IMPORTANT: First Friday at Carmel CANCELLED TONIGHT December 6, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Admin.
1 comment so far
Due to weather.
Bishop Gracida: “Chaos looms on the horizon if episcopal conferences are given doctrinal power” December 5, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disconcerting, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, shocking, the return.
In the second of my posts examining the recent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Guadium, I will look at another aspect where Pope Francis appears to be taking a rather radical turn away from the policies of even his immediate predecessors (let alone his distant ones) – so called “collegiality.” I will use a recent column by Sandro Magister as a starting point to introduce some of my own thoughts. The only thought Bishop Gracida had on this matter is what I included in the lede. Magister (I add comments, emphasis in original):
In the voluminous apostolic exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium” made public one week ago, Pope Francis has made it known that he wants to distinguish himself on at least two points from the popes who preceded him.
The first of these points is also the one that has had the greatest impact in the media. And it concerns both the exercise of the primacy of the pope and the powers of the episcopal conferences…….
1. ON THE PAPACY AND THE NATIONAL CHURCHES
On the role of the pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio credits John Paul II with having paved the way to a new form of the exercise of primacy. But he laments that “we have made little progress in this regard” and promises that he intends to proceed with greater vigor toward a form of papacy “more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.” [This statement by Pope Francis is a strong - one might even say searing - indictment of his hundreds of predecessors. He is claiming they did not act with the Will of Christ in creating the papal-centric mode of governing the Church, something many early Church Fathers I think would find rather surprising.]
But more than on the role of the pope – where Francis remains vague and has so far operated by making most decisions himself – it is on the powers of the episcopal conferences that “Evangelii Gaudium” heralds a major transition.
The pope writes in paragraph 32 of the document:
“The Second Vatican Council stated that, like the ancient patriarchal Churches, episcopal conferences are in a position ‘to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegial spirit.’ [That's odd, because the "ancient patriarchal churches" were made up of individual sees headed by individual bishops. Dozens or hundreds of bishops did not band together into pseudo-democratic highly bureaucratic organizations founded more on structures of modern government than any type of Church governance.] Yet this desire has not been fully realized, since a juridical status of episcopal conferences which would see them as subjects of specific attributions, including genuine doctrinal authority, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated. Excessive centralization, rather than proving helpful, complicates the Church’s life and her missionary outreach.” [Interesting. Your two immediate predecessors, Holiness, thought rather differently on the matter, as we will see below.]
In a footnote, Francis refers to a 1998 motu proprio of John Paul II, concerning precisely “the theological and juridical nature of the episcopal conferences”:
But if one reads that document, one discovers that it attributes to the national episcopal conferences a function that is exclusively practical, cooperative, of a simple intermediate auxiliary body between the college of all the world’s bishops together with the pope on the one hand – the only “collegiality” declared to have a theological foundation – and the individual bishop with authority over his diocese on the other. [And that's true. For 40 years, orthodox Catholics have been trying to explain the strange role played by episcopal conferences in just those terms, as being entirely unsupported by Tradition and Doctrine and being, essentially, novelties of a practical nature stood up by the Council. Heretofore, there has been absolutely NO doctrinal foundation for giving conferences run almost entirely by progressive bureaucrats (many of whom have spent time at Planned Barrenhood and other far left NGOs) any role in Doctrine. For reasons why, look to Blessed Pope John Paul II's words below]
Above all, the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” strongly limits that “authentic doctrinal authority” which Pope Francis says he wants to grant to the episcopal conferences. It prescribes that if doctrinal declarations really need to be issued, this must be done with unanimous approval and in communion with the pope and the whole Church, or at least “by a substantial majority” after review and authorization by the Holy See. [I wish it did not have that caveat. In practice, the conferences have served often as bullies to prevent orthodox prelates from speaking out or taking action. But, in their defense, they have also checked a few of the excesses of progressive bishops.]
One danger warned against in the motu proprio “Apostolos Suos” is that the episcopal conferences might release doctrinal declarations in contrast with each other and with the universal magisterium of the Church. [Gee, ya think?!? Anyone ever hear of the "Winnipeg Statement," which rejected constant Church Dogma on contraception? Individual conferences somehow get to pretend to define Doctrine (and I think their acts will never go beyond that, pretensions unsupported by the preconciliar Magisterium) and unleash potential doctrinal chaos.]
Another risk that it intends to prevent is the creation of separation and antagonism between individual national Churches and Rome, as happened in the past in France with “Gallicanism” and as takes place among the Orthodox with some of the autocephalous national Churches. [Precisely. As I said in a post some time ago, the Orthodox are more at war with themselves than with anyone else. They have been trying to arrange a "pan-Orthodox" council for nearly 1000 years, and are no closer to having one today than they were 200 years ago, largely due to issues of national precedence and which national Church would get to declare to itself the "primacy."]
That motu proprio bears the signature of John Paul II, but it owes its framework to the one who was his highly trusted prefect of doctrine, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
And Ratzinger – as was known – had long been very critical of the superpowers that some episcopal conferences had attributed to themselves, especially in certain countries, including his native Germany.
In his bombshell interview of 1985, published with the title “The Ratzinger Report,” he had resolutely opposed the idea that the Catholic Church should become “a kind of federation of national Churches.”
Instead of a “decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops” as desired by Vatican Council II, the national episcopal conferences – he accused – have “smothered” the bishops with their weighty bureaucratic structures. [Well.......that's because they have. If you want to know why Nancy Pelosi gets to commit sacrilege daily receiving the Blessed Sacrament, look no further than the USCCB.]
“It seems wonderful always to decide together,” but “the truth cannot be created through ballots,” both because “the group spirit and perhaps even the wish for a quiet, peaceful life or conformism lead the majority to accept the positions of active minorities bent upon pursuing clear goals” and because “the search for agreement between the different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions (where they might be necessary) are weakened.” [Great points. Even more, there is a tendency in such democratic and bureaucratic organizations to be completely dominated by worldly concerns, to seek to always placate and mollify the demands of the world (esp. the press), and to lose sight of the supernatural. Any one of which is a profound reason NOT to give them any supposed doctrinal authority, which I still think would be illusory, at best. JPII said in Apostolos Suos that national conferences could not decide Doctrine on a plane with the Holy See because they weren't constituted by God to do so! They don't have the charism of infallibility! This will lead to unprecedented chaos and, very shortly, disaster.]
John Paul II and Benedict XVI after him judged the average quality of the world’s bishops and of most episcopal conferences to be modest. [Boy, they were being generous! I would judge them as......something else!] And they acted accordingly. Making themselves the leader and model and in some cases – as in Italy – resolutely intervening to change the leadership and marching orders.
With Francis, the episcopal conferences could instead see a recognition of greater autonomy. With the foreseeable repercussions exemplified recently by Germany, where prominent bishops and cardinals have been clashing publicly over the most varied questions, from the criteria of diocesan administration to communion for the divorced and remarried, in this latter case anticipating and forcing solutions on which the double synod of bishops of 2014 and 2015 has been called to debate and decide.
The modernists, of course, love the idea of collegiality, the better to introduce still more chaos and confusion into the Doctrine of the Faith. Modernists are seeking a path to continue their revolution with a seal of episcopal doctrinal approbation. That is why they have been pushing for this collegiality for over a century. It has always been one of their prime goals to “democratize” the Church, because they know with people being as fallen and tending towards sin as they are, the majority will happily revel in sin and error and call it virtue and truth. Such would confirm the modernists in their positions of wealth and authority for decades to come, which is what I think much of this comes down to. Power. The Council unleashed a revolution that was all about grabbing power for what had before that time been a small, disaffected, and rightly persecuted clique.
Look, the matter is simple. Individual bishops, and even groups of bishops in conference, have NO special charism to define doctrine. They do not have the special protection of the Holy Spirit afforded the Pope when making definitions of a dogmatic nature. They can err with wild abandon. Almost ALL the major heresies came from bishops!
Lord, please deliver us from collegiality! Pray and fast like mad for the Pope, he hasn’t DONE anything yet, he can still change his mind! We have almost a year! Storm Heaven!
Another sign of the Apocalypse……DogTV December 5, 2013Posted by tantamergo in awesomeness, Basics, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, manhood, priests, Sacraments, silliness, Society.
add a comment
Crikey. There has apparently been a new TV network started up specifically……..for dogs. Given that operating a TV is beyond most dogs I know, I suppose they intend the owners to watch. And given that the income most dogs earn is rather limited, what with their sleeping 20 hours a day, I am guessing the advertisements will be directed at humans, too. Does a TV channel that sports videos of dogs playing in a yard sound enticing to you? Here is some of what they’re offering:
Yes, they have “episodes” focused on dog relaxation! They lay around 22 hours a day! How much more relaxed do you want them?!? Comatose?!
From what I understand, dogs don’t see 2-D images very well. They don’t process visual stimuli like we do. This seems like something primarily to appeal to goofy new age humans.
Here is supposedly a “stimulating” program:
Sheesh. Boy, I can’t wait to chill out and watch 3 hours of that………..
Well, good luck with all that. Maybe it will appeal to the WASPs………
If the bow wow stuff has you discombobulated, here’s a great change of pace, a First Communion Mass offered by friend of this blog Fr. Michael Rodriguez. A whole bunch of West Texas at the start. Actually, this is a most interesting production, with many interesting camera angles. You don’t often get a glimpse of a priest with an altar cam!
Awww…..you had me at Asperges Me
Some moving quotes from Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness December 5, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return.
I’ve been reading Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness. The Ignatius Press version, from which Fr. Fessio personally removed some of the more provocative bits. He didn’t want it to be “too controversial.” Whatever. There is still plenty of gold. I quote some random bits below, particularly pithy or effective quotes that I thought made important points. I hope you enjoy them. The book is a must read, even in its somewhat truncated and neutered Ignatius version. I do add some comments.
……the reformers of the Mass, preoccupied with their notion of early Christianity, were intent only on impoverishing and curtailing; they were actually pursuing a late Catholic puritanism rather than drawing on the wealth of forms of worship of the first millenium. [Indeed, if the reformers were so set on slavishly returning to early Christian practice, why aren't women and men segregated at the Mass, as they were for the first several hundred years of Church history? Why don't we have the severe penances and public Confession? For that matter, why is the Mass not in Latin? The Mass was never offered in Old English or one of the hundreds of Germanic languages. In point of fact, the "return to early Church practice" was simply an excuse to impose the revolution.]
…..a low Mass in the traditional Rite, read silently in a garage, is more solemn than the biggest Novus Ordo church-concert with spiritual trimmings…….if there is ever to be significant religious art again, this art will come from the “old” Liturgy, which expresses the sacred. [The first part might be debatable. I tend to agree, but it's an arguable point. I don't think any argument can be made against the latter.]
The Mass is not some basic core activity to which various decorations can be added [or taken away] , according to opportunity, in order to height the participant’s awareness. The rites “contain nothing unnecessary or superfluous.” [The Council of Trent solemnly declared that the Mass contained nothing unnecessary. But Vatican II called for the removal of pointless accretions and "useless repetitions.] Who would dare to pretend to find “unnecessary or superfluous things in a great fresco or a great poem?……..At all times there have been people who have made themselves ridiculous by trying to eliminate the “mistakes” in masterpieces, applying their half-baked scholarship to Michelangelo’s frescos and Shakespeare’s tragedies. Great works have a soul: we can feel it, alive and radiant, even where its body has been damaged.
The Liturgy must be regarded with at least as much respect as a profane masterpiece of this kind. Respect opens our eyes. Often enough, even in the case of a profane work of art, if we study conscientiously and ponder the detail, especially the apparently superfluous detail, we find that the offending element comes unexpectedly to life; in the end it sometimes happens that we come to see it as a special quality of the work. This is always the case of the rites of the Sacred Liturgy. There is nothing in them that, given intensive contemplation, does not show itself to be absolutely saturated with spiritual power. [I agree wholeheartedly, and would add, that those older folks who tell us how very, very glad they were when the Novus Ordo was put in place and they finally got rid of that terrible old Latin Mass never understood the Mass. They don't understand it now. Well prior to the Council, a sense had permeated many in the Church that the Mass was old fashioned and out of date. They didn't understand what was going on. This is a damning indictment of the priests and bishops of the pre-conciliar era, that so many people apparently never came to appreciate the Mass in all its glory. But then again, that bad catechesis and priestly formation was at least in part a result of the growing modernist influence in the Catholic seminary and university, thoroughly laced with a good deal of hostility towards the Mass. In the end, the modernists are at least partly responsible for everything, although there was a good deal of just plain ol' apathy around, too, I think.]
The [preconciliar] liturgy became a rich image with a welter of tiny details, greater than the sum of its parts; thus it must be contemplated and can never be entirely understood. [Yes! And in order to make the Mass "understandable," it had to be so dumbed down and stripped of content that it became a banality.]
Quote 5, on why the Consecration should take place “secretly,” obscured by the priest, or, in the Byzantine Liturgies, behind the ikonostasis:
The hermetic aspect, the aspect of rapture, that surrounds the Consecration in the “old” Latin Liturgy represents nothing other than the Holy Sepulcher, shut with a stone, in which the God-man awoke from death. This even had the whole cosmos for a witness, but no living man saw it. Something that, in the Liturgy, seems to be a later accretion, an accompaniment found in Byzantine basilicas and Gothic cathedrals, thus proves to be intimately connected with the core of salvation history. Christian liturgy is a withing beneath the Cross and outside the grave. This is another image the liturgical reform has tried to erase. [Why? Why can there be no mystery in the Mass? Why must everything be conducted like a crass commercial display? In fact, the hiding of the Consecration is about as ancient a liturgical act as one can find. Ever since the Christians built churches, the Consecration was especially set apart. But modernists didn't like that, because the vast majority of them DON'T BELIEVE IN THE REAL PRESENCE. To even hint at the Real Presence is hateful to them.]
That’s enough for one day. If you like, maybe some more, later.
….said the surely diabolically-influenced neo-pagan atheist in the comments to the Youtube video of crazed pro-abort feminist gomorrists attacking Catholics in San Juan, Argentina.
I know the video below has made the rounds, but when I finally got around to watching it, and saw that comment, I thought I’d go ahead and do a post.
I had intended to link to the version where I found the comment, but I cannot. While there is nothing even remotely scintillating in the acts of perversion and self-degradation contained therein, some of these acts reach levels of wretchedness and explicitness I simply cannot allow on the blog. So, I’ve posted the sanitized version from LifeSite below.
Long after you are dead and reduced to moldering dust, ladies, the Church will remain. In fact, She will remain forever.
This is the world today. This is what Vatican II calls us to embrace, to find all that glorious worldly wisdom to teach the Church a thing or 200?
These attacks are increasingly brutal. These women were much more aggressive than last year. What is funny, should any of the men have lashed out – and thank God they didn’t – the women would have been the first scream “victim.” Having spray paint liberally applied to the eyes could cause permanent blindness.
But, you know, the more these women assaulted the men, and the less the men responded, the greater the victory for the men became. Even in the eyes of fallen world totally bereft of supernatural sense, the calm, defiant prayer of the men has elicited overwhelming sympathy. But in the supernatural sense, the victory is all the greater, in fact total: the torrents of Grace these men received was enormous. Even in apparent “defeat” – which this wasn’t – the Christian triumphs. In fact, the greater the “defeat,” the greater the triumph, provided we cooperate with Grace.
In contrast, the enormous sins committed by these women, and the damage wrought on their eternal souls, are incalculable. I pray for their conversion, but as Aquinas and certain other Saints have said, those lost in sins of intellectual pride are the most resistant to conversion of all. Hence the reason so few manifest heretics ever converted. Worse, these women have not only developed titanic levels of intellectual pride, but they have also fallen into the gravest sexual depravities. Combined…….I pray for a miracle.
For the second year in a row, where on earth are the police? Is this some game they play in Latin America, give the leftists a free pass for a big, destructive event, then pretend to lay down the law afterward? What good will hundreds of cops around the Cathedral do the night AFTER the big event? Who pays off who? The police were quoted as saying they couldn’t do anything because the radicals were women. Please. If they had been going after a government office, you can be assured the police would have intervened. We know whose side they’re on.
I was at a class the other night, and we talked about the culture. I think agreement was pretty much unanimous of the 80 or so there – we’re headed for a wicked persecution. Our virtue will be tried as we cannot believe. It will be so tempting to lash out at those attacking us, but for the most part we are going to have to submit.
But such submission provided the blood that watered an Empire and gave the Church the Grace to overcome it. That’s the mind-blowing thing about Christianity, no matter how badly we lose, we always win.
What a heroic display of manhood! What virtue! God bless these men!
If the liturgical reform failed totally, is it time to revisit Sacrosanctum Concilium? December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism.
I saw a post at Louis Verricchio’s blog that discusses the more radical aspects of Sacrosanctum Concilium. For those that don’t know, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC) is the Vatican II document on the reform of the Sacred Liturgy. It was the first document promulgated at Vatican II, and set the tone for the rest with its either/or or “declaration followed by obfuscation” format. While Verricchio raised a number of valid concerns in making his point (which is that while many conservative Catholics try to point to SC as a “conservative” document of VII, there are many problematic statements in it that have been used to make very destructive changes to the Mass), I was struck by how much the reform of – or revolution against – the Liturgy has failed according to the goals set out in SC itself.
The entire reform of the Liturgy proposed at Vatican II was sold as being one that would dramatically improve the practice of the Faith in the lives of all the faithful. It was also supposed to make the Liturgy irresistibly attractive to protestants and those in other schismatic/heretical sects. In short, the “reform” was sold as being the main harbinger of that great new springtime that was so hoped for back in the days of the Council. This is apparent from the opening paragraph of SC, which states:
1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.
While the reform (or destruction, according to many experts) of the Roman Rite was supposed to instill “increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful,” what we have seen, from any metric one could care to choose, is the exact opposite! We have seen a deeper, faster and more universal collapse in the practice of the Faith – especially in Mass attendance! – than in ANY other period in the entire history of the Church!
Whatever changes were made to the Mass, which were intended to “adapt it more suitably to the needs of our own times,” (and what hubris in THAT statement!), that adaptation has apparently failed spectacularly. Not only has Mass attendance collapsed, but so has participation in almost all other aspects of the life of the Faith, from Confession to Adoration (which, in many places, is still actively debased as “medieval superstition”) to material support for the Church to personal prayer life to…….I could go on and on, but they have all fallen precipitously.
Furthermore, the reformed Liturgy has failed to attain the union it set out to achieve, either through attracting more converts or – and this was incredibly dubious from the start – resulting in a single, universal “mass” used by mainline protestant sects and the Church. In fact, this dream was impossible from the start, because only the Lutherans and Anglicans had retained enough semblance of the Mass to make such a union possible. But so very, very much was lost in the futile attempt. Things have gotten so bad, now, that at ecumenical confabs with orthodox Lutherans and Catholics present, the Lutherans are frequently scandalized by the impious handling of the Blessed Sacrament and casual disregard for the sacred! If anything, the Novus Ordo has turned off more of the separated sects than it has attracted!
Again, I could keep going on and on, showing how each individual aim of the reform of the Liturgy, as outlined in Sacrosanctum Concilium, has apparently failed, and massively. I could quote statistic after statistic showing the collapse in the practice of the Faith in this country and around the world.
But instead of beating this dead horse, I’ll simply ask a question – if the reform has so manifestly failed in ALL its stated objectives, perhaps it is time to end the experiment and return to the timeless Liturgy of the Church? Or, I’ll ask another way – why do converts make up a hugely disproportionate number of those who find their way to the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could it be the Mass the starry-eyed reformers were looking for, dreaming of a single Liturgy to unite all the “separated brethren,” is the one they had all along?
Defend Our Lady’s Honor from horrific lesbian blasphemy! December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, Our Lady, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
A radical homosexualist play on the Passion of Our Most Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is coming to Dallas. Called “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told,” this nightmare of blasphemy and indecency features the Blessed Virgin as a lesbian and a full cohort of other homosexual characters in a play that mocks and belittles Christian belief.
A protest is being organized for Sunday, December 8 (The Feast of the Immaculate Conception) outside the Kalita Humpries Theater on tony Turtle Creek Blvd. All details below. The vigil starts at 1pm and goes to 2p. This will be a peaceful prayer vigil featuring the Rosary and other Marian devotions.
DATE: Sunday, Dec. 8, 2013
TIME: 1:00PM – 2:30PM
PLACE: Kalita Humphreys Theater, 3636 Turtle Creek Blvd Dallas, TX 75219 (Meet at intersection of Turtle Creek Road and Lemmon Ave. East)
BRING FRIENDS. BRING FAMILY. BRING A BUS!
You may call America Needs Fatima’s member services with
any questions: 888-317-5571.
I will point out, this vigil is being organized by Tradition, Family, and Property/America Needs Fatima. But don’t let that stop you from showing up, if you have a problem with that group. This is about defending the honor of Our Blessed Mother. If we want the culture to change, we’re going to have to step up and make it change. At the very least, I think Our Lady’s immaculate virtue demands redress of this assault.
One a final note, these boneheads can’t even get basic theology right, the play – as so often happens in popular culture – confuses the Incarnation and Birth of Christ with the Immaculate Conception of Our Blessed Mother.
How about it, Mater Dei-ers? Shouldn’t we get a group together and go over after Mass?
The Stations of the Cross aren’t just for Lent…. December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in awesomeness, Basics, fun, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Interior Life, Liturgical Year, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
…..Advent, being another season of especially focused prayer and penance, is also a great time to focus on the purpose of Our Lord’s Incarnation, His Passion, Death, and eventual Resurrection.
The great Saint Peter Julian Eymard thought the Stations were suited for any time of the year, but especially the more penitential seasons. From Vol. 3 of the Eymard Library, Eucharistic Stations of the Cross:
Saint Eymard rated the Stations of the Cross among the most important exercises……Long experience had taught him to find in the Wounds of Jesus the forgiveness, the peace, and all those graces for which the soul hungers while on retreat. Right up to his death, he made the Stations of the Cross every day, in the evening, even after the fullest and most wearisome day’s work. Therefore he recommended this devotion as one whose full value he knew. In the beautiful words of The Following of Christ: “In the Cross is salvation, in the Cross is life, in the Cross is protection against the enemy, in the Cross is infusion of heavenly sweetness, in the Cross is strength of heart, in the Cross is joy of spirit.“
But to the Eucharistic soul, Calvary is the altar, and the Divine Crucified One is Jesus Hostia. [Jesus in the Host] It hears round about the outcries of the throng against Him Who answers only with the silence of the lamb; it sees into the plots of the scribes and pharisees; it knows the bargaining of these new Judases who sell to the demon in their souls, to their vices, to their self-interest, the good Master who has just given Himself to them in the kiss of Communion. Every day it sees Jesus in His Eucharist delivered up, denied by cowardice and human respect. The Holy Eucharist is the Passion continued and renewed!
What? But Jesus is glorious, immortal, impassable in the Blessed Sacrament! Why picture Him to us as suffering, when He can suffer no more and as humiliated when He reigns as King triumphant?
It is true, and very fortunate that Jesus Eucharist can die no more, that men’s hatred could wreak itself upon His sacred Person only once at Jerusalem! What priest would cause Jesus to come down upon an altar that would be a bloody Calvary for Him?
But do sins, insults, and sacrileges wound the living heart of Jesus Hostia less grievously because He is beyond the physical reach of the tortures which our arms of flesh would make Him undergo?
Do not men, inspired by what can only be an infernal rage, make every effort to torment Him?
The Passion continues therefore at our hand; it continues at the hand of tormentors ravening after a Victim Who, though continually immolated by their efforts and desires, ever escapes their blows and Who finds in this Passion, as in an inexhaustible fountainhead, a deathless and glorious life.…..
……..The connection between Calvary and the Holy Eucharist is so close that no soul can enter truly and at all intimately into union with Jesus Hostia without feeling the need of consoling Him, of compassionating sufferings the mode and reason of which it does not understand but which are very real to its love.
To meditate before the Blessed Sacrament on the Passion as it took place in Jerusalem is not enough for this soul: it feels in its heart that the Passion still continues. It is the Eucharistic Passion of Jesus with which it wishes to sympathize.
A sweet inspiration, one which must give so much joy to the Heart of Jesus! For He complained to Saint Margaret Mary in such poignantly sorrowful terms that He received this compassion too rarely from his forgetful children!
To us who wish to know an honor the mystery of the Holy Eucharist in all its aspects belongs the beautiful mission of meditating frequently upon the Eucharistic Passion; it is for us to compassionate and weep for so many insults and profanations and to undertake reparation for them. Jesus no longer suffers now: He wishes to suffer in us and to prolong in His members, for the glory of God and the salvation of sinners, the martyrdom which He, our glorious Head, first endured so generously; He gave us the example and opened the way to us.
So go to the Stations during this Advent! Offer up prayer and reparation for all the sins and insults directed against Our Blessed Lord in the Tabernacle! Pray for the conversion of those who constantly receive the Lord unworthily, heaping condemnation upon themselves! Pray especially for the conversion of those lost in sins of intemperance and impurity!
Novena Litany for Our Lady of Guadalupe December 4, 2013Posted by tantamergo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Domestic Church, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Novenas, Our Lady, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
The Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe is December 12. Instead of partaking in neo-pagan “Aztec dance” to commemorate the conversion of what both eminent historians Dr. Warren Carroll and Dr. Christopher Dawson describe as the most satanic culture the world has ever seen, why don’t we focus on the reason for that most incredible of conversions, the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe? That apparition initiated the most fantastic process of conversion in the history of the Church, with tens of millions ranging from the Rio Bravo del Norte to the Central American jungles converting to the Faith over the period of just a couple of decades, a Faith these millions had previously been incredibly resistant to. That miraculous change of heart is what signifies the greatness of this Marian apparition. Let us not glorify, then, that long dead culture which practiced human sacrifice on an unprecedented scale, let us focus on the source of its conversion and sanctification.
Find below a Novena Litany for Our Lady of Guadalupe, one I am told is approved by Raymond Cardinal Burke:
Litany of Our Lady of Guadalupe
Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.
Christ, graciously hear us.
God our Heavenly Father, Creator through whom we live,
have mercy on us.
God the Son, the One who owns what is near and beyond,
have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit,
have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God,
have mercy of us.
Holy Mary of Guadalupe,
pray for us.*
Holy Mary, Mother of America,
Holy Mary, Star of the New Evangelization,
Holy Mary, Perfect and Ever Virgin,
Holy Mary, Mother of the True God,
Holy Mary, Mother worthy of honor and veneration,
Holy Mary, Mother most merciful,
Holy Mary, Mother of those who love you and have confidence in you,
Holy Mary, Mother of those who cry to you and search for you,
Holy Mary, Mother who cures all our pains, miseries, and sorrows,
Holy Mary, Mother who remedies and alleviates our sufferings,
Holy Mary, Mother who keeps us within her compassionate and merciful gaze,
Holy Mary, Mother who shows us her help, love and compassion,
Holy Mary, Mother who chooses those who are humble and simple,
Holy Mary, Mother who graciously repays all who serve her,
Holy Mary, Mother who has us under her shadow and protection,
Holy Mary, Mother who carries us in her embrace,
Holy Mary, Fountain of our joy,
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
spare us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
graciously hear us, O Lord.
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us.
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let Us Pray
Almighty and Eternal God, your message of mercy, entrusted to Our Lady of Guadalupe, invites all your children to place all their trust in you. Through the intercession of the mother of your Son, may your message of Merciful Love inflame our hearts that we may be faithful heralds and instruments of this Divine Mercy to the world.
(Mention your intentions)
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.
If you desire a more traditional Novena in preference to the Litany, here is one:
Our Lady of Guadalupe, according to THY message in Mexico I venerate THEE as the Virgin Mother of the true God for whom we live, the Creator of all the world, Maker of heaven and earth. In spirit I kneel before thy most holy image which thou didst miraculously imprint upon the cloak of the Indian Juan Diego, and with the faith of the countless numbers of pilgrims who visit thy shrine, I beg thy for this favor:
[Mention your request].
Remember, O Immaculate Virgin, the words thou hast spoken to thy devout client: “I am a merciful mother to thee and to all thy people who love me and trust in me and invoke my help. I listen to their lamentations and solace all their sorrows and sufferings.” I beg thee to be a merciful mother to me, because I sincerely love thee and trust in thee and invoke thy help. I entreat thee, our Lady of Guadalupe, to grant my request, if this should be the will of God, in order that I may bear witness to thy love, thy compassion, thy help and protection. Do not forsake me in my needs.
Recite “Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us” and Hail Mary three times.
There is also another version of the Novena here.
I know I’m loading you up with lots of Novenas, but offer it up! It’s Advent, we’re supposed to be praying and mortifying ourselves A LOT more!
Might I suggest you offer this Novena for the intention of all those who have fallen into sins of impurity? Our Lady, especially Our Lady of Guadalupe, is such a grand model of purity
A response to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation December 3, 2013Posted by tantamergo in Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Papa, secularism, Society, the return.
I have seen a wide variety of reactions to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from cries that it is a master work of the post-conciliar theology, to claims that it is a middling and muddled effort, to Fr. Paul Kramer going full-on sede vacantist over it. It is a massive document, and I have not studied it all in depth, but I have read it, contrary to a commenter’s claim. It is far too much to deal with in one post. But to start, I thought I would re-post and comment a bit on Boniface’s own response to a portion of the document, in the form of an open letter he has penned to Pope Francis expressing his grave concerns over portions of it. Boniface’s post asks very pertinent questions that deserve not to be ignored or shouted down because they make people feel uncomfortable.
Boniface’s questions deal mostly with the portions of the documents with paragraph numbers in the mid-200s, concerning inter-religious relations, or, the famous “ecumenism.” Boniface is concerned that the exhortations towards ecumenism with non-Christian religions greatly undermine similar efforts with protestants and other disaffected Christian Churches/sects, thus undermining the goal of Christian unity. I have not seen this particular matter addressed elsewhere, but I think it raises very important questions and concerns (emphasis in original, I add comments):
Your Holiness, I share your desire that the Gospel should be spread as far and as wide as possible, that Jesus Christ be proclaimed boldly and without fear. However, some of the content of Evangelii Gaudium seems to be counter-productive to that end. Take the issue of our Separated Brethren. The Second Vatican Council took special pains to reach out to our Protestant friends, [boy ain't that the truth] hoping thereby to end the spirit of mutual suspicion that had been dominant since Trent; in many cases, amiable relations with Protestantism were pursued even at the expense of relations with the Orthodox. In fact, to an impartial observer, the post-Conciliar Church looks closer to Protestantism than Greek Orthodoxy, despite the fact that the historical and sacramental bonds between the Catholics and the Orthodox are much greater. [This is a very valid point. The Orthodox have been offended by many Catholic ecumenical efforts with protestants, as they point in a direction away from Orthodox (and traditional Catholic) belief. The Orthodox have repeatedly lambasted many protestant sects for their embrace of liberalism and other doctrinal errors, and rightly so. One must wonder, is there more concern for ecumenism with protestants rather than orthodox, because protestant belief lines up better with the new theology of the post-conciliar "reforms?"]
Your Holiness knows all this; I mention it only to point out that ecumenism with Protestants in particular seemed to be particularly dear to the Council Fathers, whose vision you are so admirably fulfilling in your pontificate. [heh. Now that is a loaded statement] You yourself restated this commitment in the exhortation, encouraging Catholics to recall that we all are pilgrims on this earth, “putting aside all suspicion or mistrust, and turn our gaze to what we are all seeking: the radiant peace of God’s face” (243).
Yet a few paragraphs later we find this statement: “Non-Christians, by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ” (254).
It is not my place to lecture the Successor of Peter on sacred theology, especially when I myself am no expert. But leaving aside questions of theology, of what it means for a non-believer to follow his conscience, of the formation of conscience, of how we are justified, etc., I feel compelled to point out, Holy Father, that from a strictly ecumenical viewpoint, no statement could be more offensive to our Protestant brethren than this. Though Protestants obviously disagree with us on many fundamental points, they ought to be commended in that many of them solidly affirm that one becomes a son or daughter of God solely through the mediation of Jesus Christ; in other words, despite our disagreements, most Protestant sects, at least in my country, still understand the fundamental connection between evangelization and salvation in the traditional supernatural sense. [this is a huge point, and I admire Boniface's discretion. There is no caveat about the duty to rightly form our consciences in para 254, and this kind of wide open statement is theologically very troubling. I won't say more than that]
Were I to take this passage to my Protestant friends, it would be not an aid to evangelization but an insurmountable obstacle. Not that we should be afraid to preach truths that Protestants may take umbrage with; otherwise, how could we discuss the Petrine authority, the Assumption of Mary, or other like doctrine? But this is different; in the teaching you have elucidated in Evangelii Gaudium 254, the traditional connection between evangelization, salvation, and the necessity of entering the Catholic Church is sundered. You would be asking me not to defend the traditional Catholic Faith, but a novelty – a novelty which the Protestant would be understandably justified in rejecting. [I should note that paragraph 254 goes on to assign a pseudo-sacramental role to the signs and symbols of non-Christian religions, claiming that these are similar but less efficacious vehicles of Grace. There is no qualification made to this statement, so that one must wonder how far these near-sacraments extend, even to animal sacrifice or other practices. While I'm certain the intent is very different, statements such as these in the past have had a very destructive effect on the Church's evangelizing efforts.]
If we are speaking of following our consciences, Holy Father, I must tell you frankly then that I cannot in good conscience take this teaching to a Protestant and expect it to be convincing. I would be laughed out of the dialogue, and rightfully so.
How different is this teaching from the words of St. Irenaeus, who wrote:
“Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace. But the Spirit is truth. Therefore whoever does not partake of this Spirit is not fed at the breast of Mother Church, and cannot drink from the crystal clear spring which flows from the body of Christ.” (Adversus Haereses, III.24:1)
Or St. Cyprian, the great martyr-bishop of Carthage, who wrote:
“Can he who is not inside the Church draw water from the fountains of the Church?” (Epistle 73, 10-11).
Of course, Holy Father, Catholic theology has always posited the possibility that men could be saved outside of formal membership in the Church; this was understood in the patristic era and taught at Trent. But I fear that what was once understood to be a possible exception is becoming understood as a normative teaching, [I share this concern. In practice, especially in this country, this is exactly what happens. Most souls are not richly educated theologians, able to draw fine distinctions over the operations conscience. When beliefs such as para 254 are presented, rightly or wrongly, they show up as "don't bother evangelizing Hindus/Muslims/Buddhists/etc, they are saved through their own understanding of "God." I have personally seen these kinds of presentations dozens of times.] and that this teaching is having deleterious effects on our efforts of evangelizing. Why would non-Christians convert to our faith if they can attain eternal life just by “following their conscience”, which almost any human being can do with a little effort? Why would Protestants or any other Christian sect seek to reconcile with Rome when we seem to be saying that Christianity and the Church are not even really necessary for salvation? And, as apologists, how we are supposed to reconcile these newer teachings with statements like those of St. Irenaeus and Cyprian above, or with the famous dictum Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or with many other authoritative statements on the normative necessity of the Church for salvation? [I added some emphasis to the last few sentences]
Dearest Holy Father, successor of St. Peter, Bishop of Bishops, Servus Servorum Dei, keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (for so you are all these things), I pray thee, understand my distress and realize how damaging these statements are to the efforts of faithful Catholics to witness to the faith and bring souls to God through Christ. This is still the final end of evangelization, we must presume? We still do wish for members of other religious and Christian sects to convert and return to Holy Mother Church, don’t we?
Thanks to Boniface for the great piece. I only copied about half of it, please go to his site and read the rest, he really deserves the hits and I probably unfairly copy and paste too much of his stuff. But it’s great! I hope he doesn’t get mad at me.
I may delve into this document more, later. It’s a real challenge, it is so long and covers so much ground it’s difficult to respond to. There are many paragraphs, probably dozens, on which 1000+ words of commentary could easily be written. So, we’ll see what develops. But I thought Boniface’s thoughts very worthy of sharing.