Controversial Commercial: Feed the Flock

An entry in a Super Bowl Doritos ad contest is causing a stir.  Is this any more offensive than the regular liturgical abuses one receives on a week to week basis?


I mean, this is just a silly ad.  What is happening in the real-life parishes?  Why aren't people complaining about pulling those "ads." 




Funny how when the media need to portray religion ... its never Minister Bob and his Protestant flock.  Roman Catholics are not even the majority in this country yet we get maximum play from Hollywood/Madison ave.

Why Ecumenism is Wrong

Here.

What is Up with That Part II: Slap Chop

In the second dreary installment of a series we take a simplistic view of the Mass readings in the USA in the Ordinary Rite of the Mass (Novus Ordo Missae).

Tha first installment of the series was posted a year ago and it left me thoroughly disheartened.  If I had had the time I was going to create compendium of the diabolical edits to the Scriptures performed by the USCCB and then do an analysis of any commonalities to draw a fair-minded conclusion.  To be frank, I did it one week, already saw the pattern and gave up on it.  I didn't even feel like blogging anymore so I spent the rest of the year playing dopey Novus Ordo lay person (something I'm good at.)

The final stake in the heart of that plan (to play dopey Novus Ordo possum) was when my parish switched out the music of the Mass my family liked to go to ... such that normally staid, reserved organ music was displaced by head-bopping guitarists and their hip swinging female groupies.  I was trapped.  And so, back to the salt mines of blogging while I drag my spiritually battered body into the local Tridentine Mass these days as a sort of spiritual anti-venom from the Modernist neurotoxins which have passed into my eyes and ears.

Like last time,

Something that has troubled me about the New Mass, and I don't know if this goes on in other countries .. well right there .. the idea that there are different readings in different countries breaking the whole concept of "Catholic" but there is something weird going on with the readings. If you look at the readings selected on any given Sunday, the passages chosen are always broken up, missing sentences, somewhat nonsensical.

This time ... it is the Responsorial Psalm.  I suppose I should be grateful because the parish I was visiting actually used the prescribed Responsial Psalm prescribed by the Bishops and did not alter it due to a preference a differnt tune that the folk/pep band had been jamming on that week. 


Slap Chop pitch man



According to the USCCB the Responsorial Psalm for this Epiphany Sunday was Psalm 72: 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 12-13.  Now out of defence to our dear Bishops who have threatened prosecution of copyright infringement violations against blogs for using their New American Bible, I'll stick with Douay Rheims to do the analysis.  This passage is Psalm 71 in the D-R but the verse numbers match up.

 

Oh, what evil did the holy slap-chop Scriptures editors in D.C. shield the tender ears of the innocent laity from?  The permitted Psalm verses are in black and the excised are in red.

1 A psalm on Solomon. 2 GIVE to the king thy judgment, O God: and to the king's son thy justice: To judge thy people with justice, and thy poor with judgment. 3 Let the mountains receive peace for the people: and the hills justice. 4 He shall judge the poor of the people, and he shall save the children of the poor: and he shall humble the oppressor. 5 And he shall continue with the sun, and before the moon, throughout all generations. 6 He shall come down like rain upon the fleece; and as showers falling gently upon the earth. 7 In his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away. 8 And he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. 9 Before him the Ethiopians shall fall down: and his enemies shall lick the ground. 10 The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents: the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts: 11 And all kings of the earth shall adore him: all nations shall serve him. 12 For he shall deliver the poor from the mighty: and the needy that had no helper. 13 He shall spare the poor and needy: and he shall save the souls of the poor. 



Ah, HA!  The excised verses show the Psalmist painting an even-handed nature to God whose judgement will be universal, the poor will be delivered but they will be judged, too.  And even God's enemies will fall down and lick the ground that God Himself created. 



Without the excised verses one gets a twisted, uneven picture, only seeing vindication for the poor.

Conclusion:

1. The USCCB supplied readings are mangled, manipulated and exhibit the worst mistake that all protestants make .... taking snippets from the Bible to misconstrue points

2. There's a theme and reason for the omissions. Theme: [The Bishops] are false witnesses to God, their viewpoint smacks of dialectical materialism. ( I will keep coming back to the main theme of what is chopped so in the end of this little weekly excercise we can see what's in the Bible that the Bishops hate.) Theme: The Bishops want to inject a quasi-Marxist framework (more on this in the next post.)  The reject the even-handedness of the lord, so much so that they cannot stand a verse which mentiones the judgement rendered on the poor.

3. There's a theme and reason for the omissions. Verse 9 challenges the moderist tenet of universal salvation (to include obstinate heretics.)  That verse was obviously too much for the USCCB and they are seeking to deceive the laity. 

Saint Jerome, ora pro nobis.

De-mystifying the Faith with an Anti-Antiphon

Having coursed through endless tracts analyzing the Ordinary Rite of the Church (Novus Ordo Missae) which seek to contend that the Mass is a false one, something occurred to me.  The Novus Ordo Missae, itself, does not claim any efficacy of its consecration of the bread in the Body of the Lord.

There's no need to troll through didactic texts and interpretations and talk of Councils and what was meant.  The Rite itself does the job. How?

Reading the Eucharistic Prayer II of the Mass from the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides the objective evidence.

It reads: 102.

In the formulas that follow, the words of the Lord should be pronounced clearly and distinctly, as the nature of these words requires.

At the time he was betrayed
and entered willingly into his Passion,
He takes the bread
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
He bows slightly.


TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY,
WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.


He shows the consecrated host to the people, places it again on the paten, and genuflects in adoration.

103. After this, he continues:
In a similar way, when supper was ended,
He takes the chalice
and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:
he took the chalice
and, once more giving thanks,
he gave it to his disciples, saying:


He bows slightly.


TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.


He shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration.

No problem so far (they even corrected that persistent error in the consecration of the chalice so that it poured out for the MANY.)
 
But what happens next during the Mass?  
             104. Then he says:

The mystery of faith.


And the people continue, acclaiming:


We proclaim your Death, O Lord,
and profess your Resurrection
until you come again.
Or:
When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your Death, O Lord,
until you come again.
Or:
Save us, Savior of the world,
for by your Cross and Resurrection
you have set us free.

Now if the priest had just consecrated the host .... why would the laity be singing "when we eat this bread" ?   Who is eating bread?  Where is this bread? There's not supposed to be any more bread.  Why would the laity be forced to sing about bread?  Presuming that the priest believes that the host has been consecrated into the Body of Our Lord ... why would the laity be forced into this heretical antiphon?

On a side note, who is drinking the cup?  We're supposed to be drinking His Blood.  I suppose one could "drink of the cup." But no, this says drinking the cup, as if the cup were a liquid itself. And since we don't drink the cup (that's impossible) and we don't eat bread at Mass (it was confected perfectly) .... is it true that "We proclaim Your Death."

Seems like, in this Mass which was to guarantee active participation of the laity, they're cut out of all the action.

In conclusion, this antiphon condemns the Mass to error or condemns the laity to error.


Another interesting side note: The online Cambridge Dictionary did not even carry the word ANTIPHON.

The Eponymous Flower: Papal Mass: Communion in the Hand Refused

More good news.

The Eponymous Flower: Papal Mass: Communion in the Hand Refused

If next they can ban the folk music groups from the sanctuary ... we'll be on a roll.

The Pope and Condoms: Rutten’s Wrong

The Pope and Condoms: Rutten’s Wrong

A little clearer and a lot stronger treatment of the issue from Brother Andre Marie from SBC Richmond, NH link. Still there's a problem with having to rush out with these "what he meant to say" statements. The Vatican was all over the place with clarifications, re-statements, discussions of the masculaine vs feminine German pronouns, other translation issues.

Maybe it was all just Prostitute Ethics 101 ... I'm not cynical, but I know people who are. People were interpreting all this to mean, "condoms for diseased prostitutes okay, but you married people keep having those babies." The cynical keep getting more cynical and these are the people who go to Mass and send their kids to parochial school! Perhaps they, too, are looking for the contraception okay and now feel left out.

My head still hurts though the Brother's article is having an aspirin-like effect on me.

Adam, the Little Christian Boy Who Confronted Islamic Terrorists

"Enough! Enough!"

Adam, the Little Christian Boy Who Confronted Islamic Terrorists - International - Catholic Online

I hate to sound like a know it all but I foresaw the massacre of the Christians in Iraq as early as 2006.  Later,  news stories ran of huge numbers of them relocating to San Diego, CA.  I believe the State Department at the time was expediting their departure, too.

People were leaving everything, their businesses, their homes.  As time rolled on, it has become apparent that some Christians could not get out fast enough.  One 3 year old, now serves as an innocent martyr.

This is a great article with a tie in with observations from the Pro-Life front.

German Priest: Traditional Mass is the ‘Mass of Tomorrow’

German Priest: Traditional Mass is the ‘Mass of Tomorrow’

I have often quipped (but only to myself) that the Tridentine Mass is the wave of the future and that the Novus Ordo Missae is the old timers Mass.

Apparently, this notion is catching on. I think the folk/pop music format that is so prevalent will eventually be seen for what it is .... something sorta rooted in the 1970s/1980s. The Tridentine Mass has that aura of timelessness, there's quiet spaces in the Mass, perfect for the raging cacophony of these times.

WTF ?

Now my head really hurts.

The Speech

ArchBishop Burke drops a bomb: Heresey is bad.

How to define heresy? We'll that's easy. Look at Catholic Dogma, the ex-cathedra pronouncements of Popes. Look at valid Councils.

The question is. Will they look beyond 1962?

My Head Hurts

My head hurts.  That is the only way to describe the situation swirling around the whole Pope Benedict XVI condom use issue.  I found recently a lengthy statement that accurately sums up what I'm thinking.  More on this later .. here it is: (from the St Joseph's Men Society)

Please allow me to clarify the statement Pope Benedict made about condom use. First the controversy was primarily caused by the Pope himself because he always uses ambigous "new speak" when making statements that should be more precise and clear. For example to pope's answer to a question about the criticism some have expressed about the Church's prohibitin against condoms is as follows: "...There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."


Translation in normal language: 'I suppose one could make the case that the use of condoms in certain cases could be a sign of moral responsibility. An example might be seen in the case of a homosexual using a condom to prevent infecting his partner with the HIV virus. In other words, the very act of sodomy is a perversion that is a mortal sin, therefore one should not add to the sin of sodomy with the sin of murder. Besides, in this case condom use is not to prevent the conception of children. The deliberate frustration of natural conception is what the Church prohibits.'

The interviewer goes on the ask: "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"

The Pope answers in even more vague and confusing terms: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."

Huh? Now understand I have a degree in Philosophy but this existentialist/phenomenological bull crap just doesn't fly when to comes to the precision needed in moral philosophy and theology. So let me translate again:

'Of course the Church does not regard the use of condoms even to prevent AIDS as morally permissible specifically where the conception of children is concerned. However, in cases of sodomy or other illicit sexual actions that do not involve conception it would be better to avoid spreading a life threatening disease. Condom use would be more sexually responsible, more human, for unrepentant homosexuals who have no intention of living chaste lives according to the Gospel and Natural Law.'

Even this post is a tad more charitable than I am feeling right now but it'll do for now.

I'm anticipating the objections of people even to this but more on that later. All posts on this subject I'll label Latex Catholicism. To better express my feelings, I'll say this, Pope Benedict XVI has wrapped himself in a giant latex condom from which he'll never excape.

Roman Catholic School to be Converted to a Mosque

from Real Clear Religion:

How sad to see the apostasy continues unabated while our Church leaders betray Christ by defending notions of religious indifferentism. The passion of the Church must occur but woe to those men through whom the betrayal occurs. It were better for them, if they had not been born. Mark 14:21

(Lancashire, England)"A Roman Catholic primary school could become the first in the country to be run by a mosque after a dramatic rise in the number of Muslim pupils, it emerged today.

"Church bosses want to close Sacred Heart RC Primary School, in Blackburn, Lancashire, because the number of Catholic students has plummeted from 91 per cent to just three per cent in a decade.

MK 14:21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.


MK14:21 Et Fílius quidem hóminis vadit sicut scriptum est de eo : væ autem hómini illi per quem Fílius hóminis tradétur ! bonum erat ei, si non esset natus homo ille.

Sometimes these articles come off as jealous and/or angry toward those of the Muslim religion. To me, this is not even provoking alarm. The United Kingdom is lost to Christendom long before the Muslims showed up in any appreciable numbers. This is the fruit of betrayal.  Betrayal of tradition, of clear thinking, of a religion and a God that is knowable.  I bet the fathers of those Muslim students pray at the Mosque.  The fathers of the Roman Catholic students? And even if they did go to Mass. What would be offered? Guitar strumming and homilies about nothing?

Wimpy Protestantism, its step-child athiestic indifferentism or even luke warm Roman Catholicism is no match for Islam. Besides, were the recent arrivals to the U.K. offered any alternatives? Did the school insist on basic instruction with the goal of conversion of these students? Of course not. So, one can draw the scenario to its logical end.

Ireland take note. Embrace modernism, promote abortion, wipe Roman Catholicism from your plate and you'll continue to head the way of England. Not even luke warm religiosity will save you. Ireland, the EU has stolen all your money, next come the longknives. Ireland, pray the Rosary, call on St. Mary, throw yourselves at the foot of Jesus, before it is too late.

New Look

This humble blog is coming up on 5 years and the old format was getting a little tired.  I have no HTML skills so the old code was getting a little wonky.  I really missed the Real Clear Religion feed and there's all kinds of new features to these new BLOGGER templates. 

2010 was a real stinker as far as blogging and I cannot promise anything more than what I wrote in my first post in 2006.  About one blog per week is about the most I can handle.  Maybe 2011 will feature a bit more.

Ad Orientam worship and the Novus Ordo.