship. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal repeats this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium at number 41, and then goes on to add: “Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.” In 1974, Pope Paul VI even issued a little booklet, Iubilate Deo, containing these more classic chants and sent it to all the bishops of the world in order to help implement this vision. And how appropriate it is for us here in the Bay Area, where every Sunday in many of our parishes, and certainly in Masses at the diocesan level, people from different cultural and language backgrounds come together to worship...

...Likewise, Latin – which I once heard the late Cardinal Hickey refer to as the Church’s “old vernacular” – has both a practical and symbolic value. The practical value is that it is the common patrimony of all Catholics, and so a way that people of different languages can worship together, using texts and formulas that have been preserved from antiquity. But it also has a symbolic value: precisely because it is our common patrimony, belonging to all Catholics of all cultures and languages – indeed, it is constituent of our common Catholic culture – it teaches us that the liturgy is not ours to with as we will. No, the liturgy is a given; it is our job to celebrate it well and faithfully, not tinker with it for the sake of “creativity” or “self-expression.” This once again is a matter of succumbing to the culture of narcissism. We hear much talk today about “servant leadership.” To have credibility, we have to model that first and foremost at the liturgy: we are the servants of the liturgy, not its creators. This takes a great deal of discipline, restraint and humility on the part of the liturgical ministers, and most especially the celebrant.

Let’s hear more from Sacrosanctum Concilum about music in the liturgy, this time about the use of instruments (n. 120):

In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man’s mind to God and to higher things. But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship ... This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

A very important instruction on sacred music issued in 1967, Musicam Sacram, repeats this passage from Sacrosanctum Concilium, and then adds the following:

63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.

       Any musical instrument permitted in divine worship should be used in such a way that it meets the needs of the liturgical celebration, and is in the interests both of the beauty of worship and the edification of the faithful.

       64. The use of musical instruments to accompany the singing can act as a support to the voices, render participation easier, and achieve a deeper union in the assembly. However, their sound should not so overwhelm the voices that it is difficult to make out the text; and when some part is proclaimed aloud by the priest or a minister by virtue of his role, they should be silent."

MY FINAL COMMENTS: It seems to me that Pope Benedict promoted his theology in a holistic way by all he said and did and the recovery of so many little "t" traditions for the papacy and the Liturgy.

His greatest mistake was not codifying what he desired for the Liturgy prior to his abdication thinking that it would jump start an organic development of the Liturgy from the 1962 Liturgy. As Msgr. Guido Marini said of Pope Benedict, "he proposes but does not mandate." My hope is that with the passage of time, what Pope Benedict proposed and modeled will be given a second look and mandated one day.

But when we actually return to the Liturgy document of Vatican II and see how conservative a document it actually is that was actually discarded in the post-Vatican II aftermath using the wrong hermeneutic of the Council, there may be hope for a true liturgical movement some 50 years after the Council.

What will it look like?

--More Latin mandated (I suspect for the fixed parts of the Mass). If it is left to dioceses or parishes to implement the use of more Latin, it won't happen.

--Kneeling for Holy Communion as Pope Benedict modeled.

--Ad orientem or at least the traditional altar arrangement.

--Gregorian Chant and the mandating of the Propers

What Pope Francis brings to the table and is quite necessary is the revival of popular devotions, especially Eucharistic devotions.     

BOMBSHELL: POPE FRANCIS ENDORSES TWO FORMS OF THE ONE ROMAN RITE AND POPE BENEDICT'S HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY IN INTERPRETING VATICAN II!

This is from Inside the Vatican from the Italian newspaper La Stampa:

On the motu proprio, Pope Francis said he did not want to deviate from the line of Benedict XVI, and reiterated that the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate remained free to celebrate the old mass, even if for the moment, in light of the controversies surrounding the exclusive right to use that missal – an element that did not constitute part of the founding charisma of the institution – they required “a discernment” with the superior and with the bishop if it concerned celebrations in parish churches, sanctuaries and teaching houses. The Pope explained that there must be freedom, both for those who wish to celebrate with the old rite, and those who wish to celebrate with the new rite, without the rite becoming an ideological banner.

One question concerned the interpretation of the II Vatican Council. Francis once again expressed his appreciation for the work of Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, defining it as “the best hermeneutic” of the Council. He then responded to the objection according to which the II Vatican would only be a castoral council, which has damaged the church. The Pope said that although it is has been pastoral, it contains doctrinal elements and is a Catholic council, reaffirming the line of the hermeneutics of reform in the continuity of the one-subject church, presented by Benedict XVI in his speech to the Roman Curia in December 2005. He then reminded them that all councils have provoked uproar and reactions, because the demon “does not want the church to become strong”. He also said that we must move forwards with a theological and not ideological hermeneutic of the II Vatican.

THE PURPOSE OF EXCOMMUNICATION

This is what Pope Francis did to the Mafia on Saturday afternoon in Calabria, Italia!

I just can't get enough of this Liturgy and it is so well done. The Gregorian Chant, the true chant of the Latin Rite, elicits prayer and contemplation from those who chant and listen. It is unique to our authentic Catholic spirituality and all but lost in the Latin Rite in about 99% of the parishes in our country and the world in favor of Broadway sounding ditties sometimes with a country/western twang as well as "Protestant Praise and Worship drivel."  Time for true liturgical renewal!

Pope Francis, despite his inclusive reputation, has not shied away from excommunication when appropriate. I suspect we will see more of it as this pope will not have Satan manipulating Catholics and the institutional Church.

I see excommunication both public and private as having two major effects.

The first is that it makes clear what sin and evil one commits that places that person outside the boundaries of the Church and cuts them off from full communion with the Church.

The second is that is makes clear to the one excommunicated that they are outside the Church and possibly damned for it if they do not repent and return to the full communion of the Church. The Church is in fact the field hospital that must quarantine her sick, contagious members in order to cure them of their sin and evil sickness without spreading the contagion to others. For public excommunication there must be public repentance and reconciliation.

For these two reasons, I agree with Cardinal Burke that public figures like politicians who are Catholic must be excommunicated if they propose public policy that the Church opposes, not from the political point of view, but from the point of view of the Catholic Church's sure and certain Faith in the areas of morals.

I would say that this "nuclear option" must be used especially in the areas of the protection of innocent human life at its beginning and end (abortion and active euthanasia).

It must be applied, in my most humble opinion, to those Catholic politicians who deliberately try to undermine the religious liberty of the Church and try to use government to change the Church's teachings in the areas of human life, abortion and artificial contraception.

It must be applied to Catholics in the political sphere who oppose natural law even as it concerns secular marriage.

The mafia and politicians--there are similarities when evil and anti-Catholic actions are embraced even as feigning to remain active as Catholics. 

LET THEM BE EXCOMMUNICATED AND ANATHEMA!

REASON # 90,306 WHY ITALIANS JUST LOVE PAPA FRANCESCO!

The Holy Father has endeared himself to the whole world, but Italians the most--they just love him and here is reason #90,306 for that love:

When I hear these Italian women calling out to Papa Francesco, I can hear my mother in that crowd and what a beautiful southern Italian day it was, you can almost taste the pasta!
And as reported by some blogs that this pope is ill, His Holiness' demise due to illness is reported prematurely!

I MISSED THE MOST PROFOUND SIGNS OF REVERENCE IN THE PHOTO BELOW EVEN WITH STANDING FOR HOLY COMMUNION

Press on photo to enlarge:

I used this photo above in the post below this one. I took it from the internet at random early this morning and really was only looking for a photo of people standing to receive Holy Communion. But I didn't really study the photo beyond that.

Now that I do meditate on it, I realize that this photo is from the mid 1960's and more than likely to show how to stand to receive Holy Communion in the "new Mass" that euphemistically as they said back then, had undergone renewal.

But please note that the priest while wearing a modern looking chasuble is still wearing the maniple!

The altar railing, more than likely still in use until a few days or weeks prior to this photo, is still there. 

This is evidently a school Mass although I doubt it since no one is wearing a uniform, but it is a children's Mass. Note how they are dressed! They are in the 1960's Sunday best and please note that each and every girl is wearing some kind of head covering!

This kind of reverence in terms of the care that these children and/or their parents took as it concerns their dress for Mass has been lost. Why did this happen? Is there a correlation between the novelty for this congregation receiving Holy Communion standing and what eventually will happen with proper dress at Mass?

I muse, you decide!

DEACON GREG KENDRA YOU ARE NOT TELLING THE WHOLE STORY, BUT A GOOD REMINDER ANYWAY

Deacon Greg Kendra has a very good blog. Today being the Solemnity of Corpus Christi he shared an article he wrote in his parish bulletin about receiving Holy Communion. You can read the complete blog post by press HERE.

This is an excerpt with my comments in red in the text:

The General Instruction asks each country’s Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions. (This is uniformity to the extreme. There are times in the Mass that the congregation can individualize their acts of reverence. Certainly this is the case in most Ordinary Form Parishes. Some make the Sign of the Cross before receiving, some afterward and as indicated, some receive on the tongue and others in the hand. Some bow, some don't and some actually kneel. Some receive from the Chalice if present but many do not. The difference between those receiving from the chalice and those who don't would seem to me to be even more divisive than those who choose to kneel! But more importantly the Congregation for Divine Worship clarified the communicants' right to kneel if they so choose, similar to receiving on the tongue or in the hand or from the chalice or not:

The Congregation (in 2002!) in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 §1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and - if the complaint is verified - that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have had such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse.)

 Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right-handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing.

The person distributing Communion says audibly to each person approaching, “The Body of Christ.” This formula should not be altered, as it is a proclamation which calls for a response of faith on the part of the one who receives. The communicant should audibly respond, “Amen,” indicating by that response his or her belief that this small wafer of bread [is] in reality the body of Christ the Lord.

My final comment: Why are some liturgists obsessed with making people stand for Holy Communion and refusing to provide a means by which they can comfortably kneel if they so choose? Our Catholic Faith is what unites us, but there are many options, devotional options, that the laity can express during Mass which can be individual. There is a unity in diversity if we believe the same thing about Holy Communion. What we believe is the problem, not how we receive although how we receive might contribute to a loss of the sense of the sacred and our belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 

STATISTICS DON'T LIE, THERE ARE MORE VOCATIONS TO THE PRIESTHOOD TODAY THAN THERE WERE IN 1910

The chart above concerns the Jesuits and their vocations from 1910 to 2010. As you will note, there are more vocations today than in 1910.

I think this chart could be indicative of vocations for the priesthood across the board. More than likely there are way more vocations today compared to 1910. But what happened in that period beginning around 1920 and peaking in 1965 with a noticeable decline to what is the case today?

THERE WERE MAJOR WARS, TWO WORLD WARS, KOREA AND VIETNAM!

The peak in vocations begins its dramatic rise coinciding with World Wars of unprecedented proportions and continuing with the Korean conflict and the Vietnam war.

In fact, during the time of the draft in this country as it concerns Vietnam, there was a tremendous spike in the number of men studying for the priesthood coinciding with the dates of 1966 through 1972. After the draft in the USA was eliminated in 1972 and the war came to a conclusion, so too was there a dramatic drop in the number of seminarians in this country.

For example, my seminary, St. Mary's in Baltimore Maryland had so many seminarians, up to 400 by 1970 that it had to rent a nearby Sisters of Mercy facility to house them all. By 1974 this number was down to about 200 and by 1976 when I entered we had 160 seminarians, 60 alone in my class. In my class by the time we were ordained we were down to 23! Today with deaths and those who left the priesthood, we have only 8 left! YIKES.

It appears that the spike in vocations can be traced to two phenomenon during war time. Men entered the seminary to escape military service! Or men entered the seminary because the threat of war and death created a renewed interest in religious life and serving the Church. You pick!

CHILLING TAPE RECORDING OF 911 CALL OF FATHER JOSEPH TERRA

If you want to hear the tape, go HERE.

USA TODAY'S TAKE ON POPE FRANCIS AND HIS TRIP TO SOUTHERN ITALY ON JUNE 21, 2014

This is a very good news story:
And somewhat related, but not completely, the drug culture who wants legalized recreational drugs are none to happy with Pope Francis who condemned this culture and the push to legalize recreational drugs. Here is a news story from The Washington Times and we see the tide changing (as it does with a fickle, faithless culture) with negative attitudes now coming from secularists, similar to those of faux-traditionalist Catholics some of whom comment here. How odd, but how true, ironic to say the least!

 
Pope Francis waded into the legalized marijuana debate on Friday, putting out a statement that says, bluntly: Don’t do it.

More to point, the head of the Roman Catholic Church said legalizing marijuana won’t bring any positive results, The Associated Press reported.

Francis said during a drug enforcement conference in Rome that even the most limited of tries to give legal status to the drug is “not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint,” but such would “fail to produce the desired results,” AP reported.

The pope’s comments — which aren’t that shocking, given his history of publicly ranting against the “evil” of drugs — comes just as Uruguay approved the selling of marijuana cigarettes in pharmacies. They also come on the heels of legalized recreational marijuana use in Colorado and Washington.

Twitter response to the pope’s comments took a turn to the joking.

When AP put out the message that “Pope Francis condemns legalization of marijuana, says it won’t produce good results,” one Twitter responder quipped: “Matter of fact, it will produce ‘high’ results.”

Others weren’t so lighthearted.

“The pope doesn’t represent me. So off with him! Catholics should not associate with him. He is a shill for the NWO,” wrote one.

And one more: “The Pope is irrelevant.”