Mutual Enrichment?: Another look at the variation of the lectionary in the two forms

A few times in the past, I have noted that there are some interesting aspects to the differences between the lectionaries in the ancient and new roman rites.  Dr. Taylor Marshall did some intersting work on the matter and so did Una Voce.

Thanks be to God Matthew Hazell has also released a new book on the matter called "Index Lectionem" which Joseph Shaw of LMS did a short write up on recently.  A few excerpts from the Shaw piece below:


"No doubt for different reasons, the following two verses, 1 Corinthians 10:7-9, part of the Traditional Lectionary for the 9th Sunday After Pentecost, are totally excluded from the 1970 Lectionary.

Neither become ye idolaters, as some of them, as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed fornication, and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents.

So is this passage, of a quite different character, across Romans 12:17–21, used in the old Lectionary as part of the Epistle of the 3rd Sunday After the Epiphany:

To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.

Dr Kwasniewski gives more examples, and the book sets out the whole thing in detail. None of this would be surprising if the reform of the Lectionary did not have as its chief publicly stated purpose (and the only purpose given it by the Second Vatican Council), that of providing a larger selection of scriptural texts. It is indeed a larger set of texts, but they still went to amazing trouble to exclude texts they didn't like, for a variety of reasons, from use. Some are buried among scores of options given for votive Masses unlikely ever to be considered, let alone used; others are completely absent."


You can read the full write-up HERE

You can purchase the text HERE

Breaking Luther: Gender fluidity flows from Martin Luther

It seems obvious to me that when we hear about people identifying as something other than what they are in reality, this result is from a central point in western history the protestant revolt.

Consider how a protestant considers the Church of Rome and papists therein apostates to the "true, simple faith Christ gave, whereby we are saved by faith alone".  Consider the subjective nature of this statement, who bound this other than each individual feeling it right, rather than knowing by any objective means that it is so.  If it feels right, if I get a warm feeling through my body, that must be the Holy Spirit confirming my thinking.  Objectivity was thrown to the side at the revolt. It was necessary to replace it with a system that would produce results, a system based on subjective interpretations.

How do they know every book within the canon of scripture is scripture?  "Well because 2 Timothy 3:16 says scripture is scripture"... Wait did they just use a text to approve of the same exact text? (circle arguement) Would they do the same for the koran or the book of mormon?  Both claim to be revelation. What is the objective reason you will point to in order to tell muslims and mormons they are in error following these texts?  Are you going to say 2nd Timothy says scripture is scripture?  How do you know 2nd Timothy was even written by Paul, or that its contents in an of themselves are God breathed?  Objectively, how do you know this?

If you reject the Church that can trace itself objectively to being founded by Christ through the laying on of hands, what objective reason do you have to make this decision? Is there some real miracle you can perform to confirm this? Can you trace your beliefs to the earliest Christians in totality?

You bemoan the homosexualist agenda, but you yourselves have given the greatest foundation to them in supporting the contraceptive lifestyle. (not apart from ungrateful Catholics of course) You want a sex life that affirms the pleasure of the action but eliminates the natural, objective order of pro creation... not that far from the homosexualist agenda.  You want sex for the pleasure without consequences, so do they.  This mindset disorders the very purpose of sex and objectively tells God (who gave this function and action to man) that you cannot trust his will when you take actions that have true ordering that is knowable even to the pagan mind.

How can one say they are followers of Christ but knowingly deny the very objective foundations that Christ established based on their subjective takes on a book put together by someone they deny... it didnt fall out of the air.

So what if some goofball gal thinks they want to be a man  and disorder their lives to their own desires.  Mormons do this everyday, they want to be called Christians but they deny that God is Three in one.  The faith alone folks will deny that they can lose their salvation, that repentance is unnecessary to go to heaven as long as they have faith.  That calvinists believe that God created people specifically to send them to Hell. By no means are we speaking of the same religion here, There is only unity through the grand massage of folks like Kasper and ecumaniacs (Cardinal Heenans word).  And that people have become so disordered that they think homosexuality and transgenerderism are ok because its all a matter of subjectivity... this gets placed squarely at the feet of the protestant error that denies the persons ability to come to a knowledge of truth. All is relative to to protestant mind necessarily.

I will leave you with a quote from Luther that best leads to the slow brain drain that leads to the Homoheresy and the mindless insanity of transgenderism

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

Reminds me of Idiocracy

All you needed to know about Stephen Colbert

The homoheresy prevails...

This is not a shocker...

Ok so plain as day he says he doesn't believe in the Bride of Christ.

(ie: he is at least schismatic at this point, but he is part of the homoheresy)

I'm going to assume that the Jesuit (at least Fr. Martin's) plan of singing a new church into being is not going as planned.  But hey maybe a few more interviews with Cardinal Dolan and Fr. "Luther is a saint after all" and maybe, just maybe the church will be healed of its pre VII selfishness... or maybe the liberals will all just leave and set up shop like the apostate Coren with cross dressing women.

Just a thought.  Read the whole article HERE

+JMJ+

Dr. Taylor Marshall on the Synod and it's causes

Whenever madness reigns it is important to have some clear thinkers out there identifying the problem and offering solutions so we can move beyond the anger and rhetoric that feels good but does nothing.

Now Doctor Marshall is what many would call an approved speaker and that may put many people off because neo-conservatives or normalists tend to down play real problems.  However, Dr. Marshall has always approached these situations with prudence but does not hold himself out as naive with regards the workings of the synod. His writings tend to be more traditional in their construction and he has made it known that his family attends the FSSP Parish.

The first video is a calming video and many will say that he is down playing real issues, but he has his reasons and I think them genuine and obvious.



Later, on his facebook page he makes it clear that we should not be naive about the goings on of the synod, pretending that everything is ok.

In the past Dr. Marshall has wrote about the new rite of the liturgy and the various differences with the ancient rite. One of the things he has spoken on was the lectionary and how the three year cycle of readings was supposed to introduce greater scriptural competancy into the laity.  Today he took an interesting look at this once again but this time identified some real problems with what was put in the cycle and what was left out (distinctly different from the ancient rite)

hy do Catholics in America support homosexuality proportionately more than the general population?

Two reasons: lack of authentic Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality…and the Church removed one of the clearest Bible verses on homosexuality from the lectionary:

One of the very unfortunate results of the New Lectionary is that verses that might be deemed offensive have been removed from our liturgical celebrations. (I’ve written about how three “offensive” Psalms were removed from the Liturgy of the Hours after 1971 here.)

Verses against Homosexuality Removed from Current Lectionary

An example of the removal of offensive passages is from the readings of last week, where the reading of Saint Paul against homosexuality (including female lesbianism) in Romans 1:26-32 is notably removed from the cycle. Below are the readings for the 28th Week in Ordinary Time (Lectionary 468 and 469):

Tuesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 468
Reading 1 ROM 1:16-25

Wednesday of the Twenty-eighth Week in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 469
Reading 1 ROM 2:1-11

So what’s missing? Romans 1:26-32 is clipped out. Yet this passage at the end of Romans 1 is thelocus classicus for Paul’s theology against homosexual behavior and it also forms the cited passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its teaching:

dff

The most powerful New Testament Scripture passage against homosexual acts is skipped over in the Catholic Mass Lectionary:
Posted by Dr. Taylor Marshall on Monday, October 19, 2015

Monday morning apologist

+ WARNING NOT EDITED (no time and no desire after writing) +

Just a couple of apologetics I have been contemplating lately:

1.       Jesus never said anything about homosexual relations

2.       That you can be a muslim in heaven

3.       Handling of the Eucharist

Both of these topics are of great importance in today’s world. The first is important because it misunderstand who Jesus is in his substance, and the third is important because the substance of our Lord is of infinite value so our handling of such has consequences that we might not be able to perceive now. The second is the most frustrating because… well, come on!

 “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, therefore judge not”

If you listen to apologetical radio or read articles that touch on the issue of what Christ said of this disorder you will find that the typical approach to this is to say something like: “well, Jesus didn’t say anything about X, but not everything that Christ taught was in scripture.”  This is good and true. However, we have a real opportunity here to recognize and teach those who are ignorant something that might have never occurred to the questioners involved, that Christ is God, and God is not against himself on anything because he is one in substance.

The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.  These are not three separate gods, rather they are of one substance in the Godhead. The Son is that which the Father (an infinite) gazes upon for all eternity (which would need to be an infinite).  We could say that the Son is the mind of the father.  That the Father can look upon himself for all eternity and knows himself infinity this is a distinct person (an infinite person) that he gazes upon and knows.  But it is his substance because it is his own thought of himself that he knows and begets. The Father cannot disagree with the knowing of himself on the meritorious-ness of Baptism.  Such an action would be a disorder of having multiple personalities which the Godhead has not. When the Father spoke his truth (which is the Son by the way) to his people in the days of Abraham and Moses he did so as God, as the principle member of the Trinity from which the other two persons are begotten and proceed from all eternity.  So in other words when the Father speaks so too the Son and the Holy Spirit.  To say otherwise is to accuse the Trinity of being disordered, having a multiple personality disorder in that which is not corrupt

“Why cant one be a good muslim and be in heaven? Isn’t allah just God anyways?”

I was at a Catholic gathering for young adults the other day (which in general is kind of a mixed bag) and one fellow Catholic came up to me and we were discussing the faith and other small talk.  We had heard a short talk just a few minutes before about the media and The Church and how people misrepresent what the Pope says and how The Church is on the defensive everywhere.  Two quotes came up during the talk, the one about the Pope saying the Atheists can do good and he will meet them there and that there is no Catholic God, only God. The person had asked what I had thought of the talk. Now I’m not good at being vague, so I jumped right in saying that though I enjoyed the talk overall there were a few specifics (those listed above) that bothered me.  Firstly because there is this incessant desire to twist and turn what the Holy Father says in every instance and make it ok, even though its not needed.  Again we don’t need to play the game of everything is going to be perfect in his wording (no such guarantee).  But second, when he said there is no such thing as a Catholic God, though you might be able to play a semantical game, ultimately God is Catholic, in that his truth, his being from all eternity is Catholic in every aspect and this is what he willed to give us because He and His Church are One.  Yet the person I was talking with asked why a good muslim could not be muslim in heaven.  Now this question doesn’t have to be about non Christians, you could beg the question about the baptized non-Catholics.  In heaven you and I will have perfect knowledge because we look upon God who is truth and we see, know and live the truth in a more full measure then we can ever imagine in this life.  One cannot go to heaven and remain a Muslim or a Lutheran because both knowings are insufficient and in error.  And to live in God is to live in truth, that is to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.  The Catholic faith is not a proposition among many just for those interested.  The faith is the only saving knowledge of God, it is his life and it is put there for all men regardless of emotions toward it to be embraced, and to knowingly not follow God in what He has given is to be disobedient and disordered (in error) and no imperfect thing may enter into the beatific vision. Likewise a muslim cannot be in heaven while he denies Christ’s divinity, that would be like Cinderella complaining to her fairy that she only maintains her status until midnight, the fairy need only respond explain how you have this possibility to begin with. So too a person will not be able to stand before the judgement seat of almighty God and say that God saved him apart from everything because he doesn’t believe in free will (calvanists).  Such is not the character of God to destroy ones free will to choose right and wrong to make himself happy.  God does not owe anyone heaven and no one can do good apart from Christ. To be in Christ is to ultimately be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Handling the Eucharist

This is a very specific topic I wanted to hit on. How we treat our Lord here and now when we must have faith in His Real Presence will play a role in how God treats us in eternity.  IF we refuse to confess Christ, He will not confess us to His Father in heaven. But the main point of this apologetic concerns the sacred species when crumbs of the Sacred Host result.  The Gospel gives us an example of how important every bit of this miracle is.  In the foreshowing of the Eucharist, when Our Lord multiplied the loaves and fish he had his disciples go out and collect all the fragments that remained from the miracle.  Every piece that remained was accounted for because it was of great importance.  So too, if but a small particle of Our Lord should fall it is of great importance that reparation be made and Our Lord restored to his proper place.  And its really that simple.

MUST READ! The devils agenda: Transhumanism and the #Homoheresy come together to change the world

The following article was published in Psychology Today:

"Nearly all transhumanists support the LGBT cause. After all, a desire to be free to alter, express, and control one's sexual preference and identity sounds distinctly like a transhumanist concept. Advocates of transhumanism aim to alter, express, and control their bodies and preferences too, except they emphasize doing it with science and technology."

Read the rest of the article HERE

The article is a terrifying and prideful witness of what we can expect to come.  It is similar to "After the Ball" in that it openly seeks to spread its evil and depraved thinking into the mainstream.

Some other articles on Transhumanism which the church as also condemned from its inception:

Bagnasaco Says gener theory may lead to "transhuman"

Can we delete death? Transhumanism's lofty goal meets a Catholic response

Transhumanism: Wikipedia

h/t Matthew Olson

The next phase of evil: transhumanism."Nearly all transhumanists support the LGBT cause. After all, a desire to be...
Posted by Matthew Olson on Monday, April 13, 2015

CNA: Catholic dissenters' convention keynoter: A pornographic sex columnist?

Taken from Catholic News Agency:

"Dan Savage coordinates an annual pornography festival. He has made obscene tirades about Pope Benedict XVI, denigrated the practice of monogamy, insulted high school students and publicly harassed politicians he opposes.
>Now, dissenting Catholic group Dignity USA has invited the explicit sex columnist as a keynote speaker to its biennial convention in Seattle this June.
Dignity USA executive director Marianne Duddy-Burke called Savage “an important, provocative, and sometimes controversial figure in the LGBT community and the broader culture.” She told CNA that he would speak on how his Catholic roots have influenced his advocacy and his actions..."

 Read the whole of the article HERE

Oh, but dont concern youself with this... I mean things like Capitol Punishment and covering up CRS crimes are of no concern either!

WE HAVE ENTERED THE ERA OF MERCY!

And it has been found weak kneed and smells of patheos

Headline: Is Pope Francis Backpedaling on Gays?

From the mindless chatterbox arena comes the following:

Is Pope Francis Backpedaling on Gays?  

The Vatican’s cheery-sounding ‘complementarity’ symposium’ is really an attack on sex outside of marriage—gay sex, single sex, divorced sex, and all 50 shades of grey in between. Pope Francis is not Jesus Christ. Or even Martin Luther. He may well transform the Catholic Church, and has already gained unprecedented popularity as the reformer we’ve all been waiting for. But as events this week confirm, he is not omnipotent, and does not intend to change fundamental Catholic doctrine—if he even could. The event in question is “The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium,” an interreligious symposium presented by some of the Vatican’s most conservative voices. To understand the significance of Pope Francis’s remarks at this bizarre event, it’s necessary to back up a bit. You may have noticed that roughly 100 percent of higher animals reproduce sexually, requiring a male and female partner to do so. This is the core of “complementarity,” and it would not seem to require an international colloquium to explain. Complementarity as conservative Catholics use the term, however, is more than biology. It stands for the proposition that the biological basis of procreation should also be the sole organizing principle of society. Only mating pairs constitute a family, and any configuration that is not a mating pair—divorced people, gay people, single people—are not to be legitimized. Otherwise, society will collapse. I am not exaggerating this position. Complementarity also means, of course, than men and women are fundamentally different. In an earlier era, this was obvious. Men rule, women serve; men fight, women nurture. Today’s complementarians have to be more subtle—Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus—but the basic principle remains. Just like you need a sperm and an egg to make a baby, so you need a boy and a girl to create a harmonious pair. The idea of complementarity is an essential part of Natural Law, the Catholic Church’s quasi-secular-but-not-really philosophy that everything in the world has its “natural” role, which is good, and its “unnatural” perversions, which are bad. “Complementarity,” like “family values,” “religious liberty,” and “traditional marriage” is a term defined by what it opposes—non-procreative sex. Sex is not for fun; sex is for procreation. Food is not for fun; food is for nourishment. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas, the most important Catholic Natural Law thinker, called any “misuse” of sensual pleasures luxuria—not just luxury in the contemporary sense, but decadent luxury, pleasure beyond purpose. Evil. All of this matters, of course, because the Catholic Church is a multi-billion dollar international organization with 1.2 billion adherents (40 percent from Latin America, like Pope Francis). The Economist has calculated that it spends $170 billion annually in the United States alone. A great deal of that money goes to imposing its view of Natural Law on the rest of us, spending billions to restrict abortion and contraception, and fight any recognition of same-sex (“unnatural”) couples. Now, wasn’t Pope Francis going to change all that? No. Never. It was revolutionary when Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge?” when asked about gay people. But it was revolutionary in a specific, limited way. What he meant was that he personally, and by extension all Christians, should not be judgmental. The Church should welcome everyone— gays, divorcees, criminals—because that is what Christ did. And, who knows, eventually they will straighten out. I’m being a bit dismissive here, but this really is a significant evolution. I know many gay people who were thrown out of their churches, and those of us who were around in the 1980s remember how Cardinal John O’Connor and others blamed gays for AIDS and refused to help New Yorkers dying from the plague. But an evolution in tone is not a change in doctrine. Essentially, Pope Francis is urging Christians to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” Which brings us back to this week’s colloquium, presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—originally known (until 1908) as the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition.” Yes, that Inquisition. The CDF has, for five centuries, been a bastion of Catholic conservatism, and today is no exception. It was headed for 20 years by Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who produced such gems as labeling gay people “intrinsically disordered.” Now its prefect is Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who led the opposition to any softening of the church’s stance against divorcees at last month’s synod of bishops, and who has gone after American nuns for being too feminist and spending too much time fighting poverty instead of opposing gay marriage. And let’s not even talk about gay people. So, while the Colloquium is presented as a neutral, and interreligious, conference on the beauty of traditional marriage, its significance is anything but anodyne. Beyond the snappy website and mission to “examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society,” its real-world impact would be to deny secular legal status to anyone who does not fit is conception of “complementarity.” Just look at the list of speakers, a who’s who of theological conservatives from a breadth of Western religious traditions. There’s Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, which recently decided that transgender people don’t exist, and which expelled a church whose minister said he no longer believes homosexuality to be a sin—after his own son came out as gay. There’s Nigerian Anglican Primate Nicholas Okoh, who called the ‘homosexual agenda’ an “evil wind blowing across the Western world,” and who supports Nigeria’s vicious new anti-gay laws. And of course there’s megachurch pastor Rick Warren, who has strenuously denied helping to bring about Uganda’s anti-gay law, but whose fingerprints are all over it. As in Jerusalem, where opposition to a gay pride march united Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim conservatives, “complementarity” has the power to bring people together. But don’t be misled. “Complementarity,” like “family values,” “religious liberty,” and “traditional marriage” is a term defined by what it opposes—non-procreative sex, same-sex unions, contraception, and usually (though not always) feminism. Where is Pope Francis in all of this? First, in his opening remarks yesterday, the pontiff towed a much more conservative line than his legion of new fans might expect. “The complementarity of man and woman,” he said: is a root of marriage and family… We now live in a culture of the temporary, in which more and more people are simply giving up on marriage as a public commitment. This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable.” That is not exactly a message of liberation, and it confirms the speculation of some Vatican-watchers that the whole colloquium is a way for the pope to placate the conservative base that has begun (unthinkably) to rebel against him. But at the same time, the pope didn’t quite go all the way either. Notice he said that complementarity is “a root” of family, not “the root.” And he also said things like In these days, as you embark on a reflection on the beauty of complementarity between man and woman in marriage, I urge you to lift up yet another truth about marriage: that permanent commitment to solidarity, fidelity and fruitful love responds to the deepest longings of the human heart. I urge you to bear in mind especially the young people, who represent our future So when the pope says to a room of conservatives: Do not fall into the trap of being swayed by political notion. Family is an anthropological fact—a socially and culturally related fact. We cannot qualify it based on ideological notions or concepts important only at one time in history. We can’t think of conservative or progressive notions. Family is a family. What does he mean, exactly? Does he mean that the non-hetero-dyad family is a “political notion”? Or is he saying that family is an “anthropological fact,” i.e., one determined not by outdated “ideological notions” but by the lived realities of people as they are? Are conservative ideologues, as one of the Pope’s close advisors said earlier this year, “people who don’t understand reality”? Given the audience—a room full of conservatives—what does it mean to say “We can’t think of conservative or progressive notions”? We can only speculate as to the intentions behind these ambiguous words. Perhaps the Pope is telling his conservative base what they don’t want to hear, in the guise of telling them what they do. Perhaps, as one cardinal recently complained, the chaos is the plan. Or perhaps Pope Francis is not the pope of progressives’ fantasies after all. Even if he is, though, the pope may be infallible, but he is not omnipotent. As this week’s gathering shows, there are powerful conservative forces within the Catholic Church and beyond it. And for every encomium to the harmonious, procreative union of male and female, there is a trampling of everyone else.

It was on the daily beast and i am not linking to it... but it is a question that Fr. Z keeps putting out... when will they go after Francis for being Catholic?  Answer is never, they are delusional.

Pray for them!

Modify the Orendi to Change the Credendi

Source

It is quite amazing how the material (I’m being nice) heretics at the synod have orchestrated a grand attempted takeover.  The shades of the first and second sessions of the Second Vatican Council and the similar attempt (and lets be real the success) to push through today’s novelties is stunning!  However, unlike the council in which the ultramontanists like Lefebvre only established the International group of Fathers to go toe to toe with the Bea and Suenen during the council took effect only during the second session and had little to no effect until later on. Cardinals Pell, Burke, Mueller, et. al, have effectively (for now) countered the Modernist forces [now being called Blue Thursday].

But it was quite interesting to read what Cardinal Burke had to say in his interview the other day:

“The lex orandi is always bound to the lex credendi. If someone does not pray well, then he does not believe well and therefore he does not behave well. When I go to celebrate the Traditional Mass, for example, I see so many beautiful young families with so many children. I do not believe that these families do not have problems, but it is evident that they have more strength to confront them. This has to say something. The liturgy is the most perfect and most complete expression of our life in Christ, and when all of this is lessened or is betrayed every aspect of the life of the faithful is harmed”

 The push to change the “discipline of no communion for the divorced and remarried or to soften the line about active homosexuals being affirmed in their error [see Homoheresy] is just another continuation of changing wording to satisfy the world (just see the video about Pope Paul VI from the other day I posted). But will changing the wording maintain the practice or will the practice change?  Of course it will change!

Historians of the Second Vatican Council make it clear that the discussion on the Liturgy, which was the first document of the council to be promulgated, was supposed to be the last thing discussed [read Mattei’s book on the council for instance]. But the modernist forces lead by Bea, and even to some extent Montini, knew that to accomplish a shift of what the church is they had to modify the orendi.  The Mass is the common activity (much more than an activity of course) of all Catholics and to modify it they could adjust the doctrine in an indirect way.  Modernists are not interested in formally changing doctrine, that’s too sticky and the Holy Spirit protects that, rather they have undertaken an end around to accomplish their goals, by changing the practice they have modified the faith to something more of their own heart’s desire [see Fabian Socialists].

To give another example look at how the synod is not using Latin to promulgate the documents coming out.  The modernists know that Latin being a dead language cannot be manipulated to fit their ends in an end around way, but modern language which is relative (more and more so every day) can be used to make statements that seem both orthodox and heterodox.  You can also see this in how Benedict put a stop to the neocatechumenal way mass after he was advised by the aforementioned Cardinal Burke.  Yet, under the Franciscan Pontificate the neocatechumenal movement is back underway.  So there is more double speak for you, and this should make you ask the question of if the neocatechumenal mass was first condemned, but then approved what about the novus ordo missae?  People love to say that you can’t call into question the new mass because its under the protection of the Holy Spirit.  I think I will let you read or listen to some Michael Davies on that.

The Point is don’t let the word “Discipline” be stretched so far by conservatives or liberals to accomplish their goals.  Just because something is a discipline like celibacy or communion only for those in a state of grace doesn’t mean it can or should change. 

As Chesterton put it: “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”  The Cardinals will continue to move the Overton Window so they can retreat yet still make up some ground which they did not have before.  Their initial attempt failed but the orendi is being affected because people are confused, use social media to counter the revolutionaries.

+Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, Pray for Us!+

an interesting video from Voris:

+JMJ+