Final thoughts on the Star Wars Mass

What a headache. I should leave it at that and move on from this craziness, but here it goes...

This is indeed a sad ordeal that could have been avoided with proper catechesis.  The monsignor at the parish claims that this is no big deal, the parishioners are upset and letting it be known that this is an every week sort of thing and that bloggers are just looking for hits.  Now I'm not saying I didn't think this would not eventually draw hits, but primarily we all know in order to stop a problem the problem needs to be made known, even by some jerk Pharisee 873 miles away in the Cream City.

 I don't think its worth while to attack the defenders like Deacon Kandra, the parishioners or even the monsignor, its just a waste of time. When it comes down to it what is happening is a matter of some or even many of our brothers and sisters in the faith understanding the Mass in its purpose and application.

I'm not against the wearing of costumes to Holy Mass for instance on All Saints day.  Even at St. Stans children dress up as the saints, but I do think it obvious that a line is being crossed when you profane something by equating the secular gimmicks with the ancient faith. Are these costumes going to evoke love of God like in how saintly garb may remind us? 

The dumbing down of the liturgy is a concern. One of the parishioners thought it ok because it would one day lead the children to continue going to Mass if now we make it fun for them. Haven't the gimmicks all been tried to retain the youth?  What are the fruits of this event Catholicism? I think its a worthwhile question to examine how these innovations effect the thinking of the faithful.  To me if we don't take things seriously from the beginning why should they take it seriously later.  If its a matter of entertainment they will run to the heretical sects of Protestantism, they are good at entertaining and warm feelings.

Before 1963 there was no such thing as children's Mass or a life teen Mass.  What is the focus, are we not saying that the focus of these things is on the people, and the glory of God must bend its knee to be compatible with the days norms? Children are not as dumb as some seem to think.  Considering over half of the parishioners at St. Stans are under 30, and the back 10 pews are full of children, there is no need for a children's mass because that is not what Mass is about.  Even having the choir behind the Altar (I'm thinking of you St. Als) starts to confuse the purpose of why Mass is said, not to entertain but to bring about the graces that now, as then, flow from the Holy Sacrifice that is once and for all offered once again upon the altar.

I get it that the intentions to keep the children excited are genuine and even praise worthy, but time and place.  Have the star wars party after Mass, but don't profane this sacred rite of the church with the mundane.  If you want to use star wars in your homily do so, but you don't need to make a whole gimmick to surround it.  What religion are we taking part in? Do we know where we are when the consecration takes place? Where is our focus? Have we asked if this action will glorify God before we make the decision to go ahead with it? Good intentions don't necessarily equate to prudent actions.

And just a note to those that are upset and taking it out on Mr. Hitchborn that this has gone viral, perhaps there is a reason that is worth looking into.  Mr. Hitchborn and the rest of us don't hate you and don't want to be the rain on your sunny day, but it is incumbent upon us to make it clear that there is something seriously going wrong here, whether the intentions are good or not.  Please realize this before you want to yell at us for not being understanding or for "trolling" your parish.  We desire one thing, the glorification of God, which can be had objectively.  Below I have posted a video from Michael Davies which I do hope will bring to you a greater understanding of what Mass is.

May God bless your Parish and Pastor

James Savonarola

Significance of the Sign of the Cross

Get your Cross on Today!

“The venerable custom of making the Sign of the Cross over persons and things has, without doubt, its origin from Apostolic times; some even trace it to Christ our Lord Himself who, according to a devout opinion, blessed at His Ascension into heaven the disciples with His hands in the form of a cross.  The very ancient use of the Sign of the Cross is proved from the universal testimony of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers…

 The sign of the Cross is a symbolical expression of the principal mysteries of Christianity, a confession of the Catholic faith. It reminds us of the Crucified, of the price of our redemption and of the value of our soul; it enkindles love of God, strengthens hope, animates us to follow Christ on the way of the Cross; it indicates that in the Cross we are to find our honor, our salvation and our life; that we should prefer "the folly and weakness of the Cross" to all the wisdom and power of the world, that, as disciples of the Crucified, we should combat under the banner of the Cross and by this sign triumph over all our enemies…

St. Francis de Sales writes on this subject:  "We raise the hand first to the forehead, saying: in the name of the Father', to signify that the Father is the first person of the Most Holy Trinity, of whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Holy Ghost proceeds. Then saying: 'and the Son,' the hand is lowered to the breast, to express that the Son proceeds from the Father, who sent Him down to the womb of the Virgin. Then the hand is moved from the left shoulder or side to the right, while saying: 'and of the Holy Ghost,' thereby signifying that the Holy Ghost, as the third person of the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son, that He is the love that unites both, and that we, through His grace, partake of the fruits of the Passion… Accordingly, the sign of the Cross is a brief declaration of our faith in the three great mysteries: namely, of our faith in the Blessed Trinity, in the Passion of Christ and in the forgiveness of sin, by which we pass from the left side of curse to the right of blessing.

The concluding word Amen has here a two-fold meaning: one side, it expresses his desire that the petitions included and mentioned in signing himself with the sign of the cross may be fulfilled; on the otherhand, it confirms and seals the good intention excited within him by the accompanying words in honor of the Most Holy Trinity.”

Excerpts taken from "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Gihr

Click to Get!

Get your copy and learn more about the precious liturgy that was given to us for the Adoration and Glorification of our Most Holy God!

Who can doubt it was Blessed Peter who gave us the Roman Liturgy?

The following passage is taken from Fr. Gihr's work: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

"While the liturgies of the East are very numerous, there are but few in the West. The principal are the Mozarabic, the ancient Gallic, the Ambrosian and Roman liturgies. The last named has at all times had the precedence, and is now found in all parts of the world. Already Pope Innocent I (4002 – 417 AD), in writing to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, about ritual matters, traces the origin of the Roman liturgy to the Prince of the Apostles:  “Who does not know that what has been handed down by Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, to the Roman Church is still observed unto this day, and must be observed by all?” St. Peter, consequently, must be regarded as the founder of the Roman liturgy, for the method of celebration followed and introduced by him was the essential and permanent foundation for its later development and form. “This liturgy, as yet a tender plant, was brought by St. Peter, the Prince of the Church, into the garden of the Roman Church, where by his nursing care and that of his successors, assisted by the Holy Ghost, it has grown to a large tree, and although the trunk has long ago attained its full growth, it nevertheless shoots forth in every century new branches and new blossoms (Kössing). "

From Peter to Peter, the liturgy is recieved in humility

The Important Role of Flowers in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

With so much beauty available to lift ones mind up to the Lord at Mass, one might be overwhelmed so as to recognize specifics that build up this mindset.

In his masterful work "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Liturgically, Dogmatically and Ascetically Explained", Fr. Nicholas Gihr explains the important that flowers play in offering divine worship to God in the Mass.  Below I have reprinted the section of the book that relates to this item.  Please take the time to read and see how every part of the Mass is an opportunity to draw one closer to God:

NLM Photo

"To decorate the altars, especially on great feasts, with flowers is an ancient, venerable, devout and praiseworthy custom, and, therefore, approved of by the Church.  Artificial as well as natural flowers may serve to adorn the altar; 3 but the latter are preferable.  The artificial flowers should be imitations of the natural, and should be well made and be kept clean ; for thus only can they, in a measure, supply the place of fragrant, bright, fresh flowers. Faded and worn out imitations are never to be suffered on the altar.

Fresh, bright and fragrant flowers growing in pots add to the decorations of the altar, making it beautiful and pleasing and, consequently, greatly contribute to enhance the celebration of the feast and to the edification of the people. A holy religious, the Capuchin Francis Borgia, used to say: "God has left us from Paradise three things: the stars, the flowers and the eyes of a child." In fact, flowers have in God's creation a place entirely their own ; they are on the globe of the earth what the stars are in the canopy of heaven uneffaced traces of a former world, the earthly Paradise, the least affected by the curse of sin. In the splendor of their colors, in their fragrance, they are revelations of the beauty and goodness of God, emblems of His benevolence, images of His first, true designs (Isa. 25, i). For all these reasons, flowers, besides lighted candles and incense, have their liturgical meaning, and are used to adorn the divine service.  By their fine and elegant forms and lovely colors they possess a peculiar charm to please and captivate both the heart and the senses, not without impressing us more deeply. These beautifully colored creatures are wonderfully formed by the light from the mud of the ground and colorless water. Truly flowers, those lilies of the field, which neither spin nor weave, and yet are so splendidly arrayed by the purity and perfection of their attire give us to understand that they are the handiwork of that Creator who created Paradise, from which they come, and that they have been left, as it were, to us as a remembrance thereof.

There is also a symbolical reason for adorning altars with flowers. Flowers possess a language all their own, they have a higher meaning; they are evident emblems of spiritual things. This is expressed in the Church liturgy itself. On the fourth Sunday in Lent (Laetare) the Holy Father blesses in Rome a golden rose with solemn prayer, anoints it with chrism, besprinkles it with perfumes and holy water, and incenses it. He prays at the same time, that God, who is the joy and happiness of all the faithful, may be pleased to bless and sanctify in its beauty and fragrance this rose, which we hold in our hands as a sign of spiritual joy; that His people, delivered from the captivity of Babylon, through the grace of His Only- Begotten Son, may even now partake of the happiness of the heavenly Jerusalem. Therefore, since the Church on this day to the honor of His name gives expression to her joy, may He grant her true and perfect joy and devotion, in order that she may by the fruit of good works shed forth a balmy odor like unto the perfume of that flower, who, springing from the root of Jesse, is called the flower of the field and the lily of the vale. If a Catholic prince deserving of such a gift is present, the flower is presented to him, with the words: "Receive from our hands the rose, which signifies the joy of the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem, that is, of the Church triumphant and militant, and which guides all the faithful to that lovely Flower, the joy and crown of all the saints. Accept it that you may be more and more enriched with every virtue in Christ our Lord, like unto the rose planted along the streams." Flowers may also, on account of their grace and loveliness, serve as emblems of the festive joy wherewith we should long for the altar of Christ, the Author of all true joy. Flores sunt signa laetitiae. Thus the adorning of the altar with flowers appears as a symbolical expression of that joy in which we may exclaim with the Psalmist: "How lovely are Thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! I have loved the place where Thy glory dwelleth."

Flowers also symbolize those supernatural prerogatives, graces and virtues with which the soul should be adorned; for the saints bloom as the lily and they are in the presence of God as the odor of balsam. Flowers, by reason of their freshness and beauty which they receive from the sun and which they turn towards it, are emblems of that innocence and holiness we derive from Christ, the Sun of Justice, and with which we again glorify Him as the Sun of our spiritual life. The flowers on the altar signify, moreover, that the blossoms of grace, prayer and virtue unfold in the supernatural light and in the heavenly warmth which radiates from the sun of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The flowers of the altar, at the same time, admonish us to make of our heart a garden for God with the flowers of virtue, so that Christ, who feeds among the lilies, may find His delight therein; for nothing gives Him so much joy as a heart adorned with the blossoms of purity. The flowers with which we ornament the altars on great feasts, therefore, symbolize the souls of the faithful, who adorn their interior with faith and with the grace of the Divine Victim, in order to receive the King of Glory and offer to Him their homage. In this connection, the Holy Ghost says to us: "Send forth flowers, as the lily, and yield a perfume and bring forth leaves in grace and praise with canticles and bless the Lord in His works" (Ecclus. 39, 19).

Blessed Henry Suso

It should, then, be a loving occupation for us to adorn the church, to decorate the altar and to enhance the beauty of divine worship with fresh and fragrant flowers. God is thereby honored, pious people are rejoiced and edified. On this subject we have a beautiful model in the Blessed Henry Suso. "When delightful summer came round and the delicate flowers appeared for the first time, he refrained from culling or even from touching them until the day had arrived on which he would gather them to greet his spiritual love, the gentle, the all-fair and lovely Maiden, the divine Mother. Thus he gathered the flowers with many a tender aspiration, and carried them to his cell to weave them into a wreath; he then went to the choir or to the chapel of our Lady and, kneeling humbly before her statue, he placed the lovely crown upon her head with the request: that since she is the loveliest of flowers and the summer- joy of his young heart, she would not despise the first flowers of her servant.

The altar is here on earth the most holy and the most venerable of all places our Bethlehem and Nazareth, our Thabor and Golgotha. To do honor to Him who here sacrifices Himself for us and who so graciously deigns to dwell among us, all the splendor and decoration of the temple lend their service. The altar, therefore, should be the most beautiful of all, and the pastor should have at heart, in a special manner, its adornment, so that he may in truth be able to say: Domine, dilexi decorum domus tuae et locum habitationis gloriae tuae "O Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house and the place where Thy glory dwelleth" (Ps. 25, 8)." 

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Liturgically, Dogmatically and Ascetically Explained (Amazon Link)

Let’s not overstate Bugnini’s role in propagating the Novus Ordo

From the book The Second Vatican Council:An Unwritten Story, comes the following excerpt:

“There were those who tried to place all the responsibility fort eh Novus Ordo on the shoulders of Monsignor Bugnini, interpreting his removal from office as Pope Montini’s response to the treason of which he was supposedly the victim. The testimonies to the contrary are utterly conclusive and no surprising, Paul VI, one of his biographers Yves Chiron wrote, will no doubt go down in history as the pope who brought the Second Vatican Council to its conclusion, but also as the one who gave the Church a new Mass. From the 1930’s on, in fact, the young Montni, under the influence of Father Bevilacqua, had been a follower of the “Liturgical Movement,” in which he saw the ecllesial expression of Maritian’s humanism.”

Earlier in the book, Roberto de Mattei recounts that Monsignor Bugnini was only removed from the concillium and exiled to Tehran after what might be said to be a type of blackmail that would have exposed the Masonic influence in the hierarchy itself. So too the victim mentality that often is spoken of in connection to Paul VI was a real aspect of Paul VI’s personality, it might have been related to the war he was so heavily involved with under Pius XII.  For more on the victim mentality of Paul VI in action read Michael Davie’s Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre which is mind blowing!

Happy New Year! Pray for the Holy Father!

+JMJ+

Bi-Polar News Friday

Two interesting articles:

Bill Murray Misses the Old Latin Mass

"One new saint he does approve of is Pope John XXIII (who died in 1963). “I’ll buy that one, he’s my guy; an extraordinary joyous Florentine who changed the order. I’m not sure all those changes were right. I tend to disagree with what they call the new mass. I think we lost something by losing the Latin. Now if you go to a Catholic mass even just in Harlem it can be in Spanish, it can be in Ethiopian, it can be in any number of languages. The shape of it, the pictures, are the same but the words aren’t the same.” 

Isn’t it good for people to understand it? “I guess,” he says, shaking his head. “But there’s a vibration to those words. If you’ve been in the business long enough you know what they mean anyway. And I really miss the music – the power of it, y’know? Yikes! Sacred music has an affect on your brain.” Instead, he says, we get “folk songs … top 40 stuff … oh, brother….”

Read the rest HERE

Memories of Madness gone by.. or has it? 

"In March 1981, Lucker was the first bishop in the United States to appoint pastoral administrators (who are often radical nuns) as leaders of parishes. He created an international sensation when he placed one of his rural parishes under interdict until every member received psychological counseling. The parishioners' crime: They objected to a nun-catechist trained in New Age spirituality by Matthew Fox catechizing their children, and her decision to replace the crucifix in the church's sanctuary with a 'cosmic pillow.'"

Read the rest HERE

+JMJ+ 

High Traditional Mass at Holy Hill: 10/16/14

Hope to see you there!

Ten Days of Davies: Vatican II talks (Part II)

Vatican II - Part 3 of 4 - The Protestant Connection
Progressives were eager to work together with Protestants. This meant that Protestant observers of the Council often played not only a role but even a determining role in its sessions. Michael Davies discusses the Protestants in question, their Catholic allies, and the specific influences they had. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity





Vatican II - Part 4 of 4 - The Liturgical Revolution
Michael Davies is most known for his work on the liturgical revolution. Here, he summarizes how the movement for liturgical reform transmuted into the monster that it became, and then used Vatican II, the organs established to effect the reforms of Vatican II, and the "spirit of the Council" to create the new liturgy. Taken from: My End is My Beginning: The Analogy of Contemporary Christianity

 

 +JMJ+

Ten Days of Davies: Michael gets into a debate on William Buckley's Firing Line

Source

I think I have posted a link on this in the past but now I will provide additional things for you to chew on.

The Program was Firing Line, with host William F. Buckley (Founder of the National Review).
Mr. Buckley was a practicing Catholic until he died and one of the shows he invited Mr. Davies, Fr. Malachi Martin and Fr. Joseph Champlin, who worked for the USCCB at the time as a liturgical adviser, to discuss the struggle to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.  The debate was heated to say the least.  Fr. Martin was not a designated debater but an expert questioner brought in by Firing Line to propose questions more formal in nature.

Below I have posted a clip from the program on line as well as the transcript and a link to rent or buy the episode.  the following is an interesting part of the exchange:

Mr. Buckley: Well, lets pursue the question of whether there is a dilution implicit in the new form of the Mass over against the Tridentine Mass. As you know, the Protestants have been arguing very heatedly on the various revisions of the King James Bible with one segment insisting that there is a theological dilution. Do you believe that there is? 

 Fr. Champlin: Do you? 

 Mr. Buckley: In the new order? 

 Fr. Champlin: I don’t think so. Let’s go back to one of the earlier things that Mr. Davies mentioned about the dilution of the sacrifice notion and the priesthood and so on. When the new missal – the Vatican II document, or the new missal of Paul VI – came out, this was one of the criticisms. In the introduction to the ritual – or the introduction to the general instruction of the missal -  very clear notion of how the sacrifice of the Mass is present in the new order of Mass, how the priesthood is very clearly there, how the priesthood the layperson different in essence from the priesthood of the ordained person is still present there. The whole notion of the sense of the sacred is in fact present, and I think the kind of sense that he said at the beginning that the new Mass takes away from that – I don’t think it’s a dilution. I think it tries to bring that notion of the transcendent and then communitarian and bringing together; and the kind of abuses that he was talking about are abuses, but not the teaching of Vatican II.  I don’t see the new Mass as a dilution of what we had. 

 Mr. Bukley: Do you have a comment on that , Mr. Davies? 

 Mr. Davies: I certainly do.  As Father says, correctly, in the new missal there’s an introduction – there’s a thing probably that most people watching wouldn’t know called the “general instruction” to the new Roman missal. Well, when it came out --  First of all, you just had the new order of the Mass --  you didn’t have a complete missal with all the readings – you just had the new order of Mass which had this general instruction with all the articles explaining it. Some of theses articles, they were just totally protestant. For instance, they explained the nature of the Mass, Article 7 – they said it’s the coming together of the people under the presidency of a priest which is a  -- There’s nothing formally heretical in it, but its totally acceptable to Protestants. Article 48 said that during the Mass that the Last Supper was made present. That is heretical, actually. Well, when the missal which Father mentions – with this Forward, that came out in 1970, and the Forward he has mentioned – the premium, in Latin – as he said, it states every doctrine of the Council of Tent absolutely orthodox – ii in an orthodox manner – and says this is what the new Mass is intended to enshrine; but I think this Forward is the most damning indictment of the new Mass ever published – the fact that within a year of its publication, they had to put an introduction to it, saying, “Oh, yes, well, it really is Catholic after all.  It really is meant to show this.” It’s a far more demining indictment than anything traditionalists have written about it… “

Click here for the link to the full video and transcript

Ten Days of Davies: Bringing to light what the Mass truly is (VIDEO)

It's Sunday so why not talk about Mass?

I will let Mr. Davies speak for himself:

+JMJ+

The Liturgy Grips My Entire Being

Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard

"The liturgy grips my entire being. The whole complex of ceremonies, genuflections, bows, symbols, chants, texts, intellect, and the heart – by means of all these, the Church reminds me that everything that is in me: os, lingua, mens, sensus, vigor, all must be directed to God. 

All the means used by the Church to show me what are God’s rights and His claims to the worship of my filial homage and to the total ownership of my being develop in me the virtue of religion, and, by that very fact, the supernatural spirit. 

Everything in the Liturgy speaks to me of God, of His perfections, His mercies. Everything takes me back to God. Everything tells me how His providence is ever holding out to my soul means of sanctification in every trial, every assistance from on high, every warning, encouragement, promise, light, yes, even in His threats.
Also, the Liturgy keeps me ceaselessly talking to God and expressing my religion under the most varied forms. 

If, with an earnest desire to profit by it, I submit to this liturgical formation, how is it possible that the virtue of religion should not strike deeper and deeper roots into my being, after all the manifold exercises that follow, each day, from my functions as a minister of the Church? I am bound to form a habit, a mental state, and that means a genuine inner life."

+++

 Taken from: The Soul of the Apostolate

Whether one attends the New Rite or the Ancient Rites, the liturgy must speak primarily to God.  Even the lectionary is not meant for our own ends, but they are redirected to God to remind him of all He has done and will do for His Church.

An interesting article on the lectionary (old v. new) was given by Taylor Marshall HERE

+JMJ+

TLM at Holy Hill June 27th

Cardinal Ratzinger on Kneeling (Postures): A Full Excerpt from "Spirit of the Liturgy

Below you will find a transcribed full excerpt from then Cardinal Ratzingers monumental effort Spirit of the Liturgy. This part of the book was brought up in a lentan retreat I attended at St. Stanislaus, and I believe it is worth your time even though it is fairly long:

Spirit of the Liturgy

By Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect CDF (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI)

3. Posture

source

Kneeling (prostratio)

There are groups, of no small influence, who are trying to talk us out of kneeling. “It doesn’t suit our culture”, they say (which culture?). It’s not right for a grown man to do this – he should face God on his feet.” Or again: “It’s not appropriate for redeemed man – he has been set free by Christ and doesn’t need to kneel anymore.” If we look at history, we can see that the Greeks and Romans rejected kneeling. In view of the squabbling, partisan deities described in mythology, this attitude was thoroughly justified. It was only too obvious that these gods were not God, even if you were dependent on their capricious power and had to make sure that whenever possible, you enjoyed their favor. And so they said that kneeling was unworthy of a free man, unsuitable for the culture of Greece, something the barbarians went in for. Plutarch and Theophphrastus regarded kneeling as an expression of superstitio. Aristotle called it a barbaric form of behavior (cf. Rhetoric 1361 a 36). St. Augustine agreed with him in a certain respect: the false gods were only the masks of demons, who subjected men to the worship of money and to self-seeking, thus making them “servile” and superstitious. He said that the humility of Christ and his love, which went as far as the cross, have freed us from these powers. We now kneel before that humility. The kneeling of Christians is not a form of enculturation into existing customs. It is quite the opposite, an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God.

Kneeling does not come from any culture – it comes from the Bible and its knowledge of God. The central importance fo kneeling in the Bible can be seen in a very concrete way. The word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own liturgy. On closer inspection, we can discern three closely related forms of posture. First, there is prostratio – lying with ones face to the ground before the overwhelming power of God; secondly, especially in the New Testament, there is falling to ones knees before another; and thirdly, there is kneeling. Linguistically, the three forms of posture are not always clearly distinguished. They can be combined or merged with one another.

For the sake of brevity, I should like to mention, in the case of prostratio, just one text from the Old Testament and another from the New. In the Old Testament, there is an appearance of God to Joshua before the taking of Jericho, an appearance that the sacred author quite deliberately presents as a parallel to God’s revelation of himself to Moses in the burning bush. Joshua sees “the commander of the army of the Lord” and, having recognized who he is, throws himself to the ground. At that moment he hears the words once spoken to Moses: “Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy” (Josh 5:15). In the mysterious form of the commander of the army of the Lord”, the hidden God himself speaks to Joshua, and Joshua throws himself down before him. Origen gives a beautiful interpretation of this text: “Is there any other commander of the powers of the Lord than our Lord Jesus Christ?” According to this view Joshua is worshipping the One who is to come-the coming Christ. In the case fo the new testament, from the Fathers onward, Jesus’ prayer on the Mount of Olives was especially important. According to St. Matthew (22:39) and St. Mark (14:35), Jesus throws himself to the ground; indeed, he falls to the earth (according to Matthew). However, St. Luke who in his whole work (both the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles) is in a special way the theologian of kneeling prayer, tells us that Jesus prayed on his knees. This prayer, the prayer b which Jesus enters into his Passion, is an example for us, both as a gesture and in its content. The gesture: Jesus assumes, as it were, the fall of man, let’s himself fall into man’s fallenness, prays to the Father out of the lowest depths of Human dereliction and anguish. He lays his will in the will of the Fathers: “Not my will but yours be done.” He lays the human will in the divine. He takes up all the hesitation of the human will and endures it. It is this very conforming of the human will to the divine that is the heart of redemption. Or the fall fo man depends on the contradiction of wills, on the opposition of the human will to the divine, which the tempter leads man to think is the condition of his freedom. Only one’s own autonomous will, subject to no other will, is freedom. “Not my will but yours…” – those are the words of truth, for God’s will is not in opposition to our own, but the ground and condition of its possibility. Only when our will rests in the will of God does it become truly will and truly free. The suffering and struggle of Gethsemane is the struggle for this redemptive truth, for this uniting of what is divided, for the uniting that is communion with God. Now we understand why the Son’s loving way of addressing the Father, “Abba”, is found in this place (cf. Mk 14:36). St. Paul sees in this cry the prayer that the Holy Spirit places on our lips (cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6) and thus anchors our Spirit-filled prayer in the Lord’s Prayer in Gethsemane.

In the Church’s liturgy today, prostration appears on two occasions: on Good Friday and at ordinations. On Good Friday, the day of the Lord’s crucifixion, it is the fitting expression of our sense of shock at the fact that we by our sins share in the responsibility for the death of Christ. We throw ourselves down and participate in this shock, in his descent into the depths of anguish. We throw ourselves down and so acknowledge where we are and who we are: fallen creatures whom only he can set on their feet. We throw ourselves down, as Jesus did, before the mystery of God’s power present to us, knowing that the Cross is the true burning bush, the place of the flame of God’s love, which burns but does not destroy. At ordinations prostration comes from the awareness of or absolute incapacity, by our own powers, to take on the priestly mission of Jesus Christ, to speak with his “I”. While the ordinands are lying on the ground, the whole congregation sings the Litany of the Saints. I shall never forget lying on the ground at the time of my own priestly and episcopal ordination. When I was ordained bishop, my intense feeling of inadequacy, incapacity, in the face of the greatness of the task was even stronger than at my priestly ordination. The fact that the praying Church was calling upon all the saints, that the prayer of the Church really was enveloping and embracing me, was a wonderful consolation. In my incapacity, which had to be expressed in the bodily posture of prostration, this prayer, this presence of all the saints, of the living and the dead, was a wonderful strength – it was the only thing that could, as it were, lift me up. Only the presence of the saints with me made possible the path that lay before me.

Secondly, we must mention the gesture of falling to ones knees before another, which is described four times in the Gospels (cf. MK I:40; 10:17; Mt 17:14; 27:29) by means of the word gonypetein. Let us single out Mark I:40. A leper comes to Jesus and begs him for help. He falls to his knees before him and says: “If you will, you can make me clean.” It is hard to assess the significance of the gesture. What we have here is surely not a proper act of adoration, but rather a supplication expressed fervently in bodily form, while showing a trust in a power beyond the merely human. The situation is different, though, with the classical word for adoration on one’s knees – proskynein. I shall give two examples in order to clarify the question that faces the translator. First there is the account of how, after the multiplication the loaves, Jesus stays with the Father on the mountain, while the disciples struggle in vain on the lake with the wind and the waves.  Jesus comes to them across the water. Peter hurries toward him and is saved from sinking by the Lord. Then Jesus climbs into the boat, and the wind lets up. The text continues: “And the ship’s crew came and said, falling at his feet, ‘Thou art indeed the Son of God’” (Mt 14:33, Knox version). Other translations say: [The disciples] in the boat worshipped [Jesus], saying…” (RSV). Both translations are correct. Each emphasizes one aspect of what is going on. The Knox version brings out the bodily expression, while the RSV shows what is happening interiorly. It is perfectly clear from he structure of the narrative that the gesture of acknowledging Jesus as the Son of God is an act of worship. We encountered similar set of problems in St. John’s Gospel when we read the account of the healing of the man born blind. This narrative, which is structured in a truly “theo-dramatic” way, ends with a dialogue between Jesus and the man he has healed. It serves as a model for the dialogue of conversion, for the whole narrative must also be seen as a profound exposition of the existential and theological significance of Baptism. In the dialogue, Jesus asks the man whether he believes in the Son of Man, The man born blind replies: “Tell me who he is Lord.” When Jesus sys, “It is I who is speaking to you”, the man makes the confession of faith: I do believe, Lord”, and then he “[falls] down to worship him” (Jn 9:35-38, Knox version adapted). Earlier translations said: “He worshipped him.” In fact, the whole scene is directed toward the act of faith and the worship of Jesus, which follows from it. Now the eyes of the heart, as well as of the body, are opened. The man has in truth begun to see. For the exegesis of the text it is important to note that the word proskynein occurs eleven time sin John’s Gospel of which nine occurrences are found in Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan women by Jacob’s well (Jn 4: 19-24). This conversation is entirely devoted to the theme of worship, and it is indisputable that here, as elsewhere in St. John’s Gospel, the word always has the meaning of “worship”. Incidentally, this conversation, too, ends – like that of the healing of the man born blind – with Jesus’ revealing himself: “I who speak to you am he” (Jn 4:26).

I have lingered over these texts, because they bring to light something important. In the two passages that we looked at most closely, the spiritual and bodily meanings of proskynein are really inseparable. The bodily gesture itself is the bear of the spiritual meaning, which is precisely that of worship. Without the worship, the bodily gesture would be meaningless, while the spiritual act must of its very nature, because of the psychosomatic unity of man express itself in the bodily gesture. The two aspects are united in the one word, because in a very profound way they belong together. When kneeling becomes merely external, a merely physical act, it becomes meaningless. On the other hand, when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates, for what is purely spiritual is inappropriate to the nature of man. Worship is one of those fundamental acts that affect the whole man that is why bending the knee before the presence of the living God is something we cannot abandon.

I saying this, we come to the typical gesture of kneeling on one or both knees. In the Hebrew of the old Testament, the verb barak, “to kneel”, is cognate with the word berek, “knee”. The Hebrews regarded the knees as a symbol of strength; to bend the knee is, therefore, to bend our strength before the living God, an acknowledgement fo the fact that all that we are we receive form him. In important passages of the Old Testament, this gesture appears as an expression of worship. At the dedication of the Temple, Solomon kneels “in the presence of all the assembly of Israel” (2 Chron 6: 13). After the exile, in the afflictions of the returned Israel, which is still without a Temple, Ezra repeats this gesture at the time of the evening sacrifice: “I…fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the Lord my God” (Ezra 9:5). The great psalm of the passion, Psalm 22, ends with the promise: “Yes to him shall all the proud of the earth fall down; before him all who go down to the dust shall throw themselves down”. The related passage Isaiah 45:23 we shall have to consider in the context of the New Testament. The Acts fo the Apostles tells us how St. Peter (9:40, St. Paul (20:36) and the whole Christian community (21:5) pray on their knees. Particularly important for our question is the account of the martyrdom of St. Stephen. The first man to witness to Christ with his blood is described in his suffering as a perfect image of Christ, whose Passion is repeated in the martyrdom of the witness, even in small details. One of these is that Stephen, on his knees, takes up the petition of the crucified Christ: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (7:60. We should remember that Luke, unlike Matthew and Mark, speaks fo the Lord kneeling in Gethsemane, which shows that Luke wants the kneeling fo the first martyr as his entry into the prayer of Jesus. Kneeling is not only a Christian gesture, but a Christological one.

For me, the most important passage for the theology of kneeling will always be the great hymn of Christ in Philippians 2:6-11. In this pre-Pauline hymn, we hear and see the prayer fot he apostolic Church and can discern within it her confession of faith in Christ. However, we also hear the voice of the Apostle, who enters into this prayer and hands it onto us, and ultimately, we perceive here both the profound inner unity of the Old and New Testaments and the cosmic breadth of Christian faith. The hymn presents Christ as the antitype of the First Adam. While the latter high-handedly grasped at likeness to God, Christ does not count equality with God, which is his by nature, a “thing to be grasped”, but humbles himself unto death, even death on the Cross. It is precisely this humility, which comes from love that is the truly divine reality and procures for him the “name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on Earth and under the Earth” (Phil 2: 5-10). Here the hymn of the apostolic Church takes up the words of promise in Isaiah 45:23: “By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall sear.’” In the interweaving of the old and New Testaments, it becomes clear that, even as crucified, Jesus bears the “name above every name” – the name of the Most High – and is himself God by nature. Through him, through the Crucified, the bold promise of the Old Testament is now fulfilled: all bend the knee before Jesus, the One who ascended, and bow to him precisely as the one true God above all gods. The Cross has become the world-embracing sign of God’s presence, and all that we have previously heard about the historical and cosmic Christ should now, in this passage, come back into our minds. The Christian liturgy is a cosmic liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here is the center o authentic culture – the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path fo the life fo the cosmos.

There is much more that we might add. For example, there is the touching story told by Eusebius in his history of the Church as a tradition going back to Hegesippus in the second century. Apparently, St. James, the “Brother of the Lord”, the first bishop of Jerusalem and “head” of the Jewish Christian Church, had a kind of callous on his knees, because he was always on his knees worshipping God and begging for forgiveness for his people (2, 23, 6). Again, there is a story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frighteningly thin limbs, but, most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical.

But I do not want to go into more detail. I should like to make just one more remark.  The expression used by St. Luke to describe the kneeling of Christians (theis ta gonata) is unknown in classical Greek. We are dealing here with a specifically Christian word. With that remark, our reflections return full circle to where they began. It may well be that kneeling is alien to modern culture – insofar as it is a culture, for this culture has turned away from the faith and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core. Where it has been lost, kneeling must be rediscovered, so that in our prayer, we remain in fellowship with the apostles and martyrs, in fellowship with the whole cosmos, indeed in union with Jesus Christ himself.

+JMJ+

On the Fisher More situation (Calm down, and pray)

Last night I came across a tweet from Rorate that read the following:

Rorate's exclusive breaking news deals with more suppression of the TLM. Stay tuned tomorrow ...
— Rorate Caeli (@RorateCaeli) March 3, 2014

My initial thought was:  "Dang nab it!  Don't these prelates understand that they are stoking and not calming

the fires of Lefebvrian drift".  I admit that I am very concerned about some within the traditionalist movement seeing this and becoming more paranoid (rightly or wrongly) about the continued persecution of traditional teachings and practices of the faith.  There are some circles that see traditionalism as an ends rather than a means to sanctification.  We need first remember that the end is Christ. Period!! Jesus is the Point to all this, and we deserve the frustrations that are put in our way, and are expected to make the best of what we have because it is part of God's just will.

Fr. Z makes some interesting points on this matter in his recent article

Fr. Z’s first reaction to Bp. Olson banning Extraordinary Form at Fort Worth’s Fisher More College

That said, what we don’t know about this situation could fill volumes.For example, I discern in the bishop’s second point, the one about his granting faculties, the possibility that the priest who had been saying Mass at Fisher More on a regular basis may not have had any faculties at all, from any bishop or religious superior.  I suspect that there is more to that poorly phrased second point than meets the eye.
Also, while some Catholic college and university chaplaincies also have the canonical designation as a parish (e.g., St. Paul’s at the University of Madison), Summorum Pontificum doesn’t seem to apply as clearly.  The Motu Proprio doesn’t seem to apply to college chapels and chapels on military bases.  That said, the spirit of both Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae communicate something far different from the tone, at least, of the bishop’s letter.

A commentator also made an interesting point in Creative Minority Reports account of the matter:

federoff11 said...

There is much more to the story, but I am not allowed to talk about it. This isn't an attack on the TLM, its the problems with FMC (and its feeder school FMA). I see no good reporting here, trying to get to the underlying issues by talking to the staff that has left FMA recently.

MARCH 3, 2014 AT 9:33 AM

 This reminded me of Taylor Marshall.  You probably know him from his old blog Canterbury Tales. Dr. Marshall was made Chancellor of the College about 2 years ago, and yet within a half a year resigned leaving many questions.  Nothing official was said by the college or by Dr. Marshall himself, but this does support the possibility that there might be some underlying issues that would play into this decision.

The Holy Father Francis told the Personal Apostolic Administration of St. John Mary Vianney (Campos, Brazil), Bp. Fernando A Rifan that "[Pope Francis] thinks that the Traditional Latin Mass is a treasure to the Church and that his only fear is that the Holy Mass in the Extraordinary Form could be “instrumentalized”

Some might ask what this could mean, but I think it is clear and just.  People using traditionalism and its practices as a way to deny Church authority in disciplinary matters (in a just manner of course). I would point readers to a controversy in the 1400's in the Latin rite where the Ultraquist's were given permission to offer communion under both species.  They did so with the intention of using it as an instrument in deny rightful Church authority in distribution of the sacraments (a discipline as the mass is itself). They were then suppressed for their abuse.

I do pray this situation will be cleaned up soon and the information necessary to calm things down be made public to do so.  Until such times PRAY for all involved!  And dont assume the worst on the part of the Bishop or those reporting on the matter.

+JMJ+

New Fr. Hardon videos for your further education

I uploaded a few more audio clips on YouTube where Servant of God Fr. John Hardon S.J. takes a few questions from his audience:

What does the word "Mass" mean in liturgical terminology?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxmbmyPftII

When is the sacred host consecrated or not valid?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgCZK9V0GiE

What is the Churches teaching on Evolution?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZYK3jf3BE

+Fr. John Hardon, Servant of God Pray for us!+

Why hesitate when changing the liturgy? Hildebrand answers

Again, why has the genuflection at the words et incarnatus est in the Credo been abolished? Was this not a noble and beautiful expression of adoring reverence while professing the searing mystery of the Incarnation? Whatever the intention of the innovators, they have certainly created the danger, if only psychological, of diminishing the faithful's awareness and awe of the mystery. There is yet another reason for hesitating to make changes in the liturgy that are not strictly necessary. Frivolous or arbitrary changes are apt to erode a special type of reverence: pietas. The Latin word, like the German Pietaet, has no English equivalent, but may be understood as comprising respect for tradition; honoring what has been handed down to us by former generations; fidelity to our ancestors and their works. Note that pietas is a derivative type of reverence, and so should not be confused with primary reverence, which we have described as a response to the very mystery of being, and ultimately a response to God. It follows that if the content of a given tradition does not correspond to the object of the primary reverence, it does not deserve the derivative reverence. Thus if a tradition embodies evil elements, such as the sacrifice of human beings in the cult of the Aztecs, then those elements should not be regarded with pietas. But that is not the Christian case. Those who idolize our epoch, who thrill at what is modern simply because it is modern, who believe that in our day man has finally "come of age," lack pietas. The pride of these "temporal nationalists" is not only irreverent, it is incompatible with real faith. A Catholic should regard his liturgy. with pietas. He should revere, and therefore fear to abandon the prayers and postures and music that have been approved by so many saints throughout the Christian era and delivered to us as a precious heritage. To go no further: the illusion that we can replace the Gregorian chant, with its inspired hymns and rhythms, by equally fine, if not better, music betrays a ridiculous self-assurance and lack of self-knowledge. Let us not forget that throughout Christianity's history. silence and solitude, contemplation and recollection, have been considered necessary to achieve a real confrontation with God. This is not only the counsel of the Christian tradition, which should be respected out of pietas; it is rooted in human nature. Recollection is the necessary basis for true communion in much the same way as contemplation provides the necessary basis for true action in the vineyard of the Lord. A superficial type of communion -the jovial comradeship of a social affair -- draws us out onto the periphery. A truly Christian communion draws us into the spiritual deeps.

An amazing article by the Late Dietrich von Hildebrand, Read the rest Here!

My nomination for best tweet of the year!

now some may say thats uncharitable and oversimplification but... this isnt your blog so get over yourself!

Shot to mame

Talking about the liturgy at Marquette

When I was at an early mass the other day I noticed this flyer on the confessional doors:

Some might be thinking, "But its a Jesuit speaking on the liturgy and it is about Vatican II."

I know, I know, I had a similar feeling initially just looking at it, but reading closer there seems to be some good things.

First, the decreed on the liturgy from the council is quite beautiful and only contains a few confusing things, but overall its a wonderful document!

Second the talk is being given by a member of the revising commitee that worked to bring the translation in line with the Latin 1970 missal.  He also defended the new translation among his critical peers.

Now I dont have any real plans of going, but it looks like a positive experience as compared to the one at my former parish as per Terrance.

+JMJ+

On Priestly Celibacy and trying to Reinvent the Faith for Popularitys Sake

So we're at it again with the modernists.  

Tear down anything that even has a pinch of Catholicity for the sake of connecting better with the culture and with the times. 

The one thing that always pops up that is a discipline and therefore can be changed is the commitment to priestly celibacy.  In todays hyper sexualized world we are constantly told that people cannot control their sexual desires and priests should not be expected to do so either.  We are also told that the celibate lifestyle is the true cause of the sex abuse trial.  Furthermore it is stated that if we just loosed the discipline we would not have the priestly shortage that will plague the church now and going on into the future. 

I cannot tell you how much the celibate life is so despised by people in today’s world.  It’s like today’s world is still staring at Christ up on the cross and telling him to come down.  This attitude is not limited to celibacy it also relates as to how Catholics view the sacred liturgy.

As a side note I want to quick hit the attitude toward the liturgy by even orthodox Catholics.  During the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the Holy Father attempted to restore some of the traditions of liturgy which developed organically over the last 2000 of sacred history.  He was often maligned by the “progressives” and even at points he was condemned by the orthodox faithful for being pompous in bringing back the beautiful aspects often referred to as the trapping of his office.  Things like the fanon, the walking cross, historical vestments and miters were shunned by many as monarchial and not focused on the people enough, that they can’t connect with that life style.  Now enter Pope Francis who is a simple Jesuit.  Referred to as humble for not wanting all the supposed “trappings” of the office like the mozetta, the papal apartments, the golden pectoral cross and the liturgical laws of the church.  Immediately Francis can do no wrong in his thoughts and actions and whatever he does it must be defended as De Fide.  Many of us who are often referred to as rad-trads or even accept and use the term were also out and critical of certain aspects of Benedict’s papacy, including Assisi III and his less than enthusiastic use of the Tridentine Mass.  So now that we challenge this supposed notion of humility that people have tagged as relating to his simplicity.  Yet many of us so called trads don’t accept this connection on its face like the happy clappy orthodox crowd do.  His choice in celebrating the Sacred Liturgy towards the people to begin his pontificate was somewhat concerning because Benedict had made it a point to offer the sacrifice Ad Orientem in the Sistine Chapel.  Now my view on this is that he is more comfortable doing it one way and since that first couple days his probably a confusing and often threatening time a little comfort for his Holiness should be afforded.  There is an old Jesuit joke that as long as no one is hurt during a Jesuit liturgy things went well!  It is a funny joke but quite frankly just a modern thing to pass up the lack of reverence and commitment to proper offering of the liturgy which was no problem for Jesuits prior to the 1800’s at the very least.  Simplicity doesn’t mean that we are able to identify with a person any better than if an action was complex. Living in a Vatican suite is no more humble than living in the papal apartments, sure it might be less square feet but the apartments don’t drop into Earth they are still there and still will need to be maintained.  I personally don’t care where he lives or whether he wears a silver pectoral cross but too many people are back handing Benedict by pretending that his love for the sacred aspects of the office can’t be reconciled with the poor of the church.  Its like during the whole Benedictine papacy all he did was mock the poor, treating them as dirt.  But anyone with half a brain knows this to be utter bafoonery.  Even some prelates which don’t deserve their names

mentioned here have proclaimed the Francisican Papacy as a glorious return to low churching.  I don’t know about anyone else but if there is anything I hate it’s the idea that being lite Catholic is a good thing.  We should not shun our history, we should not shun the things that developed in the church organically.  We should applaud such things and treat them with the due reverence and help people that don’t understand them to have such.  So too when something isn’t organic but pieced together in a hodge podge way like the New Mass was we don’t condemn it as invalid, since its validity is a matter of discipline for form, but we need to ask whether the idea that many point to as sacred simplicity has been taken to a point which it should never have become.  So to finish up this note humility and simplicity are different aspects.  It is humble for one to accept the office and all the things that go with it, and in doing so not use it and laud it over others, yet to stand by its importance and the so called trappings don’t make it somehow less respectable for such things are timeless and often times stand against a culture that is that is against us in the first place, not to mention against Peters authority.

Now back to celibacy.  First the argument that celibacy leads to pedophile predators is on its face false in the nicest matter and straight libel and calumny in its sternest understanding.  Not partaking in the marital embrace is no reason to then go out and rape a child.  You cant even say that they are exploding on the inside and therefore are only acting out because they are suppressed because there are many faithful Catholics (a majority by far) who are single and chaste, and don’t molest children.  The John Jay report which was done to find the causes of the sex abuse crisis showed to those without an agenda that the crisis is a result of homosexuals who found their way into the clerical state and used their position of authority to perpetrate their hideous deeds.   This homosexual culture that has penetrated the Church has been documented by many sources including the book “Good Bye, Good Men” which I highly recommend, and even the recent report by a Polish Priest who did a study on behalf of concerned prelates.  It must be pointed out that this is the primary cause of the abuse crisis and not whether someone is celibate.

Second no one forces anyone to become a priest and therefore accept the discipline, so to say that they are forced into this unnatural situation is a sham on its face.  No one is guaranteed the priesthood, and when a person chooses to enter into the state they do so knowing the rules of the life.  So to make the point that they are trapped in this unnatural state leading to them acting out on their sexuality is a faulty notion.  Can you imagine trying to justify a married man whose wife is abstaining from the marital embrace, goes out and commits adultery then they come back and say well its her fault I couldn't help myself.  There is a certain thing called self-control that should be expected of all people.  I, being chaste, am often tempted by the culture to get all of my desires fulfilled at the time they pop up.  Yet somehow I am able to control my desires by his grace.  No its not easy to be faithful, but those that wish to follow him, firstly the clergy, are called to take up the cross and follow him.  We forego the things of the world.  We sacrifice and die to self-daily in our pursuit of his will.  And one of those things that priests are asked to sacrifice is the possibility of marriage which is primarily for the purpose of children and mutual bonding.  It should be no surprise that people in modernity object to celibacy because as its constantly stated the thing they most think about is the marital embrace.  Yet God wants more for us.  That’s not to say that the marriage is bad, for it is a great thing but it has a purpose just as the priesthood has a purpose, and in the west we generally prefer that distinctions are made and that a priest is not tied to a family (unless otherwise allowed) for reasons that are I think reasonable.  Modern man does not understand this, they think their life is about pleasure and the more the better, and if you are not getting any you just aren’t living so it must be changed.

Finally saying that loosening the celibacy requirement will somehow stop the shortage is a joke.  Just look at the other Christian faiths and they don’t have the requirement, yet they are in even dire straits then we can imagine.  Ask yourself will loosing this requirement really make Catholics in modernity really think about becoming priests?  I mean think about the lifestyle that’s expected of a priest, always on call, little compensation, treated like dogs by the media, shamed for teaching what is Catholic, and completely dedicated first and foremost to God.  How many of us can even begin to accept this as what we are called to.  Paul tells us why being celibate is helpful and quite frankly it makes sense. 

If we are really interested in solving the problems that face us we need to ask what is at the core of the priest shortage and the call for priestly celibacy to be removed?  It is fundamentally a crisis of faith, people don’t know the faith and quite frankly even if they are sacramentalized they don’t care.  Catholics contracept and abort their children out of existence destroying generations of future Catholics including clergy not only prompting a shortage of prelates but destroying the Catholic family and even the catholic education system has come under great pressure because there are so few kids and the modernists have used their positions of influence to secularize the schools.

So for those of you that think that we must rid the church of her beautiful traditions and therefore are shouting at Christ on the Cross telling him to come down from it, to be more in line with what they want I say to you, You opinion on the matter is foolish and is nothing more than surface fodder for modern man who lacks the ability to reason to truth in the first place.

So cheers to you and all my best,

+JMJ+